A Socialist Foreign Policy

[p005] A Socialist Foreign Policy IN a widely-circulated leaflet following the unilatera- list decision of the Labour Party conference in October, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament welcomes this ‘first great victory’. At the same time, the leaflet notes that C N D can expect vigorous opposition from the capitalist press— solidly opposed to us, and no longer regarding us as amiable idealists without political importance ’.! There is a very good reason for the current day- by-day propaganda campaign throughout the press, radio and television against unilateral British re- nunciation of the H-bomb. For the capitalist class, the Scarborough ‘decision is not so much a victory for CN D’s ideas as a direct threat to the security of the Parliamentary and class-collaboration politics which preserve capitalism in Britain. Macmillan’s comment on Scarborough was that it appeared to challenge the basic and traditional assumption of ‘ bipartisanship ’ in foreign affairs. In other words, there is a threat that the British Labour movement, and therefore any future Labour government, will cut loose from the interests of British capital, and act instead in the interests of the working class. No one would want to deny the contribution of C N D’s propaganda and activity in bringing the H-bomb issue before the eyes of the Labour movement, but it is necessary above all to recognize that the content of the struggle against the bomb is now much clearer. The capitalist class had attempted a con- spiracy of silence against C ND from its inception, but once its policy infected the only alternative government, with all its implications for the removal of the subservient Gaitskell clique, then the * organs of public opinion’ really turned on the heat. No Labour leader has ever had the support given to Gaitskell over the past six months. Not only in the enemy camp but within C N D itself, there has been a steadily growing realization that opposition to the bomb meant opposition to capitalist politics. Thus, the 1960 CND conference incorporated opposition to NATO into its policy; and as Scarborough approached, many members of CND began to realize that a turn to the working-class movement 1*The Big Breakthrough’. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Cliff Slaughter was a necessity, and not the sectarian demand of a minority of Trotskyists in the Campaign. THE H-BOMB—A POLITICAL QUESTION The Scarborough decision, together with Gaitskell’s impudent rejection of it, inevitably sharpens the theoretical and political issues involved in the struggle against the bomb. Certainly outraged human feelings and moral sentiment were and are an important component of the struggle against nuclear war, but the very day-to-day tasks of the Campaign and of the Left in the Labour Party and trade unions show the need for a clear political line, and for a political struggle on a wider front than that of the bomb alone. Gaitskell’s defiance of the Scarborough decision poses the problem: how can the Labour movement enforce its will against the agents of the enemy within its midst. The pro- Gaitskell majority in the Parliamentary Labour Party poses the problem: in an age when the Polaris submarine and other rapid changes in technique require a live and active political leadership, can we be satisfied with the domination of a Parliamentary rump, bureaucratically selected at a stage of develop- ment of the Labour movement when the issues were very different, and the relationship between Transport House and the rank and file the opposite of what they are now. The whole question of Labour’s road to power, the nature of the Parliamentary system, the character of socialist leadership; these and many other questions must be faced if the decisions of Scarborough are to be implemented. Having rejected the nuclear strategy of the Right wing, the working-class movement must find an alternative and realistic policy. Gaitskell has been able to retain a certain initiative, both at Scar- borough and since, because this realistic policy has not yet been worked out and accepted. It is important therefore to examine the ideas on defence and foreign policy abroad in the Left of the move- ment. The Left must recognize just as clearly as Gaitskell does that between unilateralism on the one hand, and outright collaboration with British and

[p006] 4 United States imperialism on the other, there is an unbridgeable gulf; all those who talk of compromise ~ in the name of unity have the objective effect of preventing the Left from drawing the necessary con- clusions from the split, while Gaitskell goes ruth- ‘ lessly about his business. That business is to tie the British working class to the US-NATO war alliance. If then we begin from the needs of the two opposed classes, workers and capitalists, we shall have the best strategic guide to the meaning and Significance of the various trends in the Labour movement. For the purposes of this article, we take for granted that Gaitskell and his clique are com- pletely sold on the American alliance; the problem is one of the political aims of the Left. What is the political alternative to Gaitskell? Is it, as he and Strachey suggest, ‘surrender to Communist domina- tion ’, or is there a Socialist foreign policy which will be independent of the Kremlin’s diplomacy? Must we rely on ‘Summit talks’ in which the Western participants argue from positions of nuclear strength capable of destroying the world 50 times over, or can the people themselves intervene to abolish war? How realistic is the notion of ‘ positive neutrality ’, and on what assumptions is it based? Does the admission of newly independent states to the United Nations make that body the hope of the future in settling international disputes? It is our opinion that in CND and the Labour Left generally the answers to these questions have so far been attempted without seriously challenging the basic assumptions of the Right wing and their supporters in the ‘capitalist class. THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS Such an assertion needs to be backed by examples. The CND pamphlet ‘Let Britain Lead’ may be taken as representative of the general opinion in higher Left Labour, Tribune and New Left circles, since it is ‘presented’ by twelve prominent M Ps, trade union leaders and journalists.2_ Although this pamphlet presents very clearly the enormous threat of world destruction flowing from United States imperialism, it nevertheless seems to think that a solution can be found without a campaign specific- ally against American imperialism, which would of course have to-be an international movement, including the American working class. Instead of 2*Let Britain Lead: the case for Labour’s New Defence Policy’ presented by Frank Beswick, Fenner Brockway, Tom Driberg, Michael Foot, Anthony Green- wood, Judith Hart, Ted Hill, John Horner, Kingsley Martin, Ian Mikardo, Stephen Swingler, Bob- Willis. CND. LABOUR REVIEW—Spring, 1961 - starting from the growth of those forces capable of overthrowing capitalism, i.e., the colonial revolution and the working-class movement in the capitalist countries, the pamphlet says: ‘ Nor is it the deterrent that has so far prevented the Congo from being the scene of another Korean war. It is the authority of the United Nations, whose growth is the most hopeful fact of recent years. On this basis, the authors feel justified in criticising Gaitskell and his supporters on the grounds that at Scarborough they failed to stress that part of the old ‘ official’ defence policy which says: ‘The United Nations must be made the keystone of British foreign policy ’. It is on such grounds, presumably, that Crossman, Wilson, Barbara Castle and others announce their conviction that a ‘compromise’ can be found between Left and Right. The very fact that this same ‘United Nations’ slogan can be used so glibly by all sides should make us wary. But abstract argument should no longer be necessary; since ‘Let Britain Lead’ was written the United Nations’ role in the Congo has surely exposed for good and all the false notion that the inter- national working class can rely on such bodies to ‘be on our side’. Since UN _ intervention, Kasavubu’s government has received the blessing of the United Nations; under this cover, Tshombe operates freely as a stooge for the bloodstained Belgian imperialists, who have been creeping back into Katanga and the rest of the Congo. Colonel Mobutu’s middle-class officer strong-arm dictatorship has imprisoned Lumumba, the only leader so far expressing in any way the national and democratic aspirations of the Congolese people as a whole, and has expelled all Soviet and Eastern European advisers and experts from the Congo. This is how the United Nations ensures that the Congo does not become an arena for the Cold War! No matter what the contradictions and conflicts within the U N administration and the General Assembly, the presence of the United Nations force has not pre- vented the temporary victory of pro-imperialist- forces in the Congo, strongly linked to Belgian and American capital. By placing reliance on the UN, instead of a principled campaign of independent working-class action against imperialist intervention, Socialists of many varieties have been guilty of a very grave error. Only by achieving a theoretical grasp of the real forces in the world today can we go beyond such policies, which are in fact only a tailing behind the capitalist class. THE ‘NEW LEFT’ It is not only in the ‘Old Left’ that illusions of this sort prevail. In the New Left pamphlet

[p007] _ *the rule of Law’. necessary to consider the strategy of U S imperialism A SOCIALIST FOREIGN POLICY ‘Britain Without The Bomb’, John Rex seems to follow the same line. For example: ‘The question Britain has to ask herself today is whether in a world in which it is no longer possible to fight a major war, she would not do better whole-heartedly to accept the authority of the United Nations, and, indeed, to take the lead in building up its authority.” So long as socialist thought remains trapped in these categories of ‘national interest’ and of an independent authority standing above all the class forces in the world, then the movement cannot take a single step beyond the Scarborough vote. Rex tries to argue that this appeal for support to the United Nations is in fact nothing but solidarity with the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia (‘More and more it has come to reflect the views and interests of the poorer, less developed and uncommitted smaller nations’). Castro has already said to the U N General Assembly that there can be no question of faith in the U N as an international police force if this means only the suppression of colonial independence movements, and_ recent experiences in the Congo, not to mention the control over the Security Council by the imperialist powers, _ which would effectively prevent any intervention against ‘their colonialism, are surely sufficient to dismiss Rex’s argument. Can any socialist really believe that the imperialist powers would continue to work within the U N if it came to have a majority of: anti-imperialist representatives? John Rex makes some interesting remarks on the history. of the UN which on close examination expose the flaws in his own argument. ‘General MacArthur contemplated using the bomb against the Chinese in Korea, but eventually the war was brought to an end by Indian mediators. Mr. Dulles and M. Bidault thought of using it at Dien Bien Phu, but were dragged to the conference table by Anthony Eden. Finally Anthony Eden himself had to decide whether he could risk the outbreak of a nuclear war with Russia by continuing his Suez expedition, and was forced to submit himself to the authority of the United Nations. ‘The case of Suez, however, illustrates even more the comparative value of a resort to force and the acceptance of UN mediation.”4 It is extremely misleading to suggest, as Rex does, that the major factors involved on these occasions were considerations of calculated aggression versus In each case it would be and of America’s ‘ partners’, the military strength and. policy direction of the USSR, China and the workers’ states, and the opposition to war or lack of 3‘ Britain Without the Bomb’, John Rex. New Left Pamphlet, p. 18, ~ _4 Ibid. 5 it within the capitalist countries concerned. For example, opposition of the French working class to the war in Indo-China was restricted by the ‘ peaceful co-existence ’ policy of the French Communist Party, hoping that the French bourgeoisie would split from US military plans in Europe. André Marty argued that working-class action on this issue along the lines of the campaign against France’s part in the wars of intervention in the early days of the Soviet Republic would have altered the situation consider- ably. What is suggested here is that a unified inter- national strategy of class struggle against colonial war would not only have deprived the French bourgeoisie of the bargain they got at Dien Bien Phu but would have finally defeated them in South East Asia. Thus, only the subordination of the working- class movement to diplomatic requirements left the imperialists with the room to manoeuvre in which Eden appeared as a ‘ peacemaker’. As for Suez, the UN appeared as a factor opposed to Anglo-French aggression because U S imperialism did not consider the risk worth taking; no doubt Bulganin’s threat of retaliation with rockets influenced their decision, and it certainly influenced opinion in the Labour move- ment in Britain against the adventure. As for the Korean war being brought to an end by Indian mediators, a little consideration of the difference between form and content would not be out of place. The ‘ United Nations’ did fight the war after all; and they fought it on behalf of the government of Syngman Rhee, a brutal dictator, whom even the Americans have now acknowledged as such. In relation to the Korean war, too, the correct line for the colonial people and for the workers of the world was support for the Korean people against American aggression in U N disguise. In the present situation and in the future, we must expect the U S government to use the U N for the same purposes, despite liberal pretensions. One final point on the treatment of the Congo problem shows this very clearly. Immediately after the report of a UN Commission condemning Mobutu and castigating the Belgians for the continued strife, the US threw its satellite votes wholeheartedly behind the stooge Kasavubu delegation. The United Nations correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor commented: ‘One way of viewing the 53-to-24 vote by which the Assembly accepted Mr. Kasavubu’s credentials’ November 22 is that the US has demonstrated its power for the benefit of Ghana and Guinea.’ Certainly, therefore, the new indepen- dent nations make the manoeuvres of imperialism through the UN _ more tortuous, but these manoeuvres have more chance of success so long as some socialists continue to put their faith in the United Nations, :

[p008] 6 _ NATION AND CLASS IN FOREIGN POLICY This popularity of the United Nations idea among socialists is akin to the faith in summit talks which the Labour Review attacked editorially in Autumn of last year. At every stage of development of capitalism, the great issue before the working class is to achieve consciousness of its historic role and to express this in independent class politics. In the epoch of imperialism this means the rejection of ‘national’ defence by the workers of the advanced ‘countries, and the building of movements in the underdeveloped countries which fight for a pro- gramme going beyond political independence to a connection with the international socialist revolution. This is far removed from the idea common to Left ‘Social-Democrats and to ‘Communists’ of the Khrushchev school, that there will be a gradual tipping of the scales against capitalism. John Gollan, secretary of the British Communist Party, said in Leeds in October of last year that the importance of the Scarborough decision on unilateralism was in its international implications. So far, so good: but Gollan went on to explain that if this Scarborough vote could be carried through to victory, Britain could join that group in the councils of the nations which is committed to settling disputes by negotiations. In this way the traditional leaderships strive to ‘cut down to size’ the great - potential for independent class politics expressed in Japan and Britain in 1960. Unfortunately the Left in British Labour has a long way to go to pass beyond this point. Again John Rex’s pamphlet may be taken as an example of the Left’s limited horizon. He writes ‘thus the aim of foreign policy today should be, in order of priority: ‘1. The avoidance of British involvement in a nuclear war since, due to her size and her front-line position, she would almost certainly be destroyed. ‘2. The prevention of nuclear war between America and Russia, since if such a war occurred, even if Britain were neutral, there is a strong likeli- hood of her becoming a target for nuclear attack. *3. The defence of vital British interests.’ Quite clearly, the issues are posed here from the limited viewpoint of ‘national interests’. The first two points correctly point out that a war involving the US would almost inevitably mean Britain’s destruction, and of course ‘everyone’ wants to avoid that. But the problem can only be tackled from the point of view of the economic and political forces driving to war, and the force that can turn them back. If the problem were posed in this way as a class struggle against imperialism, it would be crystal clear that ‘the defence of vital 5 Tbid, p. 12. LABOUR REVIEW-—Spring, 1961 British interests’ is at best a shibboleth and at worst a cruel deception, for there are no common interests between British employers and British workers. This is quite apart from the question of whether the British capitalists think that their preservation and that of the workers makes their interests identical. Scientific socialism left that particular problem behind long ago. The preservation of capitalism, the employers’ basic historic interest, demands the war alliance. So long as imperialism exists all talk of disarmament is a sham and a delusion; the only people disarmed by such talk are the workers, in the political sense. Rex’s conclusion— Thus the main aim of foreign policy today should be to achieve a state of universal and total disarmament, even before outstanding international issues have been resolved ’ —is only another version of Gaitskell’s plea at Scarborough that ‘collective security’ is our real aim. It is in this way that such talk leaves the Right wing with the initiative, despite defeat at the conference. The end product of the process begun at Scarborough must be a struggle for power by the British working class, from which position it will appeal over the heads of their rulers to the workers of other countries to disarm their exploiters. Such a Labour government in Britain would negotiate treaties with other powers, and particularly with the workers’ states, but it would use the negotiations for such treaties to encourage the struggle of the working class all over the world. It would regard solidarity with the working-class movement in every country as its major guarantee of security from attack, rather than the word of any government representative. ‘POSITIVE NEUTRALITY ’ Now such a perspective is clearly very different from the ‘ positive neutrality’ about which we have begun to hear so much recently. In point of fact ‘ positive neutrality’ accepts the very conditions of stalemate which the imperialists (temporarily) and the Soviet bureaucracy wish to preserve. The greatest threat to both these forces is the revival of the international working-class movement as an ally of the great colonial revolution of the last fifteen years. As this force emerges it will shatter the — illusion that ‘the two camps’ (‘ Western democracy ’ and ‘ Russian Communism’) are the main forces in the modern world. ‘ Positive neutrality ’ on the other hand supposes that a growing number of independent states, balancing between the two great powers and playing upon the fact that their support is canvassed by both sides, will gradually bring the rule of reason into the world. Such a view fails entirely to recognize the signifi- cance of the fact that the possibility of a break-

[p009] A SOCIALIST FOREIGN POLICY through in Japan and Britain is a qualitatively different matter from the growth of the- colonial revolution. These are advanced countries; social advance inside them means enormous economic blows against world capitalism, the removal of great foundation stones from the military strategy of imperialism, and most important, the encouragement of new movements in the colonial and under- developed countries and in the Soviet bloc. The prospect of large-scale economic assistance and the expropriation of the great capital-exporting mono- polies by a British socialist government would inevitably give a powerful objective basis for the establishment of workers’ governments in the ex- colonial territories; the political influence of the revived revolutionary socialist movement in the advanced countries would at the same time univers- ally hasten the emergence of similar parties in the underdeveloped countries. In the USSR, China and Eastern Europe, the two greatest barriers to a political revolution to restore Soviet democracy are the fear of imperialist intervention to overthrow the nationalized economy and:the absence of an inter- national revolutionary outlook in the socialist move- ment. Here again, the breakthrough in one or more capitalist countries will be a decisive factor. The existence of powerful workers’ movements capable of action against imperialist intervention, the tearing of whole sectors from the imperialist military framework, and the revival of Leninist international socialist strategy—these are the preconditions of the political overthrow of the bureaucracy in the workers’ states. Once again we find ourselves entirely in disagreement with those who see ‘the easing of the Cold War’ as the necessary condition for a policy of socialist initiative in these countries. It is not an understanding with the imperialists, but solid blows against them that will transform the prospects for socialists in the advanced countries, in the ex- colonial territories, and within the Soviet bloc. If we pursue some of these ideas a little further, we can pronounce a verdict on the ‘positive neutrality’ idea. Let us assume that we are right in predicting a Leftward swing in the ‘ backward’ countries as a result of forming a socialist govern- ment in Britain and perhaps in other countries. This will immediately explode the myth that these under- developed countries have a national unity, above classes, which somehow balances between the ‘two camps’. In reality, it is the stalemate produced by ' the Social-Democratic and Stalinist leadership in the world proletarian movement that delays the growth of national colonial revolts into socialist revolutions. The imperialists now recognise that their only hope in the colonies is to grant political independence under the control of reliable elements of the native middle class. In this way their investments will be protected. The position of the national bourgeoisie 7 in these countries, though weak economically, is strong politically so long as this stalemate lasts. They occupy the positions of strength in government and administration, profiting from the bargaining for their support by both the U S and Western imperia- lists and the Soviet bureaucracy, as well as the weakening of the mass movement below them, subordinated as it is to the diplomatic requirements of the Soviet bureaucracy rather than pursuing the class interests of the workers and peasants. Clearly then, there is a vital interconnection between the socialist movement in Britain and the capitalist countries, the restoration of Soviet democracy, and the transition from Bonapartist rule to workers’ power in the colonial countries. A socialist victory in Britain would therefore not be a purely quantita- tive addition to the ‘progressive forces’, but the source of a qualitative leap forward in those countries which now comprise the ‘uncommitted powers’. The class basis of this ‘uncommitted’ status would be severely undermined as soon as the precarious balance between imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy on the one hand, and between foreign capital and the native working class and peasantry on the other, was shaken by the growth of the British revolution. Such elementary mistakes as to suppose that Britain would somehow just be - ‘added’ to the list of neutral powers would have been avoided if the analysis had begun with the class basis of such a balance of forces, instead of a super- ficial survey of the powers that be. But this only emphasizes once more the principal failing of ‘the British Left, its inability to base itself on independent working-class politics. WORKING-CLASS POLITICS OR NEUTRALITY ? Our ‘ New Left’ and other critics will answer that we are simply arguing from a utopian revolutionary viewpoint. After all, they will say, there is no question of a revolutionary government in England. We will reply at this point by asking the ‘ positive neutralists’’ just what sort of a government is going to adopt the policy they propose; obviously not Mr. Macmillan’s, and obviously not Mr. Gaitskell’s. The only alternative is a Labour government on a ‘Socialist programme, with Gaitskell defeated and thrown out, together with all he represents. Can this sort of struggle in the Labour Party be carried through so long as the Left is dominated by ideas of compromise and ‘unity’, so long as it does not get away from the idea of purely Parliamentary roads to power, so long as the working-class move- ment does not insist on the class character of the Party? In order to make the Scarborough victory effective, the Left must clarify the basic difference

[p010] 8 N between a ‘ collective security ’ approach, which puts conditions on bourgeois governments, and a policy of unilateral action by the working class to disarm and dispossess its own capitalist class. Gaitskell may rant about ‘fellow travellers’ but he knows that the Communist Party position in many points coincides with his own. From 1945-47 for instance, the British Communist Party supported Attlee and Bevin’s government in every way, on the grounds that we could ‘win the peace’ by a democratic alliance of all classes, on the basis of the ‘Summit talks’ at the end of war. In Italy, Togliatti pledged Communist Party support to the Italian Christian Democratic government at home if they would follow the Soviet line in international diplomacy speech at the 7th Congress of the Italian Communist Party in Milan, April, 1951). Any ‘third force’ is a temporary and vacillating phenomenon in this period of crisis for world imperialism, whose irresist- ible urge to expansion conflicts more and more with the growth of the world revolution. Positive neutralism is no less of a delusion than Gaitskell’s ‘collective security’, except that the latter is a deliberate disguise for direct subordination to the US militarists. The positive neutralists must answer clearly. Is ‘positive neutrality’ a policy for the system as it exists at the moment, ie., a capitalist system? (This seemed to be the point of view of John Saville in 1958, when he argued that we must show positive neutrality to be a possibility within the existing system.5) Or is it the policy of a future Socialist government? Most of the supporters of this idea never make clear what the class character of such a ‘ positive neutralist’’ government would be. We have argued: (a) that there can be no repetition in an advanced capitalist country like Britain, with her position in the NATO alliance, of the specific external and internal conditions of such regimes in the under- developed countries; (b) that to call for capitalist governments to undertake such policies amounts to peddling illusions in the Labour movement, leaves the initiative in the hands of the Right wing, and fails utterly to advance the independent political action of the working class. Not surprisingly, ‘positive neutrality’ appears alongside an increasing tendency in the New Left to deny categorically the primary role of the working class in the struggle against capitalism; (c) that if a socialist government comes to power, the whole structure of class relations within which contemporary ‘neutralism’ operates will be under- mined, and in fact such a government in Britain will -be obliged to support working-class opposition to - 6John Saville. ‘Can We Have a Neutral Britain?’ New Reasoner, Spring, 1958. LABOUR REVIEW—Spring, 1961 these very ‘ neutralist > regimes, as well as to those in the NATO alliance. STRATEGY OF IMPERIALISM If many Left-wingers have illusions about the possibility of a ‘ third force’ acting to break the grip of imperialism and war, the same is certainly not true of the bourgeoisie itself. They recognise clearly that the very existence of imperialism is threatened in this epoch; the fact that they see the expansion of the USSR and China as the main threat in this direction only reflects their success in buying off the Labour leadership in the imperialist countries and in achieving workable compromises with national bourgeois elements in the ex-colonial territories. Within the bourgeois camp there are different views and continual tactical changes of approach to the question of defence and handling of foreign affairs. These should not be confused with qualitative advances by the movement against imperialism. For example, the move towards Summit talks in late 1959 and early 1960 was construed by Stalinists and — many others on the Left as a victory for the pressure of public opinion, influenced by the continuous attempts to subordinate the peace movement to demands for such talks. But in fact ‘the spirit of Camp David’ was a necessary tactical move for the American imperialists, as Eisenhower directly admitted (‘. . . in the later months of 1958 we began to feel that the methods that we were pursuing had to be reinforced by something a little different... .. And so when it came into the beginning of July, this decision was made... .”). Now today many spokes- men of ‘anti-Communism’ and ‘defence of the free world’ are moving to a position which can look very like that adopted by the Left, so long as the Left remains within the assumptions we have been examining. Two years ago, the demand for unilateral renunciation of the bomb by Britain could command the support of many (like, say, Commander Stephen King-Hall) who argued only that the British deterrent was ineffective and wasteful, no defence at all. Gaitskell and Co. opposed this with the condemna- tion of any subordination to the American bomb. Crossman, Shinwell and others began to oppose Gaitskell and the government only in the spring of last year, not on.the grounds that Britain was part of the U S military alliance, but because an independent. . deterrent was military and economic nonsense, i.e., not a rational defence for ‘the free world’. Are. - these ‘ fellow-travellers’ of the unilateralist move- ment going in the same direction at all? Is John Strachey becoming a unilateralist when he argues against the independent deterrent at the meeting of

[p011] +e a" “i A SOCIALIST FOREIGN POLICY NATO parliamentary representatives? Of course not; he is proposing a more efficient military strategy for the imperialists. Gaitskell’s earlier abhorrence of reliance on American H-bombs has not of course prevented him from continuing to serve NATO faithfully, even after the scrapping of Blue Streak and the insistence by the Americans that they alone will decide when the bomb is to be used. For him, the issue from the very first was not whether Britain had an independent deterrent but whether the Anglo- American alliance was to be -preserved. The Scarborough decision has clarified the class essence of the debate on unilateralism; it is a question of defeating the class-collaborationists in the British Labour movement in order to cut the working class free from the service of capital. This means recognizing Gaitskell’s policy on domestic issues (rejection of Clause 4, independence for the Parlia- mentary group) as an essential part, together with support for NATO, of his responsibility to the current strategic needs of imperialism. Once again, then, the world’s problems of war and peace, of social advance and economic security, are resolved into the crisis of working-class leadership. Unless this is recognized, we shall once again find the Left committed to a policy which is no more than the Left arm of the bourgeoisie. Very rapidly varieties of the idea of neutralism and international responsibility of the United Nations are becoming the stock-in-trade of the more enlightened wing of the bourgeoisie. They recognize full well the importance of these ideas in preserving the status quo until more favourable opportunities arise for defeating world socialism. The Observer's Diplo- matic Correspondent, writing on December 11, 1960, anticipates a state of affairs in which only America and Russia retain nuclear striking power, with Europe subjected to ‘total disarmament’, even US troops and bases being withdrawn. The Times leader on the following day, December 12, regrets the thwarted hopes of a ‘stable neutralist govern- ment in Laos’. It goes on to condemn the ‘ fear of communism’ which ‘has once again led to the very policies which build a broader base for communism in the future’. The lessons of China and Korea are being learned. The same Times leader says, ‘American suspicion and hesitation are largely to blame ’.7 : It is to be hoped that our advocates of ‘neutralism’ on the Left do not see such trends as growing support for the Socialist cause, any more than Mr. Strachey’s recognition of the impossibility of the independent deterrent, or Macmillan’s acknowledg- ment of the ‘wind of change’, or de Gaulle’s wish 7 Since this article was written, the positions taken up by the British and French governments have confirmed our analysis. 9 to ditch the Algerian colons. The important thing is to grasp the initiative for the working class when the bourgeoisie is faced with these strategic and tactical crises. It is not a question of falling in behind the most ‘ progressive’ trends in the upper circles of ‘public opinion’ but of politically arming the working class to drive home the advantage by its independent action. Fidel Castro’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly was an object lesson in this respect. It was the presence of capitalist monopolies which caused conflict and led . to war, said Castro, and the road to peace was the road of revolution and the expropriation of these monopolies. This should of course be ABC to Socialists, but it is precisely this ABC that the traditional leaderships, who have capitulated to the strength of these same great monopolies and of the imperialist state power, want to forget. Castro pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries the peoples had begun to take this road, with Cuba as a prime example. He expressed the hope that perhaps the people of the advanced countries would follow their example. The hint should be taken. An important basis for the foreign policy of a socialist government in Britain will be the ‘nationalization of the armaments industry, entailing the destruction of the giant monopolies in steel, engineering and chemicals. A SOCIALIST POLICY The policy of a Socialist government in Britain will be to destroy on behalf of the people all relations of this country with existing military pacts and to end all relations of inequality and exploita- tion and oppression in colonial territories. In Africa this will mean the freeing of all political prisoners, the expropriation of British and other foreign capitalist enterprises by the peoples of the countries concerned, with the support of British troops where that is necessary, either against foreign intervention or against the settler and officer caste. British representatives at the United Nations will use that body as a tribune to expose the imperialist powers and to appeal to the people of those powers against their governments’ deceptions on disarmament, aid to underdeveloped countries and intervention in the affairs of other nations. Such a British government will regard as its greatest power for defence the movement of the working class in every country in the world. It will use all its power, as the central organ of the British Labour movement, to encourage revolutionary movements in those countries, and it will negotiate trading and cultural agreements with the governments of those countries only Insofar as these do not inhibit in any way this primary task.

[p012] 10 At the same time such a government will be ready to organize the defence of socialism in Britain by _arming the people. An armed people in Britain, in concert with its revolutionary allies throughout the world, will fight against any army of intervention or occupation with all the force and modern technique that it can command. In the modern world there is no ‘Socialism in One Country’, and the possibility of Britain, with or without an H-bomb, holding out alone would only be a very limited one under highly exceptional conditions. But we have indicated above the political repercussions that could be expected in every other part of the world of the process leading to the formation of such a government in Britain. The British people will have their place in the front ranks against imperialist war, and it will be our responsibility, while actively encouraging the revolu- tion within the remaining capitalist countries, to prevent or repel any imperialist attempt at regaining lost ground. It is certain that at that point, no more than at this, the military initiative in H-bombs or any other weapons could not be surrendered. Socialists today cannot equate the Soviet with the American possession of the H-bomb, for the USSR rests on the nationalized property foundations of the Revolution of 1917. Only those who talk about unilateralist:s as an empty and abstract moral demand (‘giving a moral lead to the world’, etc.) can feel floored by the ‘ moral dilemma’ of accept- ing Russian and opposing Western possession of the bomb. When we oppose the Western bomb we oppose the possession of the bomb by a class whose economic nature drives it to expansion and at definite poinis to war. Despite the character of the Soviet bureaucracy, despite its zig-zags into irresponsibility and dangerous adventures at its fringes, the conse- quences of the same bureaucracy, as in Hungary, we do not see the Soviet ruling clique as pressed necessarily towards war. Its own basis of existence is the nationalized economy, despite its distortion of that economy, and the advancement and defence of that economy require peace, not war. Our quarrel with the Soviet bureaucracy is that it defends the gains of October by methods of its own, and that these methods, the manipulation and bureaucratic domina- tion of the working class in the interests of diplo- matic manoeuvres, actually strengthen imperialism and increase the dangers of war. But we aim ata relationship with the Soviet workers striving for their own political revolution, and not at the ‘liberation’ of the USSR by the ‘free world’. In this sense, the defence of the Soviet Union is an unconditional demand in the Marxist Left. Every socialist, when confronted with the ‘moral’ arguments about the Soviet Union giving up the bomb, usually associated with the idea that the Soviet Union is ‘state capitalist’ and therefore no better than Britain and LABOUR REVIEW —Spring, 1961 the USA, should start from the primary material consideration: the possibility of a reconquest of Russia and China by imperialism would put back for decades if not centuries the prospect of Socialism. Imperialism would find a great new source . of exploitation and expansion, not to speak of the disastrous political setback to the working-class movement. Those who argue for Russian ‘ unilateral renunciation of the bomb’ are using ‘ internation- alism’, the idea that only the international working class can solve humanity’s problems, to excuse the crassest irresponsibility. They will deservedly be left on the sidelines by the development of the revolution in Britain. The immediate policy of the Left in Britain must be a set of demands which prepares the forces for a Socialist government. 1. Withdrawal of Labour support for imperialist ‘defence’ agreements and a campaign for the withdrawal of British troops from foreign countries. 2. A campaign by Labour for working-class action to stop work on nuclear weapons and on all military bases in this country. No work on the Polaris bases. 3. A Labour campaign for the freeing of all political prisoners in colonial territories and the withdrawal of British troops from all colonial territories. 4. An approach by British Labour to the working- class parties and trade unions of other countries to plan a united campaign against the imperialist war alliances. These steps will begin to make a reality of Labour’s 1953 Margate conference resolution ‘against the danger of supporting anti-working-class forces in international affairs ’. For these steps to become possible and effective, other steps are necessary. 5. The removal of Gaitskell and his clique by an uncompromising campaign to implement the Scarborough decisions. 6. The definite subordination of the Parliamentary Labour Party to the Labour Party conference. 7. A campaign in the factories, the unions and the industrial towns for the nationalization of the arms industries. Only in this way, by seeing our current campaigns as part of the whole process by which we achieve a Labour government with a socialist foreign policy, not a neutralist foreign policy, can we present the questions in a way that advance the independent politics of the working class. For this is the crying — need of our time. .

[p013] 11