FOR A: SOCIALIST PEACE POLICY

By G. HEALY AS the statesmen return home from the Summit debacle the Labour movement remains dangerously confused. In many respects we are reminded of that fatal August in 1939 when Stalin Signed a peace pact with Hitler and jettisoned the theory that a ‘peace alliance’ could halt fascist aggression.

The confusion sown by the Communist Party and Labour lefts who supported this theory was in no small measure responsible for the immobilization of PPPPPPPP PPP PPP PPPRPPRPPRPPRPPPPAD the British working class at a most critical time in the struggle against the second world war. SOCIALIST LABOUR LEAGUE In the days that followed the Stalin-Hitler pact the world PUBLIC MEETING drifted irresistibly towards disaster. The working class were Summit Talks Fail — What Next? confused and leaderless. The policy of Stalin weakened the defence of the Soviet Union, and the forces of imSpeakers—G. HEALY (national secretary) perialism stepped up their war preparations.

But May, 1960, is not August, 1939. Whilst war is not B. PEARCE (joint editor, Labour Review) at this moment as near as it was in 1939, no one can doubt that a new round of military expenditure and jingo propa- Sunday, May 29, at 7.30 p.m. ganda is now being launched by the imperialists and their DENISON HOUSE VAUXHALL BRIDGE ROAD. right-wing Labour lackeys. Speaking at the conference of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers in Great S.W.1 Yarmouth, Mr. Gaitskell said:

PP PPPPPPPPPPPPEPPPPPPBPPPPPP PAPA

‘In present conditions the Labour Party must continue to stand for the idea of adequate defence and protection of the country, and deterrence of any possible aggressor.’

It will be recalled that last year at this conference a resolution was carried calling for the Labour movement to campaign against the manufacture of the H-bomb. Whilst it is true that the tricky gentlemen who lead the MGWU had this resolution shelved in the months that followed, nevertheless it was a powerful moral victory for the forces opposing war preparations. This year Mr. Gaitskell’s policy was accepted by a five to one majority. Here are the fruits of the confusion by the Communist Party and the Labour lefts that summit talks could resolve the problem of war. The Paris talks have strengthened the Right-wing and Mr. Gaitskell.

More terrible weapons In the United States, Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, has emphasized the speech in which Senator Dodd of Connecticut declared that a neutron bomb was a theoretical possibility. According to Dr. Dyson :

“Such a bomb can theoretically be produced by tailoring the energy of a fusion explosion so that, instead of heat and blast, what is primarily produced is a burst of neutrons.

‘Such a burst would do negligible physical damage, but it would immediately destroy all life in the target area. It would, in short, operate as a kind of death ray.’

The magazine in which Dr. Dyson wrote these words quoted :

an unnamed correspondent as saying:

‘Such a weapon would be of great tactical advantage on the battle field. It could be used to knock out an enemy division without contaminating friendly forces.

‘It would also be used to defeat a country without damaging its resources. Because there would be so little fall-out the area would be inhabitable almost immediately.’

There is no doubt that appalling new weapons are being prepared by all sides and that these preparations will now be stepped up in the coming months.

Meanwhile the vicious circle grows tighter. The American statesmen blame the Russians and the Russians blame the Americans. Mr. Macmillan, like an aged executioner who has lost the use of both hands since the Blue Streak Rocket bubble burst, is hailed by Gaitskell as a great peacelover.

Surely the time has now come for the Labour movement to seriously rethink its entire policy in relation to foreign affairs and in particular to fight to prevent the third world war.

Victory for socialism and Mr. Gaitskell The people who are most confused on the Left today are those Members of Parliament who support Victory for Socialism. The Stalinists at King Street can at least resort to their old policy of supporting Russia, right or wrong, but Sydney Silverman and his colleagues simply follow in the wake of Gaitskell, who in turn insults them almost openly.

‘No one’, says a statement from VFS, ‘really believes that either the Soviet Union and its allies or the United States and its allies have any aggressive intentions towards each other.” Well, well, well. There’s none so blind as those who will not see! Just read this.

‘Had NATO not been formed’, says Mr. Gaitskell at Great Yarmouth, ‘the Soviet Union would long since have dominated Europe, including Britain.’

Mr. Gaitskell is at least consistent. Long ago he nailed his colours to the Tory mast. Like the Gollans and Pollitts in their blind attitude towards the USSR he intends to follow Macmillan just as blindly.

Here is why Left confusion strengthens Gaitskell. Instead of seriously rethinking the whole problem of war and the way to fight it, the Labour Lefts look for ways and means to effect an unprincipled compromise with the Right-wing. This is, of course, in the order of things. Just as Mr. Gaitskell draws closer to the Tories, so the fake Lefts are dragged closer to the heels of Gaitskell. That is why they find no difficulty in talking about opposition to all bans and proscriptions and at the same time support Gaitskell’s ban on The Newsletter and the Socialist Labour League. If there is one thing Swingler, Silverman and Zilliacus will not do, it is to base the struggle against war upon the ability of the working class to take the power and establish socialism.

The Left-wing of the Labour Party must break sharply from all forms of Right-wing compromise in the struggle against war, whether it comes from Gaitskell or from the leaders of Victory for Socialism.

The Socialist Labour League and the Summit The most difficult problem before socialists in the fight against war is how to convince the Labour movement that the only real force capable of ridding the world of war is the working class. This is understandable. The Stalinists and the reformists constantly sow the illusion that war can be prevented by discussion between the diplomats. What follows is a further illusion that it is not necessary to struggle to overthrow capitalist society and replace it with socialism in order to avoid the danger of war. The advocates of summit talks and peaceful co-existence immobilize and disarm the working class at the very time when the class should be mobilized for action against the capitalist enemy. The professional pacifists oppose class action against the imperialists; that is why Marxism is in principle opposed to pacifism.

These worthy gentlemen are the most ruthless opponents of the class struggle and generally wind up in a situation where the imperialists embark on a war whilst they reside in jail for the duration. We are here referring to the leaders of the pacifist movement and not to the many sincere and misguided people who follow them.

The unprincipled alliance of Stalinists; pacifists and Labour fakers who led the Aldermaston March came together on the idea that the summit diplomats could resolve the H-bomb crisis. The Socialist Labour League on the other hand, insisted that all the summit would do would be to sow further illusions which in fact, in the long run, would strengthen the drive to war. We were proved correct more quickly than we anticipated. Our policy is derived from a Marxist attitude towards imperialist war. When the Chinese spokesmen declare that forty years ago Lenin pointed out the correct way to fight war, they are merely emphasizing the position which the Trotskyist movement has held ever since Lenin died.

On the brink The dangers of a third world war arise from the basic economic contradictions of capitalism. The imperialist powers have embarked upon a suicidal arms race because of the inability of the world to provide new markets and fresh sources of colonial exploitation in a way that will enable the super millionaires to maintain and increase their colossal profits. The unplanned nature of capitalism means that the development of the preductive forces constantly conflicts with the private ownership of the means of production. The crisis of the imperialist powers is now much greater than at any time in history, especially since the Soviet Union, China and the countries of Eastern Europe are no longer part of the capitalist world market. This market has rapidly shrunk in size, thereby aggravating the contradiction between the development of the productive forces and private ownership. Only a socialist planned economy can release mankind from this terrible situation. Because of this, mankind is poised on the brink of a third world war and there is no way out except through the struggle to take the power from the capitalists and replace private ownership with socialist control and planning. That’ is the great lesson from the collapse of the summit talks. It doesn’t matter how many prayers are said by Canon Collins or how many speeches are made by Hugh Gaitskell or Sydney Silverman, so long as the economic system of capitalism remains, then we are faced with a third world war. If we do not end this system in the next period then war will become a reality, which theoretically speaking can end all of us.

The difference between the Socialist Labour League and those who believe that the diplomats can get rid of war is that we believe that instead of turning towards the diplomats who in fact have steadily helped prepare this dangerous world situation, we should look towards the working class and its struggle against the capitalists in Britain and throughout the world. Here is the real power which disrupted the summit talks.

The Wall Street imperialists were drawn towards the summit because they felt that a temporary deal with Khrushchev might be possible in a way that would slow down the development of the class struggle both in the colonies and in the imperialist countries themselves. Khrushchev would have been prepared to do such a deal if it meant peaceful co-existence for even a temporary period, but the Chinese who are dominated by the implications of the great Asian revolution much more than the Soviet leaders, refused to support Khrushchev. Behind that refusal also was the development of the great revolutionary struggles of the South African people and the considerable resistance which the working class in Britain has displayed towards all the attempts of the Tories to reduce their standard of living.

The Russian people There is, however, another factor of considerable significance. It is the attitude of the Russian people themselves. Everyone now knows that the 20th Congress speech of Khrushchev denouncing Stalin had to be made in order to placate the growing tide of opposition to Stalinism which was manifesting itself inside Russia. But this speech. could not by itself stop the opposition to Stalinism. It could only _blunt that opposition. The political climate in which it was nourished has not only remained, it has grown stronger.

The strength of the colonial peoples and the corresponding weakness of imperialism coinciding with the struggle of the working class in the imperialist countries is reflected in the ranks of the Soviet people. This is the real deterrent which Wall Street fears most.

Furthermore, the considerable scientific achievements of the Soviet Union have strengthened the morale of the Soviet working class in a most remarkable way. The interconnection between these forces was the real reason why the summit talks collapsed. Khrushchev could not do a deal. Wall Street, with its U-2 spy raid, was revealed in its true colours and the political puppets of imperialism, De Gaulle and Macmillan, could only act as messenger boys between the great ones.

Far from the summit collapse being a disaster, a real approach to peace must now begin with an examination of the forces responsible for the failure.

The next steps All those who seriously want peace must now turn towards the struggle of the working class against the Tories in Britain and their imperialist supporters in the United States. Every effort made by the colonial peoples to weaken imperialism is a blow for peace. Every strike against the employers is a blow for peace. Every effort made by trade unions and Labour Parties in their struggle for a socialist policy in the Labour Party and for the defence and strengthening of Clause Four is a blow for peace.

The real peace forces are all those who in one way or another fight the class enemy and urge policies that will strengthen such a fight. If we consider that in reality the only peace front is the international struggle of the working class against the imperialists, then we shall be in a position to evaluate the powerful allies who are ranged on our side in this great fight. We will try to enumerate these allies.

First, there are the people of the Soviet Union, whose bitter Opposition to Stalinism arises from the fact that the economy of their country rests on the nationalized property relations established by the Revolution of 1917.

Second, there are the people of Eastern Europe whose nationalized economy, like that of the Soviet Union, is based upon the overthrow of capitalist property relations. Although the majority of these still suffer under the yoke of bureaucracy, nevertheless there is ample evidence that the workers of these countries are determined to fight and overthrow this bureaucracy and go forward to socialism.

Third, there is the vast country of China with its population of 650 million people, which in spite of the Stalinist training of its leaders pursues a policy which is forced to take into account the requirements of the Asian revolution.

Fourth, there are the working people of. the United States whose steel strike some months ago was a symbol of the power and the determination of the American working class to maintain a decent standard of living.

The struggle of the Negroes in the southern states of America will, in the days ihat lie ahead, merge more and more with the battle of the American working class against Wall Street imperialism.

Fifth, the crisis on the American continent is aggravated by the struggles of the Cuban people who, although they face almost insurmountable difficulties, remain defiant against alk the attempts of the imperialists to crush them.

Sixth, there is the revolutionary situation in the Middle East which is now being joined by the beginning of a mass revolutionary struggle in South Africa.

Finally, there is the position in Britain itself, where the working class, with their powerful Labour movement, stubbornly resists all attempts by the Tory government to attack their standards of living.

These forces are not isolated, they are the international ingredients of the coming British revolution. The British Labour movement stands at the crossroads of history. The fate of the world in the next period may well be in their hands. A determined effort to kick the Right-wing from the Labour Party and bring down the Tory government would create a situation where the struggle for socialism could make a spectacular advance.

The Socialist Labour League therefore calls upon. all fighters against war to join its ranks and fight to:

1. Bring down the Tory government of Macmillan and replace it with a Labour government pledged to nationalize all the basic industries (including the armaments industry) without compensation and under workers’

2. Stop the manufacture of the H-bomb and the testing of nuclear weapons Abandon NATO and seek an alliance with the Soviet and colonial peoples and all those who are fighting against imperialism.

nnd The Socialist Labour League is pleased to announce the publication on June 10, of Where is Britain Going ?

Including an introduction, a preface for America, and the preface to the German edition Price: Seven Shillings and Sixpence Enquiries from: Socialist Labour League 186 Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4 nanan A Pamphlet on Clause Four From MacDonald to Gaitskell By ALASDAIR MacINTY RE Price 3d. from 186 Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4 a