Who Are Responsible for Defence Weaknesses?

In war as in peace the blind greed of capitalists persist even to the extent of endangering the continued existence of their sources of gain. We are prompted to make the statement by a report from a Special Correspondent which appeared in the Sunday Express for January 4th. This correspondent, writing from Sydney, Australia, reports an interview he had with Senator Foll on Malayan defences, and this is what the Senator told him: —

“The British War Office sadly neglected the Malayan defences. The civil and defence authorities told me this frankly and most decidedly during my visit to Malaya last August.
I was so alarmed at the information that I reported it to Mr. Menzies and other Cabinet Ministers on my return to Australia.
Mr. Menzies told me that he had repeatedly demanded stronger Malayan defences while he was in England.
From the time of Munich, Australia’s military strategy has been based pn the likelihood of an attack by Japan. We were alarmed at the slight preparation provided against this in Malaya and Singapore. That was the main reason for Sir Earle Page’s visit to London via Singapore.
I think, frankly, that people holding large interests in Malaya were themselves principally responsible. They were engrossed in the big profits the war was bringing them and they resented even trivial taxation for the defence of their holdings.”

The last paragraph is the illuminating one. Government officials and military strategists are freely blamed for weaknesses and failures in Malaya and elsewhere, but how much of this blame should really rest on the shoulders of seekers after profit who were the power behind the various governments or whose actions thwarted the policies of those governments? Why, for instance, was Germany able to become strong again after 1918 and able to embark on a policy of conquest? One reason was because Germany became a profitable field for investors and these investors were prepared to risk a good deal rather than have their profitable investments disturbed.

It is customary to blame Balfour and Macdonald for failing to keep up to date in rearmament during the period preceding the present war, but the major responsibility rests with the wealthy interests who found the high cost of re-arming cut into their profits. Profits were their main objects, and so they made hay while the sun shone, hoping to wriggle out of trouble somehow later on. A fair example of the intelligence or blind lust of the capitalists as a class.

Another instance of the blind and unprincipled lust bred by a system under which goods are produced for the sole purpose of making a profit for capitalist investors is provided by the black market that figures so largely in the news these days, and the numerous cases where people are prepared to jeopardise the successful prosecution of the war (their war) in order to make profit out of it. The following quotations are only two examples that illustrate the point: —

“Barham and Marriage, Ltd., of Leadenhall Street, E.C., grocerer, were fined £10 with 10 guineas costs at Kensington to-day for selling milk powder substitute grossly deficient in fat proteins and milk sugar at their shop at Church Street, Kensington.
Mr. Barry Evans, prosecuting, said the powder when analysed was shown to be essentially flour and salt and was in no sense a composition resembling milk powder.
The substitute was sold at 3s. a lb., but could be produced at 2½d. a lb.
Dr. James Fenton, medical officer of health of Kensington, said that if infants were fed on the powder they would suffer from anaemia and a lowered resistance to infection.
If a mother fed her child on the powder believing she was giving the infant a complete food, the child would starve under her eyes.
Mr. R. Seaton, defending, said the firm was supplied with a powder called “Milkona” by the manufacturers, with a warranty at 2s. 3d. a pound.
They innocently purchased it for retail to the public. They were not unscrupulous and not a breath of complaint had hitherto been made against them.—( Evening Standard,” 31st October, 1941.)
Pal Food Products, Ldt., of South Audley Street, London, W.I, were fined £10 and five guineas costs at Stratford to-day for selling a mixture called Pal-lem with a misleading label.
It was stated that the mixture was described on the label as containing vitamin C, and as the perfect substitute for fresh lemons.
Dr. Hammance, public analyst, said the bottle, which was bought for 1s. 3d., could have been manufactured for ¾d. There was no vitamin C in the contents, nor was there any citric acid, the only acid being tartaric”.—(“Evening Standard,” December 31st, 1941.)

These facts are simply further support for our contention that capitalism, owing to its private property basis and profit-making object, is incapable of solving the major problems with which it is afflicted. These problems can only be solved when the profit motive is obliterated by the introduction of Socialism.

(Editorial, Socialist Standard, January 1942)