How to Stop War: Mr. Churchill’s Suggestions Examined

With one Capitalist war just over, and the prospect of yet others looming up in the future, various politicians are bursting into the news with their ideas on how to prevent another war; or to be more accurate, their ideas on how to make sure of being on the winning side in the event of another war.

Chief among them, of course, is that arch-enemy of the working class, Mr. Winston Churchill. His recent effusion, from across the Atlantic, put leader writers over here in something of a dither as to what the great man actually meant. They did seem to be agreed on one of his statements, however; that is, how to stop a war when it looks as though there’s going to be one. And since the methods advocated by Churchill find fairly wide support amongst the working class, it might be worth while to examine them, or their implications, in detail.

“There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than this one,” declares Churchill.“ If we had stood up to Germany any time between 1930 and 1935 there would have been no war,” says the Sunday Times of March 10th. And, presumably, if America had stood up to Japan between 1930 and 1935 there would have been no war. And if the brutal Boers had stood up “to the gentle English—or was it the brutal English and the gentle Boers—in 1890 there would have been no Boer War; and the same with all previous wars, one can suppose.

In fact, all that has to be done in order to stop a war is to stand up to the nation that intends to declare war some 10 years or so before they actually do so. It only remains for statesmen to equip themselves with knowledge of this universal war preventive and we are in for an era of glorious war-free prosperity.

But before going out to get drunk on such gladsome news, perhaps it would be better to find out a little more about the Churchillian methods for promoting peace. For instance, what does this “timely action” consist of? To make a strong protest, perhaps; but surely that would have no effect without force to back it up. Declare war on them, then? But surely—isn’t this supposed to be a method to stop war? Maybe Mr. Churchill only meant that there would have been a very much smaller war. Still it is all very confusing.

One fact does emerge, however. Boiled down to its essence, Churchill is only an adherent of the “might is the surest preventative,” “trust in my good right arm, O Lord,” school, after all. A disciple of the doctrine that, if a nation is only strong enough, then no other nation will dare to attack it.

The first thing that strikes one about this theory is that, for it to be effective, there must be no question of the absolute might of the country that is in danger of attack. And, of course, it must be the country that is attacked, not the attacking country, that is mighty, otherwise things are worse than before.

But how is a country going to make itself so frighteningly strong? There is only one way, of course—that is, by ample production of armaments by unlimited access to raw materials, such as oil, rubber, etc., and by possession of and command over military bases and strategic outposts.

To which one might ask, “How does a nation acquire these things except by going to war in the first place?” Since there are only a limited number of bases, etc., a nation can only obtain them by wresting them from those who have them (except in rare cases of outright buying and selling, or a swap of territory in the interests of two nations).

So it looks as though this method of preventing war has only the effect of increasing its likelihood.

Even for a country with colossal strength there is absolutely no historical foundation for saying that that country will not be attacked. The colossal strength of Germany in 1939 did not prevent Britain from attacking her. Nor did the strength of America prevent Japan from attack, or the strength of Russia prevent Germany from attacking Russia.

So it seems as though there must be some motive impelling Capitalist countries to maintain their possessions or interests at all costs. Such a motive can only be explained satisfactorily by economic reasons. It arises from the fact that under Capitalism goods are produced for the purpose of being sold for profit. And along with the incessant striving for markets in which to sell these goods there is competition in prices. The cheapest goods will sell best. But to sell goods at a cheaper price and get the same overall profit you must sell more goods. Which means still greater competition, coupled with the fact that inability to sell goods means catastrophe to the capitalist.

As long as goods are made primarily for sale, and not solely for use, there is no escaping from these facts. If the Socialist explanation of the cause of war is correct, then no fantastic schemes, such as U.N.O. or disarmament, will have any effect in the long run, since they leave the cause untouched.

Are the working class going to fight their masters’ wars indefinitely. If, under Capitalism, the only way to abolish war is by declaring war, then surely it is high time to abolish capitalism.

C. EVANS