MR NASH AND THE TEA TRADE

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21986, 9 January 1937, Page 17

MR NASH AND THE TEA TRADE

TO THE -EDITOR OF THE PRESS Sir, —I -should like to make a few comments on the letter by your correspondent, W. A. Strachan, dealing with the necessity of German expansion. Par from Germany being satisfied with her present position In the world’s markets, she Is, instead of importing her usual quantity of foodstuffs, importing (and Incidentally starving the workers thereby) war materials so that she may carve out with the sword a market consisting of practically the whole of Europe and the Soviet Union. Capitalism in its monopolist or imperialist stage requires exclusive domination and sovereignty over the maximum area of ex-

ploitation. Hence the ceaseless and intensive l drive for expansion. By the beginning of the century the unoccupied parts of the world (i.e., those parts which could not offer effective resistance) were divided amongst the imperialist powers and hence began the first war for the redivision of the world in 1914-18. Now we are op the verge of the second war for the redivision of the world. There can be no peaceful or equitable division of the spoils because of the unequal development of capitalism. The last war was between the rising German imperialism, witl\ its far more powerful economic system and its comparatively small overseas possessions, and its rival, the British imperialism, with a weaker economic system, and with a largq part of the world In its monopolist area. The position of the various imperialisms is purely a relation of forces which can be tested only by armed force. British imperialism after the Great War absorbed another big slice of the earth (about 2,000,000 square miles), and hence the situation to-day has been much intensified in comparison with 1914. Wars for the division and redivision of the world between the monopolist groups are the historic process of imperialism and no solution is possible within capitalism. The only solution of the problem is the introduction of socialism by the workers or the establishment of people’s fronts in certain countries as a transitional stage to socialism. If all those forces and countries desiring neace, in conjunction with the Soviet Union, were to institute real collective security, war might be averted. Collective security can only postpone war pending transition to a new world order.—Yours, etc.. S. H. BECK. Rangiora, January 6, 1937.

I'O TUB BMTQI Q» tttß PRESS. Sir, —I invited the footnote to my letter on the above subject a day or two ago; the reference to my superiority as a Latin scholar was warranted. I said mine was a free and liberal translation of the motto on your front page, although I could look at the tail end of any cheap dictionary and get it exactly, had 1 wished. So, the footnote does not surprise me. What does surprise me, though, is that there seems to be a deliberate evasion of the question I raised. I may not be an authority on plain English, but 1 will try my best to understand your roPly to the foliowing question: Does “The Press” favour trade within the Empire, or is it an advocate of free trade? That ought to be easy enough to answer.— Yours, etc.. . . RAGLAN. January 8. 1937. [The question docs not make sense. If there were free trade thi'oughout the world, there would still be trade within the Empire, perhaps more than there is now. “Raglan” might just as well ask us whether we favour bicycles or tapioca.—-Ed., “The Press.”]