For Discussion: FROM WEEK TO WEEK

Grey River Argus, 21 March 1940, Page 9

For Discussion: FROM WEEK TO WEEK

By

H. WINSTON RHODES.

Imperialism and Propaganda: Before the British general election of 1935, Punch suggested that the candidates should make constant use of certain phrases. To describe your side the phrases “comprehensive programme of reform,” “trenchant criticism” and “shrewd thrust,” should be useful. To describe the other lot the phrases “unscrupulous electioneering manifests,” “vulgar company of furnal abuse,” and “unmannerly interruption,” would have to be substituted.

It is unfortunately true that most political arguments are conducted in this manner, words are generally not used to refer to things and to ideas but are used in r.rder to sway the emotions of people. We use words which A. P. Herbert describes as witch-words. Those who talk about topics on Bolsheviks, Capitalism or Socialism, High Finance or the Dole, frequently use these words only as terms of abuse. The result is we rarely argue about programmes and policies and one political thought is the product of the prejudice and emotion created by witch-words.

This is all the more dangerous in times of national crisis. Hitler’s propaganda has met with great success because the Nazi Party has unscrupulantly exploited the power of witch-words. If we wish to fall into the same trap we shall follow leaders who do the same sort of thing. I cannot help noticing that the word ‘imperialism’ is to-day one of the dangerous words. If we wish to use this word correctly we must think of it unconditionally, as a word to be used in order to describe the highest stage of the economic system known as capitalism. Both Hobson and Lenin have demonstrated the relation between economic interests and what we call imperialism. Imperialism implies the search for profits by securing foreign markets and raw materials. It implies the' search for profits and the extension of Empire irrespective of the welfare of the people in the territory acquired. Because of the competition between rival capitalist powers it is i clearly one of the main causes of war.

The Soviet Union and Imperialism!

During the past few months newspaper propagandists and readers influenced by others, have been using this, term in connection with the Soviet Union. Is this a legitimate use of the word? If we wish to discredit the Soviet Union our best method is to use words which are charged with emotional significance especially to those who have sympathies with Socialist development. But if we attempt to analyse and to understand it is probable that we shall soon discover that whatever our attitude to the Soviet Union may j be, we are not justified in talking t about the Soviet Union as an jm-I perialist power. We are not justified because we f know that in the Soviet Union there , is a planned economy. With more | than an adequate supply of raw materials and a market which consists! of the people themselves, there is no,’ economic motive which would imply | the need for economic imperialism. j But it is suggested that the behaviour of the Soviet Union in Po-1 land and in Finland is the behaviour ' of an imperialist power. What are ■ the facts? In Poland Jand has been ( distributed among the peasants, j Councils have been formed and a planned economy is being de-j veloped. This is the very negation of imperialism. Moreover, Vilna annexed by Poland in 1920, has been returned to Lithuania.

The peace treaty between the Soviet Union and Finland now shows that the demands -made on Finland were strategic demands and not the demands of an imperialism in search of markets and raw materials. The policy of the Soviet Union with regard to national minorities has always been clear cut and well-defin-ed. Few even of the enemies of the Soviet Union have each suggested that there is exploitation of minorities.

It would seem that the word imperialism cannot be associated with the Soviet Union unless something very different from the usual meaning of the word is implied. The socalled imperialism of the Soviet Union boils down to nothing more than the defence of the Socialist State, , and in Poland the spread of Socialism and the destruction of capitalism as a consequence of the march of the Red Army, India and Imperialism!

What is really meant by imperialism is illustrated well in the situation of India. I have been reading an excellent pamphlet entitled “India’s Demand for Freedom,” issued by the University Labour Federation in England. It concludes with the provocative challenge—lndia is the test to-day! It asserts that “all over the world, in America and in other neutral countries, those wno view this war objectively will regard the attitude of Britain to the' Indian claim as one of the fundamental tests of the British' cause. Above all, this is a challenge to British democrats and socialists, and to aB those of us who condemn war which is fought for imperialist ends, and who have always condemned the exploitation of one people by another.” From the point of view of neutral Opinion as well as from the point of view of the Socialist, those who shirk the problem of India are sabotaging the cause of the Allies if that cause has no imperialist motives. The demand of the Congress Party for proof of Britain’s faith in democracy, the demand for independence and the statement that ‘we will not fight an imperialist war for imperialist ends,’ provoked the Viceroy’s reply:

1. That British war aims cannot yet be more clearly defined than as “a war to make aggression impossible.”

2. That Britain, as in 1917 and 1929, reaffirms the pledge to grant India Dominion status in due course. 3. That another Round Table Conference will be called after the war to discuss constitutional amendments to the Federal Constitution of 1935.

4. That for the present the Viceroy will appoint a consultative committee of all parties, interests and

creeds, with the object ot associating Indian public opinion with the conduct of the war.

The Indian response to this reply was summed up by Gandhi —“Congress, in asking for bread is given a stone.” *

To those of us who have little knowledge of the problems in India, this pamphlet of the University Labour Federation provides valuable information. It discusses the minorities, not only the religious minorities and castes, but to what is often forgotten, the minorities of class and vested interest. It deals with Princes, landlords and Chambers of Commerce as well as the “communal problem" which is regarded by Indians as fundamentally an economic problem. It deals with the condition of the working class and the Indian peasant. It has sections on the Indian States, the Indian Student and Education, What is the Indian National' Congress?, Independence and the New Constitution, and finally, What is Imperialism? Let us remember that the solution of the problem of India will affect 350 millions of people. If we are fighting for a just and democratic world, as far as Britain is concerned, India is the test. Any of us who are accustomed to use the familiar phrases about India —that we are ruling the Indians for the Indians’ own good, that India is not yet ready for independence, that if the British left India would become, chaotic, would do well to sift the facts • and evidence given in this hardy pamphlet, “India’s Demand for Freedom.”