WORLD COMMENTARY MEN WHO FEAR PEACE

Grey River Argus, 14 November 1949, Page 2

WORLD COMMENTARY MEN WHO FEAR PEACE

CRITICUS Who could fear peace? Big Business fears peace.’ Why? Because war means business and business on the biggest scale, whereas peace means stagnation under our present system of production for profit. Actually business needs armament orders rather than war. If they could have armaments without war—they’d be quite happy. Unfortunately, they probably realise as much as the ordinary man does, that you can’t pile up powder kegs all the time without having an explosion at some time. That’s why we must control business, that’s why we need Socialism where production is carried on for the benefit of the people and not merely for the benefit of the proprietors of the means of production (with the people’s consumption only a byproduct). Am I just repeating old catch-cries or have I anjy proof and indication that business really LOVES armaments and detests production for the people? Well, I have some rather strikingproof just now. The other day I was glancing through a copy of the American big business magazine “Business Week” (Number 1015, February 12, 1549). And there a loader-writer—who has never heard of Socialism and who under American conditions would be sacked immediately if he was leaning even slightly to the Left —says cynically and as a matter of course just what I have been saying in this article. So without further ado—here are some extracts from the "Business Week” article and you can see for yourself WHO FEARS PEACE:— “There’ some evidence that Stalin’s ‘peace offensive’ is serious. Business men need to weigh the possible results,” the article starts. Businessmen need to keep at least one wary eye on Russia’s 'peace offensice.’ The question is: What would it mean to business if it were real? For the past two years, businessmen have been laying their plans for the future on the unqqualified assumption that the cold war with Russia would go on indefinitely. Now it may be time to loosen up that thinking. “You can no longer leave the possibility of better relations with Russia completely out of your calculations —even though' the current manoeuvring seems to get nowhere.

“True, Stalin’s ‘peace feelers’ have' been brushed aside. Until the North Atlantic pact is safely signed and ratified Washington is convinced it would be foolhardy to entertain the idea that the Rusians might be serious. But for the businessman right now it isn’t Washington’s feelings that matter, it’s Stalin’s. And there is some evidence that Stalin actually is eager to get off the hook of the cold war.” And then the article goes on: “As things stand, the prospect over the coming years is for a constantly increasing military budget. But suppose the pressure of the 1 military expenditures were relieved some time fairly soon. “To-day the prospect of ever-rising military expenditure acts: (1) as a sort of guarantee against any drastic deflation of the economy; (2) as a ceiling on the ambitous social-wel-fare projects that the Truman Administration has its heart set on; and (3) as a distorting force that might warp the economy into patterns that would prove completely unworkable ■ in a peaceful world. “A constant or declining military budget would change all that. “President 'Truman would have more financial elbow room for his welfare programmes, and resource development projects. The threat of inflation would recede to the remote horizon. The threat of deflation would mount.” The article then proceeds with an analysis of the business situation — provided the dreaded reduction in armaments came about. The conclusion reached is that in the short run the shock would probobly be small, but in the long run lomething horrible and disgusting to Big Business would happen:— i “The Truman Administration would get its chance to go ahead with civilian spending programmes that the big military budget has kept under wraps. “As soon as the admirals and generals took a back seat you could expect Truman to come up with elaborate plans for development of natural resources, expansion of public works, broadening of social welfare programmes. And you could expect Congress to put most of them through.” . No, no a thousand times no. We must keep the generals and admirals where they are. What simply abominable thought to have the money of big business used for the development of natural resources, expansion of public works and (painful to conceive) the broadening of social welfare programme! And “Business Week” tells us too why there is such a difference between military expenditure and welfare expenditure: “There’s a tremendous social and economic difference between welfare pump-priming and military pump-priming. It makes the Government’s role in the economy—its importance to business —greater than ever.” ’

And that, of course, is un-American. “Military spending doesn’t really alter the structure of the economy,” the article continues. “It goes through the regular channels. As far as the businessman is concerned, a munitions order from the Government is much like an order from a private customer.

“But the kind of welfare and .public works spending that Truman plans does alter the economy. It makes now channels of its own. It creates new institutions. It redistributes income. It shifts demand from one i n " dustry to another. It changes the whole economic pattern. That’s its object.

“The shifts in Government spending that would come with the end of the cold war would make a lot of difference to individual industries. They would make a tremendous difference to business in general.” . Well, now you know why we must abolish a social and economic system where national welfare and development are an eventuality utterly hated and feared by the most influential class in society and where war and armaments are a source of glee and prosperity to these same tycoons. Socialism means constant expansion in a peaceful society—and that is what the world’s Labour Movement must strive for.