Gavrilo Princip is arrested after fatally woulding Archduke Franz Ferdinand - an action wrongly attributed to the cause of World War OneContrary to popular belief, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand 93 years ago today was NOT the cause of World War I. The Socialist position was summarised well in an edition of the Party's journal marking the 50th anniversary of the world's first Great War:
"..The origins ..lay in the fact that the nineteenth century industrial military and naval predominance of British and French capitalism was being challenged by the rapid expansion of Germany. As German industry grew, German production and exports were catching up and the German navy had grown to a size and striking power comparable with the British.
After the German annexation of the French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871, the war was opened for the link-up of Lorraine ore with Westphalian coal, and Germany's pig-iron production soon jumped ahead. In 1870-74 it was 1,800,000 tons a year against Britain's 6,400,000, but by 1908 German production was far ahead. The same was true of steel and the German mercantile shipping fleet was being rapidly expanded.
A warning had been given by the Commission on the Depression of Trade in its Report as early as 1886 about German competition in world markets:-
A reference to the reports from abroad will show that in every quarter of the world the perseverance and enterprise of the Germans are making themselves felt. In actual production of commodities we have now few, if any, advantages over them, and in a knowledge of the markets of the world, a desire to accommodate themselves to local tastes and idiosyncrasies, a determination to obtain a footing wherever they can and a tenacity in maintaining it, they appear to be gaining ground upon us.
An area of acute conflict was in the field of colonies. Britain and France, along with Belgium, had been first in this field. Britain in India and Asia and all of them in Africa. Germany, the late comer, seeking to enter and expand in Africa, more and more threatened the future of those who were there first and had taken most of the profitable areas. When Germany showed in 1911, by sending a gunboat to Agadir, that she intended to get a foothold in Morocco, Mr. Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, at once reacted with a speech threatening war. This incident had the effect of bringing French and British capitalism nearer together in mutual self-protection.
One of the more dramatic forms of the conflict was the German plan for a Berlin to Baghdad railway, a counter-blast to the British scheme of the Cape to Cairo line. The German plan involved pushing Russian influence out of the Balkans, cutting Russia off from the Mediterranean by control of the Dardenelles, and in opening up a way for Germany to expand towards the Persian Gulf and India.
The 1914 war did not start overnight through an assassin's bullets; it was the outcome of years of conflicting capitalist interests" (Socialist Standard, August 1964).
"..The origins ..lay in the fact that the nineteenth century industrial military and naval predominance of British and French capitalism was being challenged by the rapid expansion of Germany. As German industry grew, German production and exports were catching up and the German navy had grown to a size and striking power comparable with the British.
After the German annexation of the French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871, the war was opened for the link-up of Lorraine ore with Westphalian coal, and Germany's pig-iron production soon jumped ahead. In 1870-74 it was 1,800,000 tons a year against Britain's 6,400,000, but by 1908 German production was far ahead. The same was true of steel and the German mercantile shipping fleet was being rapidly expanded.
A warning had been given by the Commission on the Depression of Trade in its Report as early as 1886 about German competition in world markets:-
A reference to the reports from abroad will show that in every quarter of the world the perseverance and enterprise of the Germans are making themselves felt. In actual production of commodities we have now few, if any, advantages over them, and in a knowledge of the markets of the world, a desire to accommodate themselves to local tastes and idiosyncrasies, a determination to obtain a footing wherever they can and a tenacity in maintaining it, they appear to be gaining ground upon us.
An area of acute conflict was in the field of colonies. Britain and France, along with Belgium, had been first in this field. Britain in India and Asia and all of them in Africa. Germany, the late comer, seeking to enter and expand in Africa, more and more threatened the future of those who were there first and had taken most of the profitable areas. When Germany showed in 1911, by sending a gunboat to Agadir, that she intended to get a foothold in Morocco, Mr. Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, at once reacted with a speech threatening war. This incident had the effect of bringing French and British capitalism nearer together in mutual self-protection.
One of the more dramatic forms of the conflict was the German plan for a Berlin to Baghdad railway, a counter-blast to the British scheme of the Cape to Cairo line. The German plan involved pushing Russian influence out of the Balkans, cutting Russia off from the Mediterranean by control of the Dardenelles, and in opening up a way for Germany to expand towards the Persian Gulf and India.
The 1914 war did not start overnight through an assassin's bullets; it was the outcome of years of conflicting capitalist interests" (Socialist Standard, August 1964).
RS
9 comments:
You could argue that nothing starts at any point in time since everything follows on from something else. It would be just as useful and relevant as your prolonged quote form an ancient copy of the Socialist Standard. Of course for people such as yourself reference to Socialist Standards has the aura of scholarship, for any outside your very minor political groupette it shows that you are politically atrophied.
Presumably the purpose in the post is to suggest that all wars are the result of purely economic causes. An absurdly reductionist position that allies itself to a similar piece of sub-Marxist dogma that individuals do not make history.
I am sure you have a few more SS articles you can draw on to prove that the holocaust was a result of purely economic forces and that the existence of Hitler and Churchill was not a factor in any part of WW2 history.
One of the merciful things about history is that 99.9999 percent of people have never taken views such as your own seriously. But then again, maybe you don't either but are instead just feeding off a legacy driven gravy train that pays for your hobby
What would be useful if instead of a sneering commentary you provide a factual rebuttal of the points made in the article. You might well ask why such 'ancient' article was quoted. Well, the points made over 40 years ago remain valid. The Socialist Party position is that nations compete over mineral resources, trade routes and areas of domination. Marxism is not a theory of economic determinism. But you are, of course, welcome to prove otherwise. And if not a world of free access, what?
The facts do not need to be rebutted. I am sure that the pig iron statistics are on the nail. What I do find distasteful is what you are trying to do with the facts and your belief that history and the present can be reduced to only an economic account.
The article was probably chosen because you would like to think that a similar account could be given of recent history including the rise of Al-Qaeda . However, since an historical account of the rise of Al-Qaeda that said that the “origins lay” in a set of economic statistics would be far fetched in the extreme, it is far easier to fall back on the Socialist Case as propounded in a forty year old Socialist Standard referring to a war that started ninety years ago. Of course we must not forget that for the Socialist Party the age is not relevant since the principles of the party and the truths that they contain are never changing and eternal.
You say that, “The Socialist Party position is that nations compete over mineral resources, trade routes and areas of domination.” Which is disingenuous in the extreme. If that was all that the SPs case was then you would be in agreement with everyone including The Economist and The Sun. The Socialist position is in fact that, “nations, (and groups of people) ONLY compete over mineral resources, trade routes and areas of domination ONLY FOR REASONS OF ECONOMICS.”[Capitals are my additions] That is where you part company with the rest of the world.
You ask me to suggest an alternative to a “World of Free Access". Your party has no political program to speak of. It has no policy on a system of Justice or on efficient distribution. I don’t have to suggest an alternative to your vacuous phrase because currently billions of the worlds population work, feed, educate and clothe one another. The alternative to your pipe dreams is the reality of now.
You continue to favour style over substance. If the relevance of our analysis of WWI escapes you, an article from the July 2007 (n.b. not 1907!) Socialist Standard may be more to your taste: SUICIDE BOMBERS: HEROES OR VILLAINS?
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/jul07/index.html
Needless to say, agreement is not expected! But your comments will be welcome at the World Socialist Movement's Forum:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/
I responded to your points and you have completely failed to respond to mine apart from making the suggestion that I favour style over substance. The fact is that I accepted wholeheartedly the pig-iron statistics which formed the substance of the article in question. All you have provided in response is a reference to yet another SS article and the suggestion that I enter the wilderness of yahoo groups. This is a blog which has a suprisingly small amount of discussion on it considering the quantity of articles. Since the SP claims to have a great history of debate I would have thought you'd welcome a discussion.
I read the article and its only connection to Al-Qaeda is that it references studies on suicide bombings which happens to be one of the tactics that Al-Qaeda uses. Whatever the tendacious conclusions they are not a response to my suggestion that the growth of Al-Qaeda cannot be explained by purely economic forces.
Hi Kenny!
You responded to my original reply by stating that the facts in the article quoted do not need to be rebutted, but given your quip about pig iron and repeated remark concerning your distaste for reductionism, do not believe this to be so. What would be helpful at this juncture is if you could provide a reasoned critique of the Socialist perspective on the causes of WWI. Why do not we focus on this? It could be a useful exercise: we'd both hopefully learn more about our different positions. Oh, yes, quotations, even those not directly relating to WW1 from The Economist and The Sun which support our position will be gratefully received.
Blame capitalism. Typical socialist scum. It was the tides of civilization, you dummy. The "capitalist interests" you name are the self-preservation insticts of all humans/societies, including the jealous and greedy socialist pedantic lay-abouts.
Blame capitalism is right - the fact that socialists oppose this system and favour a socialist one is obvious and does not make people 'scum' for doing so. And WTF are the 'tides of civilisation'? If you must talk shit, at least make it coherent.
Post a Comment