Labour and Colonialism

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Labour and Colonialism

(Part 2)

(Part 1 appeared in WDIE, Year 2003 No. 81, July 22, 2003
[link] http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wdie-03/d03-81.htm)

The particular role of the Labour Party was to contribute to the myth that colonialism was part of the "white man’s burden", of looking after the well-being of "backward peoples or peoples of primitive culture" who, it was claimed, were "not yet able to stand by themselves". In 1943 for instance, in The Labour Party’s Post-War Policy for the African and Pacific Colonies, it was stated: "For a considerable time to come these peoples will not be ready for self-government, and European peoples and States must be responsible for the administration of their territories". According to the Labour Party, the big powers had what Lord Lugard, the first colonial governor of Nigeria, termed a "dual mandate" to act as the "trustees" looking after their colonial subjects and their territories and resources. At the time the Labour Party explained, "the territories should be administered as a trust for the native inhabitants."

The Labour Party actually maintained that in order to avoid inter-imperialist rivalry, the colonies should be developed not only in the interests of one imperialist power but in the interests of all the big powers. So the Labour Party, almost from its inception, advanced the view that "it is necessary to put all the States of the world upon a footing of economic equality in colonial territories, i.e. in regard to access to raw materials, markets and capital investment". In others words, all colonies were to be open to the exploitation of all the big powers under the enlightened supervision of an international mandatory body.

Upon the conclusion of the Second World War, the working class and people assumed an honoured position. The blood they had shed in defence of humanity against fascism and militarism won the working class and progressive people a predominant position in the public consciousness, most importantly in their own consciousness. The working class had become a class for itself with its own vision for the future. Both in the Soviet Union and in Britain and the other capitalist countries, the working class was ready to advance to the leadership of the society, to participate and lead in political, social and economic affairs. It had won the right to have a say in its future; the door to progress was open.

The capitalist class by contrast was in disgrace, seen as financiers and promoters of fascism and militarism. Capitalist money and its motive force to relentlessly, compete and exploit the resources of labour power of people throughout the world was largely recognised as the cause of the catastrophes suffered from fascism and war.

A great international solidarity of workers and peasants had emerged out of the heroism and sacrifices of the war. The anti-colonial movement was in full flower and the working class in capitalist countries upheld principles of sovereignty, socialism and social progress. A consciousness had emerged to move society forward to social responsibility without exploitation of humans by humans, a world without antagonistic social classes, without imperialist plunder and oppression. The blood of so many heroic people had forced open the door to progress and humanity was poised to step through that grand portal.

It was at this time, right after the defeat of Hitlerite fascism in 1945, that there was talk of a "third way" in Britain, the issue being to abandon class partisanship in the face of the sentiment of the working class and people for socialism at this time. There was a great impetus for basic and radical social change. However, in Britain the Attlee government of 1945-51 effectively side-tracked these aspirations and used the mechanisms of the command economy to sort out the post-war crisis in Britain, in part by shifting the burden of the crisis onto Britain’s colonial subjects.

Clement Attlee’s post-war government is sometimes presented as the government that began dismantling the Empire, but it was actually responsible for intensifying the economic exploitation of the colonies, in the interests of the big monopolies, under the guise of "partnership". The post-1945 Labour government continued to act in the interests of the big monopolies in regard to the Empire, but found it impossible to act completely in the old way, largely owing to the struggles of those in the colonies, the strength of the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movement internationally and the contention between the big powers themselves. The Labour government joined with the governments of the other imperialist powers and unleashed a combination of targeted violence and illusion mongering about the capacity of the capitalist system to reform itself. Every effort was made to derail the working class movement, both in Britain and internationally.

In order to maintain the Empire, in this period, the Labour government used military means to suppress the struggles for independence and national liberation in the Gold Coast, Nigeria and Iran, but especially in Malaya, where the Labour government waged a bloody colonial war for over three years.

In the post-war period the Labour government became the junior ally of the US government, seeing in this relationship the main means to retain a dominant role for British finance capital in the world. It welcomed the Marshall Plan in Europe, was a willing participant in the anti-communist "Cold War", directly attacked the progressive forces in Greece and other countries, and in particular joined in the aggressive and criminal war launched by the US against Korea in 1950, during the course of which the Labour government doubled military spending in the space of two years at the cost of much-needed investments in social programmes.

(to be continued)