Foreign Policy Reflects Home Policy¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter’s central argument is that a capitalist state’s foreign policy is a direct expression of its domestic class relations. In Britain, the post-war Labour government, despite nationalisation measures, left the fundamental structure of capitalism intact. The power of industrial capitalists, bankers, and the barons of tin, rubber, and oil remained untouched, their profits derived from the exploitation of workers and peasants across the Empire, the Far East, and the Middle East. The diplomatic service, Foreign Office, and military general staff continued to be staffed by the ruling class and served as instruments for imperialist aims abroad. The Labour leadership, far from opposing these interests, acted as their most effective defenders, enjoying the full support of the ruling class for every major foreign policy step.
The chapter draws on historical precedent, noting that even Ramsay MacDonald, who in 1923 promised to purge the Foreign Office of “subversive agents,” became the “easiest Foreign Secretary they had ever had to manage.” Ernest Bevin, the Labour Foreign Secretary, openly boasted of preserving the continuity of British foreign policy, earning Churchill’s admiration as “the working man’s John Bull.” The chapter argues that the problem is not the personal characteristics of ministers like Bevin; demanding “Bevin must go” is insufficient. The basis of Labour’s foreign policy lies in the continued dominance of finance capital, which demands the protection of its foreign interests.
The chapter analyses the so-called ‘revolt’ of Labour MPs against the government’s foreign policy, which it characterises as confused and abortive. The revolt collapsed ingloriously when the rebels abstained on their own amendment to the King’s Speech, lacking the courage to vote against the government. The opposition was a mixed bag of Zionists, anti-Zionists, Catholics, pacifists, supporters of a Western Bloc, those seeking a ‘middle-way’ between American imperialism and Stalinism, and faithful exponents of Stalinist foreign policy. No clear left-wing tendency crystallised. The rebels’ general theme—that the government had done well at home but failed abroad—is polemically rejected. The chapter insists that no real alternative to Bevin’s foreign policy can be formulated without recognising that domestic and foreign policy are interlinked, one the continuation of the other. A socialist foreign policy demands the smashing of the power of the trusts and banks at home, whose strategic, military, and profit-making interests drive the actions of the Foreign Office and military forces abroad.