The Thieves’ Kitchen¶
Core Argument¶
The Thieves’ Kitchen
This chapter presents a scathing Marxist analysis of the immediate post-war diplomatic landscape, specifically the Five Power Conference, which it characterises not as a forum for peace but as a "thieves’ kitchen" — a conclave of robbers squabbling over the spoils of war. The core argument is that the defeat of Germany and Japan has merely ended the first round of imperialist conflict; the second round, now underway, pits the victorious Allied powers against one another in a naked struggle for spheres of influence, economic domination, and strategic military bases. There is no pretence of a "brave new world" — only the raw continuation of capitalist rivalry.
The chapter makes several key claims. First, it asserts that Stalin’s bureaucracy has abandoned any vestige of Bolshevik internationalism, instead making territorial demands in the Mediterranean that would have horrified Lenin but pleased Tsar Peter. This is presented as a betrayal of the October Revolution’s banner, particularly in its treatment of oppressed colonial peoples. Second, it argues that all the major powers — the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union — are engaged in cynical horse-trading. Stalin will barter the Eritrean and Tripolitanian masses to British "tender care" in exchange for recognition of Russian domination of the Balkans. Bevin and Molotov trade moral indignation over each other’s spheres, while Byrnes manoeuvres between them. France and China are dismissed as "petty pick-pockets" seeking advantage by siding with bigger knaves. America’s professed commitment to freedom and independence is exposed as a sham: nominal independence for Italian colonies would merely mean economic subjugation by US capital.
The chapter draws on the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, predicting that the diplomatic and economic conflicts between the powers will inevitably lead to military war. It polemicises fiercely against the Stalinist bureaucracy, which it accuses of using peoples as pawns and besmirching the legacy of Lenin. It also attacks the liberal illusions that the defeat of fascism would usher in a peaceful, democratic world order. The only consistent voice, it claims, was that of the Fourth International, which alone predicted that capitalism’s survival would produce renewed inter-imperialist conflict. The sole road to peace, the chapter concludes, lies not in diplomacy but in the ruthless struggle against capitalism and the establishment of a socialist world.