Open markets¶
Core Argument¶
Here, the chapter dissects the immediate post-war economic subjugation of British imperialism by its American counterpart, framing the negotiations over Lend-Lease's replacement as a predatory shakedown. The core argument is that the “underlying motive” of all inter-capitalist deals is the ruthless imposition of American economic dominance. The text seizes on Representative Celler’s demand that Britain “open up her markets” in India and the sterling bloc as proof that American aid is never altruistic but always “at a price.” Churchill’s talk of “unsordid” acts is dismissed as “eye-wash.”
The chapter’s key claim is that Britain is structurally incapable of resisting a trade war with the US, because America can export cheaper goods due to superior technique and can extend credit on a scale British capital cannot match. This economic weakness forces the British ruling class to prepare a ferocious assault on working-class living standards. The press, including the “so-called Labour press,” is shown to be demanding “austerity and sacrifice,” with the Daily Mail explicitly warning of cuts to food, clothing, and petrol. The text argues that real wages will be slashed through disguised inflation, speed-ups, and maintained taxation, even if nominal wage cuts are politically impossible given the mood of the workers.
A notable polemic is directed against the Labour leadership, who are accused of capitulating to blackmail. The chapter quotes Captain Gammans, who hints that American aid depends on Attlee controlling his “extremists” and swallowing “extravagant election promises.” This is presented as intolerable. The text argues that America will make limited concessions, not from kindness, but from “fear of revolution in Britain.” However, this only prolongs the agony; the fundamental contradiction between increased productivity and mass purchasing power makes a trade war and a new slump worse than 1929-33 inevitable.
The chapter draws on a Leninist and Trotskyist analysis of interimperialist rivalry and capitalist crisis. It explicitly invokes the Bolshevik example: when Russian labour leaders capitulated to Wall Street and the City of London in 1917, the Bolsheviks made a “clean break,” seizing control without compensation. The argument is that even backward Russia achieved marvels on this basis, so Britain could achieve far more. The only way out is “working-class internationalism” and a socialist planned economy, not the “vicious circle of wage cuts, unemployment and then a new war” that capitalist “continuity of policy” guarantees. The chapter concludes with a direct call to action: demand the Labour leaders take action against the capitalists, not capitulate to them.