First published in 1979. The report of the Labour Party Defence Study Group, which met from early 1975 to mid-1977, represents a unique attempt to portray defence policy in the context of disarmament and the need to restructure and control the institutions of defence – in particular the defence industry. The report presented the fullest study made by any British political party concerning the implications and consequences of its stated defence policy, and embodied an examination of defence from the perspective of approaches of disarmament. At the same time, the search for a new policy in international relations was harmonised with the further development of a new industrial strategy, concentrating upon the potential for converting part of military industry to civil work. This work which presents a distinctive intervention in the general debate concerning defence policy, industrial and technological planning, economic priorities and public policy, will be of considerable relevance to both specialists in each of these fields as well as the general reader.
Forty years before COVID-19, socialists in Britain campaigned for workers to have the right to make ‘socially useful’ products, from hospital equipment to sustain the NHS to affordable heating systems for the impoverished elderly. This movement held one thing responsible above all else for the nation’s problems: the burden of defence spending. In the middle of the Cold War, the left put a direct challenge to the defence industry, the Labour government and trade unions. The response it received revealed much about a military-industrial state that prioritised the making and exporting of arms for political favour and profit. Looking at peace activism from the early 1970s to Labour’s landslide defeat in the 1983 general election, this book examines the conflict over the cost of Britain’s commitment to the Cold War and asserts that the wider left presented a comprehensive and implementable alternative to the stark choice between making weapons and joining the dole queue.
The author notes in the preface that an opportunity for significant cuts in nuclear and conventional forces by major global powers has appeared. Presenting the evidence that the West can cope successfully with disarmament, he identifies policies which need to be adopted for that end.
This book, first published in 1980, is a close analysis of Britain’s defence policy in the latter years of the Cold War. It examines the factors that limited the choices available to the governments of the day, including technological advances, costs, changes in the balance of power, strategic thinking in both West and East, and the consequent implications for the development of forces and arms.
This collection brings together empirical and analytical studies of the nature and evolution of Soviet-British relations during the 1980s and looks forward to the 1990s. The relationship is firmly placed within the wider context of Soviet policy toward the West and NATO. The contributors examine mutual perceptions and policy perspectives; Soviet interests and objectives in dealing with Britain; and the role of economic, political, diplomatic, nongovernmental and security factors in determining policy outcomes. A concluding section evaluates the long-term significance of current and potential policy developments on both sides. Soviet-British Relations is the first volume to be produced by the Soviet foreign policy study group at Chatham House, and is published in association with The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Is the arms trade totally uncontrolled? What are the main obstacles to limitations on arms transfers? What can be learned from past attempts at arms transfer control? This book, which completes SIPRI's trilogy on the facts and implications of Third World build-up of major conventional weapons, assesses past efforts, current proposals and future possibilities to limit the transfer of weapons and military technology to Third World countries. It is a companion to the two SIPRI volumes, Arms Production in the Third World (1986) and Arms Transfers to the Third World 1971-85 (OUP, 1987)
Socialism is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The socialist idea dominates the modem spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Socialism.” As yet, it is true, Socialism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a gradual realization of Socialism.17 In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigour and tenacity. Some nations have sought to achieve Socialism, in its fullest sense, at a single stroke. Before our eyes Russian Bolshevism has already accomplished something which, whatever we believe to be its significance, must by the very magnitude of its design be regarded as one of the most remarkable achievements known to world history. Elsewhere no one has yet achieved so much. But with other peoples only the inner contradictions of Socialism itself and the fact that it cannot be completely realized have frustrated socialist triumph. They also have gone as far as they could under the given circumstances. Opposition in principle to Socialism there is none. Today no influential party would dare openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word “Capitalism” expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil. Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas. In seeking to combat Socialism from the standpoint of their special class interest these opponents—the parties which particularly call themselves “bourgeois” or “peasant”—admit indirectly the validity of all the essentials of socialist thought. For if it is only possible to argue against the socialist programme that it endangers the particular interests of one part of humanity, one has really affirmed Socialism. If one complains that the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not sufficiently consider the interests of the community, that it serves only the purposes of single strata, and that it limits productivity; and if therefore one demands with the supporters of the various “social-political” and “social-reform” movements, state interference in all fields of economic life, then one has fundamentally accepted the principle of the socialist programme. Or again, if one can only argue against socialism that the imperfections of human nature make its realization impossible, or that it is inexpedient under existing economic conditions to proceed at once to socialization, then one merely confesses that one has capitulated to socialist ideas. The nationalist, too, affirms socialism, and objects only to its Internationalism. He wishes to combine Socialism with the ideas of Imperialism and the struggle against foreign nations. He is a national, not an international socialist; but he, also, approves of the essential principles of Socialism.
