midable.
has nuclear weapons. it owns the second most powerful imperialist navy in the world, and continues to spend a higher proportion of economy on expenditure than any other except United States (See Table NATO OF THE PROPORTION OF ALLOCATED TO MILITARY EXPEN(December 1980)
3ritain Nest Germany (Source Joyce War Machine lamlyn, London 1981 p30 These figures however is indeed one of the more absurd myths DELSE reformism that Britain is somehow peaceloving nation. On . contrary Britain is historically the most heavily armed and of all capitalist states. I nat it was primarily a naval, and only intermitently military power should not be allowed to obscure this On the COLLECEY military historically the cutting edge of British capitalism.
Socialist Challenge 7 January 1983 that despite its historical decline, British imperialism is very far from being a spent force on a world scale. Its military capacity remains forUntil well into the latter part or tne cigniccaun century no non-military remotely compare in size LIC naval dockyards. The technological level military naval forces which already by the beginning eighteenth century could wars made Napoleon's Great's mies as the primitive instruments ther indeed were in comBaLSULE Similarly right up the First World War the power navy' that is a capable or waging simultaneous war with the largest naval LICAL LWO powers combined - - GETT mined the essential military deployment, geographical expansion, priorities of the After the First World War such considerations lion of the Mediteranean, maintaining dominaand with it control of the sea routes to India, determined much foreign policy.
tempt to achieve control of the oil of the Arab east, for the nature of the British economy, was technology of the period. part, given the cane achieve fuel supplies for War period it can indeed se As regards the argued that was the military dominance OI considerations which determined the scope of the economy although the economic forces were the imperialist system which the military apparatus was constructed to defend.
The mechanism of this was Ine Tamous stop-co deflationary cycle, diethe Balance of Payments 'crisis which prevented ally sustained growth domestic COOLLULLY What is not generally realised however is that never any Balance of Payments proDICENS regards private sector the Only periods in its history has British capitalism suffered balance OI payments deficit in its private sector once invisible earnings are taken into account. These were 46401931-38.
Even In this latter period however British imperialism was general able to extract sufficient tribute to finance its state sector outlays. mala loI privilege being ministered Britain. During the period of the BON-WET 'Stop-Go' cycle British capitalism achieved almost concuuous private sector balance of payments surpluses the end ot be taken the end post-war reconstruction, until 1969, after which a policy was inaugurated by Heath, only twice was there a balance of payments deficit in the private sector. Sums These were the relative ly small sums of £77m in deed ander accumulated accumulated surplus in this period, after deducting capital account outflows for foreign investment, was £6,600m.
balance of payments crises were in tact wholly and solely ac penditure state which was centred on its military apparatus. The dominance of these military considerations can be most readily seen by making a comparison to other imperialist states.
As late as 1963 British military commitments abroad included 60,000 people in Singapore and Hong-Kong, 20,000 in the Mediterranean, and 7,000 in the Persian gulf in addition to the Rhine army. Overseas expenditure accounted for approximately half of the military budget at that time of £2,000m.
Amart from the United States, and after the forced French withdrawals fron Indochina and other imperialist possessec anything like such an international military apparatus.
consequences of this balance of payments, and therefore for the domestic economy were clear. In 1966 Japa and West Germany had surpluses on state international expenditure $315m and $339m respectively. France has an insignificant defecit of Sim deficit of $1288m largely accounted for by the military commitments already noted The States with a far wider internapresence and at that time heavily engaged in the war in Viet nam, had an international deficit expenditure of $6,385m.
In order to judge the relative weights of this international military spending however the respective size of the economies must be considered. The US economy in 1966 was seven times une size or the British but its state foreign CAOCHIUILUEC CONCI five times the size. In shor until the late 1960s government
Reprinted - - slightly edited -vador news bulletin no ESSC Park Street, London N1, tel 01-359 2270 January 29 Islingtor
----- pull-quotes -----
for the