guns, whose calibre was continually being enlarged; that coal should be mined for war purposes alone; that metals, textiles, hides, everything, should be employed in war service. Naturally, therefore, the greatest hope of victory was for whichever of the State capitalist trusts could best harness production and transport to the chariot of war.
How was this to be achieved? Manifestly, the only way in which it could be achieved was by the complete centralisation of production. It would be necessary to arrange things in such a way that production would go on smoothly; that it would be well organised; that it would be entirely under the control of the fighters, that is to say of the general staff; that all the orders of those wearing epaulets and stars would be punctually carried out.
How could the bourgeoisie do this? The matter was quite simple. To that end it was necessary that the bourgeoisie should place private production, privately owned trusts and syndicates, at the disposal of the capitalist robber State. This is what they did for the duration of the war. Industry was “mobilised” and “militarised,” that is to say it was placed under the orders of the State and of the military authorities. “But how?” some of our readers will ask. “In that way the bourgeoisie would surely forfeit its income? That would be nationalisation! When everything has been handed over to the State, where will the bourgeoisie come in, and how will the capitalists reconcile themselves to such a condition of affairs?” It is an actual fact that the bourgeoisie agreed to the arrangement. But there is nothing very remarkable in that, for the privately owned syndicates and trusts were not handed over to the workers’ State, but to the imperialist State, the State which belonged to the bourgeoisie. Was there anything to alarm the bourgeoisie in such a prospect? The capitalists simply transferred their possessions from one pocket to another; the possessions remained as large as ever.
We must never forget