From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 22:01:21 EST
The Marxists Internet Archive just published online "Socialism and War" by Duncan Hallas. Would others not agree that this is a good time for us to discuss Marxian political-economic perspectives on War? Perhaps if you reacted to the Hallas article, we could get such a discussion started? Solidarity, Jerry > ----------------------------------------- > > Socialism and War > Duncan Hallas > > (1982) > > We are not pacifists, we detest the Galtieri dictatorship, we dismiss the notion > that the Argentinian seizure of the Falklands is progressive on anti-colonialist > grounds. Nevertheless we believe that, in a war between Britain and Argentina, > the defeat of British imperialism is the lesser evil. The main enemy is at home. > > None of these statements, perhaps, is so self evidently true as to pass by mere > assertion. Let us therefore return to basics. What are the criteria by which > socialists determine their attitude to war in general and to a given war? An > excellent starting point is the opening passage of Lenin's Socialism and War > written amidst the slaughter of 1915: > > "Socialists have always condemned wars between nations as barbarous and brutal. > Our attitude towards war, however, is fundamentally different to that of the > bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the anarchists. > We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection > between wars and the class struggle within a country: we understand that wars > cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is created; we > also differ in that we regard civil wars, i.e. wars waged by an oppressed class > against the oppressor class, by slaves against slave-holders, by serfs against > landlords and by wage workers against the bourgeoisie, as fully legitimate, > progressive and necessary. We Marxists differ from both pacifists and anarchists > in tat we deem it necessary to study each war historically (from the standpoint > of Marx's historical materialism) and separately." > > War is always "barbarous and brutal", often horribly so. Think of the bombing, > the napalm, the defoliation, the atrocities perpetrated by US forces in Vietnam > or by the Khmer Rouge. War is always an evil and it generates other evils too. > Therefore, goes the "anti-war in principle" argument, it should be rejected > regardless of circumstances. No more war. > > There is a healthy and progressive strand in this attitude and it is often > connected with a rudimentary kind of class consciousness. "It's a rich man's war > but a poor man's fight," went the slogan of the opponents of conscription in the > American Civil War. > > I remember seeing, in an ordinary commercial cinema in Manchester a year or two > after the end of the Second World War, a showing of the classic anti-war film > All Quiet on the Western Front. At the point where one German soldier says to > another, "We should make the generals and politicians fight it out with clubs," > the audience, a fair number of whom must have been ex-soldiers, burst into loud > and spontaneous applause. > > That was a good spirit, a thousand times better than the patriotic flag waving > of the Labour Party leaders then and now. > > But by itself it will not do. Marx and Engels and their followers supported the > North in the American Civil War. Some of them, mostly German exiles, fought > voluntarily for the Union. And they were right. For in spite of the horrors, the > slaughter, the mutilations, frauds and the fortunes made out of war > profiteering, the war for the destruction of slavery was a just and progressive one. > > The judgement is political, which brings us to Clausewitz's classic definitions: > > "The war of a community - of whole nations and particularly of civilised nations > - always starts from a political condition and is called forth by a political > motive. It is, therefore, a political act ... War is not merely a political act, > but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a > carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly > peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses." > > The peculiarity of the means is stated by Clausewitz with his characteristic > brutal clarity and total lack of hypocrisy: > > "ar is therefore an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil > our will." > > All of which is incontestably true and fundamentally important. One thing > follows immediately. For revolution is precisely "an act of violence intended to > compel our opponent to fufil our will". It is much more than that of course, but > it is that or it is nothing. > > But we cannot stop there. Since, in any class society, the ruling classes > invariably resort to force to defend their rule-the rejection in principle of > the use of force for political ends (not always, not usually, but in appropriate > circumstances) is tantamount to abandoning the snuggle for fundamental social > change, for a classless society, for socialism. > > Further, because wars cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and > socialism is established, the anti-war "in principle" position, if widely > adopted by workers, guarantees the inevitability of future wars. The pacifist > position, notwithstanding its humane impulses, is deeply conservative. That is > why we are not pacifists. > > But nuclear war, the threat of the nuclear holocaust, does that not alter the > position entirely? It alters it certainly, but it does not change the underlying > realities. There have been 100 or so wars since the United States Air Force > dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all non-nuclear (although some > only just). > > Nuclear war between the superpowers has not happened because it is not in the > interests, rationally considered, of either of their ruling classes. That is not > to say that it cannot happen, merely to say that the holocaust, an ever present > danger, cannot be avoided by burying one's head in the pacifist sand. It can > only be avoided, in the end, by striking the nuclear weapons out of the hands of > the ruling classes - by revolution. > > From these most serious and weighty matters we turn to an affair that would be > farcical if it were not so squalid and potentially dangerous - the Falklands (or > Malvinas, if you prefer) crisis. > > Back in the 1730s a certain Captain Jenkins, a smuggler and a pirate according > to the Spanish authorities who then ruled much of South America, a peaceful and > eminently respectable merchant skipper according to his friends, was arrested by > the Spanish Guardia Costa and had his left ear lopped off in the scuffle. The > then equivalent of the Daily Mail and the Tory backbenches went into paroxysms > of hysterical rage. > > The outcome, the "War of Jenkins' Ear", had about as much to do with the matter > as the "right to self determination" of the Falkland Islanders has today. It was > a transparent pretext. What was at issue was the slave trade, a highly > profitable business in which British slavers came out on top through various wars. > > There is, however, a difference. There was then a serious issue in dispute > between the two ruling classes. The British bourgeoisie was determined to break > into the South American markets and the rulers of Spanish America in Madrid were > equally determined to keep them out. > > In the "War of Jenkins' Ear", Jenkins was simply an excuse. Had he never been > born, the outcome would have been the same, give or take a year or two. But now > the excuse has become the reason. What we have now is the war, if it develops > into a war, of Thatcher's face (in the Chinese sense) and of Galtieri's face too. > > There is no longer a rational, if predatory, cause of dispute. The Falklands axe > of no great significance. Pure prestige and internal politics are the driving > force on both sides. > > True, there is talk of oil; but whether it exists or not is neither here nor > there. After all, Thatcher's government is busy trying to "privatise" the > British National Oil Corporation, foreign oil companies hold a good deal of the > North Sea and foreign multinationals operate freely in Galtieri's Argentina. > > The claim on the British side that Thatcher is motivated by concern for the > people of the islands, that "the interests of the Falkland Islanders must be > paramount", is a masterpiece of impudent hypocrisy. > > Under British rule, the inhabitants of the Falklands have never even been > allowed a freely elected local government with the powers of a town council, let > alone "self determination". Many of them are not even allowed security of tenure > of their houses but are forced to accept the tied cottage system operated by the > British Falklands Company which owns most of the useful grazing land. No serious > consideration to the interests of the Falklanders had been given by any British > government until the Argentinian invasion. Moreover, both Thatcher's government > and Callaghan's before it have had secret negotiations with successive > Argentinian governments about the future of the islands without any reference > tcV the inhabitants, let alone the referendum now bruited about. > > In any case, the self determination argument is spurious to the core. A > declining population of less than would make a respectable turnout at a fourth > division football match on an off day, and lacking any social, ethnic, > linguistic, cultural or historical features of its own, cannot be seriously > regarded as a "national" entity. A far more plausible case could be made for > national self determination for the Western Isles or the Isle of Man. And these > more plausible cases would also be absurd and reactionary. For, as Lenin wrote: > > "If we want to understand the meaning of self determination of nations without > juggling with legal definitions, without inventing' abstract definitions, but > examining the historical and economic conditions of the national movements, we > shall inevitably reach the conclusion that self determination of nations means > the political separation of these nations from other national bodies, the > formation of an independent national state." > > In the present case there is neither a national movement nor any possibility of > a national state. The self determination argument is a fraud perpetrated to put > a "democratic" gloss on support for Thatcher's military adventure. > > So far as the Falklands are concerned that is all that there is to be said but, > to avoid misunderstanding, it is as well to point out that, in any case, we do > not unconditionally support the right of self determination. We do not, for > example, concede it to the Ulster Protestants, although they are indisputably a > historically formed self conscious group with quasi-national characteristics. We > reject the two nations theory for Ireland and we do so because its effect is > plainly reactionary and not at all on the basis of legalistic quibbling about > whether or not the Protestants do or do not have this or that "national" > characteristic. > > The "anti-colonialist" pretensions of the Argentinian dictatorship are not much > better than the fraud of self determination. True, Argentina has some sort of > more or less plausible claim to the Falklands on historical and geographical > grounds and, certainly, the islands are a British colony. But these are legal > forms and abstract claims. > > We support anti-colonial movements as movements of struggle by oppressed people > against their oppressors and we support them because, as Marx said, "no nation > can be free if it oppresses other nations." > > None of this has much relevance to the Falklands. There is no Spanish speaking > population struggling against British imperialism. For Galtieri, > "anti-colonialism" is a convenient pretext to divert Argentinian workers away > from their struggle against the dictatorship. The timing of the Argentinian > invasion was no doubt influenced by the rising tide of demonstrations and > strikes in Argentina. "National unity" in support of a foreign quarrel is > Galtieri's aim as well as Thatcher's and "national unity" means the > subordinating of the workers to the bosses. > > We are irreconcilably hostile to both governments and both regimes. But we are > in Britain and not Argentina and therefore the British government, the British > state, is the main enemy for us. > > The Labour Party leaders, and even some Tories who enthusiastically supported > the Pinochet coup in Chile, have discovered that the Argentinian regime is > fascist. That, of course, changes everything! Strictly speaking, the Argentinian > dictatorship is not real fascism but let that pass. Also leave aside the Tories. > It is the "left wing" variant of this argument that matters. In essence, it is a > very old one. > > In 1907 the Second International meeting in Stuttgart adopted the famous > resolution on war which states: > > "The Congress confirms the resolutions of previous International Congresses > against militarism and imperialism and declares anew that the fight against > militarism cannot be separated from the socialist class war as a whole. > > Wars between capitalist states are as a rule the result of their rivalry for > world markets... Further, these wars arise out of the never-ending armament race > of militarism, which is one of the chief implements of bourgeois class rule and > of the economic and political enslavement of the working classes. > > Wars are encouraged by the prejudices of one nation against another, > systematically purveyed among the civilised nations in the interests of the > ruling classes, so as to divert the mass of the proletariat from the tasks of > its own class, as well as from the duty of international class solidarity. > > Wars are therefore inherent in the nature of capitalism. They will only cease > when the capitalist economy is abolished ... > > In the case of a threat of an outbreak of war, it is the duty of the working > classes and their parliamentary representatives in the countries taking part, > fortified by the unifying activity of the International Bureau, to do everything > to prevent the outbreak of war by whatever means seems to them most effective, > which naturally differ with the intensification of the class war and of the > general political situation. > > Should war break out in spite of all this, it is their duty to intervene for its > speedy end, and to strive with all their power to make use of the violent > economic and political crisis brought about by the war to rouse the people, and > thereby to hasten the abolition of capitalist class rule." > > Five years later, at the Basle International Congress, this was unanimously > reaffirmed, the British Labour Party delegates voting with the rest. > > Two years after that, in 1914, the majority of the Labour and Social Democratic > leaders in nearly all the warring states swallowed their words, abandoned the > class struggle in favour of national unity' and supported their "own" governments. > > How did they justify this? Why, by pointing to the evils of the enemy regimes, > of course. > > The German Social Democratic majority, the most apposite comparison for our > purpose, pointed to Russia. The tsar rules over the "prison house of peoples", > they said. "He has most bloodily suppressed the movements of Russian workers and > peasants in 1905-07. His is the most brutal, backward and vicious state in > Europe, the bulwark of European reaction for over 100 years." > > Of course all this was perfectly true. Tsarist Russia was every bit as vile, > vicious and reactionary as Galtieri's Argentina and a great deal more powerful. > Moreover it had a long common frontier with Germany and the tsar's armies were > actually invading ethnic German territory in East Prussia. > > What did Liebknecht and Luxemburg and Mehring and Zetkin say in reply? They > said, "You are scoundrels, you are traitors. You have betrayed the German > workers' movement and the international workers' movement. Tsarism today is no > different to what it was in 1907 and 1912 when you promised to oppose war. The > war, for Germany, is a 'real political instrument' of the German bourgeoisie. > You have deserted to the enemy and this desertion will not stop at temporary > support for the war" - as was indeed proved in 1918-19 when these same pro-war > "socialists" organised troops to shoot down German workers. > > In Liebknecht's immortal words, "The main enemy is at home." Not the only enemy > of course. "The tsar is an enemy but support for the Kaiser actually weakens > Russian workers' opposition to the tsar and since the struggle against > militarism cannot be separated from the socialist class war as a whole", support > for our "own" government strengthens reaction everywhere. > > Lenin and Trotsky and Rosmer and Connolly and MacLean and Debs all said, with > appropriate national variations, exactly the same thing. All opposed their "own" > government and its war. And they were absolutely right. Support for "one's own" > ruling class in such a war is tantamount to abandoning the struggle for > socialism. For their war is a continuation of their politics by other means. And > so, exactly, with the War of Thatcher's Face. > > One good thing, at any rate, has come out of the Falklands crisis. The reaction > of the Labour Party leaders has proved decisively, conclusively and irrefutably > that the illusions of so many left wingers that there has been, since 1979, a > real swing to the left by the Labour Party have as much substance as fairy gold. > > Michael Foot, wrapping himself in the Union jack, and righteously denouncing the > government's neglect of British interests (and outdoing Denis Healey in the > process!) is one thing. The support and applause he got from the overwhelming > majority of Labour MPs are quite another. Not just the right but most of the > left MPs enthusiastically cheered him on. They collapsed into jingoism at the > first test. It did not take the courage of a Liebknecht or a MacLean to speak > out against the Falklands expedition. Merely a modicum of principle and > backbone. That, in the vast majority of cases, was more than the left MPs could > muster. What really matters is the spectacular demonstration of the lack of > elementary class hatred, the indispensable gut reaction against militarism and > war, on the Labour benches. > > Can any sane person now believe that this crew, even if reinforced by > reselection and conference resolutions, could stand up to the bourgeoisie in a > real crisis where bourgeois interests are at stake? If you can t stand out, > loud, clear, firm and, from the beginning, against a comic opera war in the > South Atlantic, you will never resist the immeasurably greater pressures of the > boss class against any attempt to impose economic policies they don't want, let > alone achieve socialism. > > Nor can too much be said in favour of Benn and the handful of others (including > that unreconstructed right winger, Tam Dalyell) who did not back Thatcher. > > Benn's position is basically, "Let the United Nations settle it." The UN is a > club of governments. We know some of them: Thatcher's and Galtieri's, Reagan's > and Brezhnev's and so on, enemies of their own and every other working class. > Benn's position, in fact, is not very different from such important organs of > bourgeois opinion as the Financial Times and the Guardian. It may well gain him > some credit, especially if the expedition proves a failure, but there is not a > spark of socialist internationalism in it. > > As to the Labour leaders as a whole, left, right and centre, we have been > fortunate to have a foretaste of their conduct in any future Labour government - > cowardly, mean, chauvinist, grovelling before the ruling class. > > http://marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1982/05/socwar.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 16 2003 - 00:00:01 EST