From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Sat Feb 15 2003 - 16:01:24 EST
Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>: > 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? > I have just got back from the peace demonstration in Glasgow, quite the largest I have seen - probably of the order of 50,000 people which is a lot for a city with a population of less than a million. Tv is reporting figures of between 1 and 2 million people on the London demonstration. I can commend the indian web site that Jerry provided a link to. I think their analysis was very good. > 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