[OPE-L:8469] Re: Socialism and War

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