International Socialist: War and Peace

[Editorial, The International Socialist. A Journal of Labour Opinion, Vol. 1, no. 6 Sept.-Oct. 1953, p. 2-6]

Far more than at any other period in history the problem of war and of peace, looms large in the thinking of all sections of mass opinion, particularly the Labour Movement. Never in history in “peace” time even in the armistice period between 1918 and 1939, has such a burden of militarism been imposed on the peoples of the world, particularly the great powers. Even the disturbed period between the wars seems a haven of peace in comparison with international relationships at the present time. In the past nearly every armaments race, in itself a reflection of the mounting contradictions between the powers has ended in Armageddon, but never have world antagonisms been so great as to-day, with the world divided into two hostile and irreconcilable social systems.

New and fantastic weapons of destruction are announced every few weeks to an already frightened world. The atom bomb has become almost antiquated with the appearance of the many times more powerful hydrogen bomb. New chemical and biological weapons of war each more fearsome than the last are announced every now and then in the press. New rocket devices, and other mechanical means of destruction are regularly reported.

All this in an atmosphere charged with antagonism and hatred, of two mortally opposed systems. Every few months incidents take place which in the heyday of capitalism imperialism in the 19th century would have been taken as a casus belli.

Marxist theoreticians in the 1920’s had described this as the epoch of wars and revolutions. The two world wars and the disturbed period of revolutions and counter revolutions are graphic expressions of the truth of this analysis. They further pointed out that in this epoch where the forces of production have outgrown both the national state and private ownership, capitalism was driven to war by its contradictions, by the deadly struggle for markets, sources of raw material and spheres for the investment of capital. Consequently there is a tendency, within the Labour movement, mechanically, to quote indubitable facts in favour of the idea that we are on the eve of world war. And apparently there is no lack of material to support this view. But merely to repeat correct basic ideas is not enough. All the factors must be taken into account, or Marxism would merely mean the repetition of a few propaganda truisms and would not be the profound and scientific doctrine by means of which can be studied concrete reality at every given stage of its development.

The diplomacy of power politics, Trotsky once remarked was a game of blind man’s buff with all the participants blindfolded and armed with revolvers. Pseudo-Marxists of various schools imagine that the problem of war and peace is a simple one. In reality under modern conditions with the developments of the last five decades it is exceedingly complex. The idea which they sedulously propagate— that immediate world war is the aim of the American and western imperialists, is as stupid as the idea sedulously disseminated by reformists and liberals, that the Stalinist bureaucracy is bent on world conquest by military means.

In reality this is a game of bluff, double bluff, on both sides of the iron curtain. It is not a question of humanitarianism on either side but a question of the world relationship of forces. A war now would mean the conquest of all Europe, and all Asia, on the mainland, in a matter of months, if not weeks, by the forces of the Red Army, allied with the forces of revolution. A world war would be a war between the Eurasian continent versus the American continent with Japan and Britain as island bases and aircraft carriers. It would be impossible for either side to gain a decisive military victory in a war which would be stalemated in the first year and might from a purely military point of view stretch over decades.

The Stalinist bureaucracy is afraid of the proletariat of Western Europe and its inevitable disillusionment under the Stalinist heel. Its totalitarian regime would have no power of attraction for the American workers either in uniform or in industry. Thus from a Stalinist point of view a world war would be one of indefinite duration, with the possibility of revolt not only in Paris, Berlin and Rome, but in Moscow as well.

Total War – Total Destruction

On the other hand world war for American imperialism and above all for its Western European allies offers an equally dismal prospect. For the Western European capitalists it would mean physical extermination, for probably the majority with the occupation by the Red Army, and the destruction of the capitalist regime that would follow. Even in the problematic event of “victory”, it would mean the return to an American “liberated” continent which had been reduced to the rubble of Korea. Those alleged Marxists who have declared that there is only one imperialism left in the world, to which the Anglo-European satellites are docile tools have forgotten their political A.B.C.’s. The idea, for that is what it amounts to, that the capitalists of western Europe and Britain, will gladly give up their power, property and even their lives on the altar of an abstract and ideal love of capitalism, for the benefit of their American overlords; is just a childish notion. In reality imperialism to-day is as, if not more, shot through with contradictions, than it has ever been.

The love of peace of British imperialism and the ‘peace monger” Churchill is dictated by just such considerations; the fear of the destruction of Britain and the complete collapse of her Empire in a third world war. Incidentally that is why the demagogy about Churchill the ‘‘war-monger’’, used by many of the Labour leaders, in the general election was so dangerous. Churchill is neither a war monger; nor a peace monger; but a coolly calculating and consummate representative of British capitalism-imperialism, who is for war or peace, at different times, according to the interests of his class at the given time.

Even to argue, however, that apart from a small clique of militarist maniacs, that even mighty American imperialism has the immediate perspective of world war is also a lifeless travesty of Marxism. America could not hope to be victorious in an endless war of attrition, against the Eurasian continent which world war would mean. In previous wars, America’s losses have been negligible and in fact she has emerged even stronger and more powerful than before.

But a third world war would be a different proposition. It would mean millions if not tens of millions of casualties; immense destruction for the first time in the American homeland. Inevitably it would cause tremendous social upheaval on the part of the American workers who would not stand for an endless total war. And even in the event of victory the prospect of establishing “law and order’ from Calais to Calcutta, from Paris to Peking, on a ruined Eurasian continent, would appal even the most belligerent of the intelligent representatives of Wall Street.

It is these considerations which stay the hand of imperialism on the one hand and the Stalinist bureaucrats on the other. As in the period 1918-1939 small wars and anti-imperialist struggles have been taking place since the end of hostilities. But the great powers have stopped short of the final conflict. Peace is the continuation of war by other means, and thus the cold war, is a war, waged by other means, than directly military struggle. The final issue of war or peace will be decided by the fate of the class struggle. German imperialism under the Nazis could allow herself the luxury of starting world war because the destruction of the workers’ organisations meant that their home front was temporarily secure from the danger of revolution. If the workers of western Europe, Britain and America should be defeated and reactionary and totalitarian regimes be set up, then the third world war would be on the order of the day.

It is true that Hitler launched the war in order to avoid the inevitable slump and socialist revolution which the collapse of German and world economy would have involved. That is why the frenzied rearmament of Germany had to end in the madman’s plunge. Consequently it is argued the present rearmament which dwarfs the Nazis endeavour of pre-war days and the frightful economic collapse of World capitalism surely would have the same result. Rather than slump and revolution America and her allies would choose to destroy the focus of discontent in the Nationalised property in Russia and her satellites.

Conditions for War

Such an analysis has not a trace of Marxist dialectics in it. The two world wars have had a sorry result for imperialism and capitalism. A third world war has even less rosy prospects. In a certain sense it is true that the rearmament of America and her allies is dictated by “defensive” reasons. Everywhere in Asia they are on the retreat and their Stalinist opponent has mightily strengthened and extended itself in Europe and Asia. Their rearmament is the threat of the cornered rat which turns if its enemy drives it too far. They hope to force Moscow to retreat. The Korean War was a lesson to both sides that the other will stand incursion so far and no further.

However in both camps they seek for signs of the break up of the power of the other by internal social and political upheavals. But total war on a world scale under modern conditions requires a whole series of circumstances before it can break out. Otherwise it is inexplicable why there can be any period of “peace” whatsoever in a period where antagonisms have been exacerbated all the time.

Under conditions of democracy it is very difficult to mobilise the workers for war unless a “moral” pretext can be furnished. Thus the issue of aggression and the danger of Fascism from the Nazis was used by Britain and America. It is well known that the American imperialists deliberately provoked the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour as a marvellous issue on which to intervene in the war. As Roosevelt declared privately it was worth 100 divisions. Stalinism obliged them in Korea. But the Stalinist bureaucracy are not insane enough to conduct direct aggression anywhere especially as they have nothing to gain by war, to oblige either the American imperialists (or these new tangled theoreticians of Marxism in order to render correct their mechanical theories).

The capitalists would make war if they dared and if the workers organisations were not there to threaten them with the consequences, but if all it required for war were the ill will of the capitalists and military chiefs it only remains to explain why they didn’t make war when Russia was at her weakest and they at their strongest after the collapse of Germany and Japan. Then, when America had the atom bomb and Russia did not possess it, and the cold war had already broken out. Later when they possessed the hydrogen bomb and Russia had not manufactured this awesome weapon. In reality all the years between the wars demonstrated, and post world war two once again emphasized, to attack a workers state however deformed is at best a risky and difficult proposition.

Great events and great defeats for the upsurge which is still undefeated of the social revolution in Europe and Asia would be necessary before imperialism could once again take to the road of world war.

But fortunately that is not the perspective of the present time. In the extended period that lies ahead slump is the immediate perspective, with the political crisis which that will engender in the west. The workers will have an opportunity to overthrow capitalism and instal a democratic socialist regime in Britain, America and western Europe. The penalty for failure will be terrible and as certain as the last two holocausts. The victory of reaction would bring in its train the gruesome truth that capitalism means war. In that sense the fate of civilisation depends on the fate of the Labour Movement.

Victory for the workers means peace and plenty for all. Victory for the capitalists means ruin and annihilation for mankind. In the extended period that lies ahead that must be the watchword for the advanced elements in the Labour Movement.


Kommentare

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert