28.03.2002

Imperialist war - no. Class war - yes

Capitalism and war are inseparably linked, says Ian Mahoney

Peace under this system is nothing more than a pause between bloodletting. Unless the working class and popular masses of the planet put the struggle against capitalism itself at the core of the fight for peace, we are doomed to a cycle of one conflict after another. Perhaps culminating in the destruction of our species and the very planet that sustains it. This is the stark truth that any popular movement must face up to, as it mobilises against the Bush administration's ratcheting up of tension against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This is why communists and revolutionary socialists must have a programme that goes beyond simply opposing the next war, or against the latest technical innovation in barbaric weapons of mass destruction. If the source of war in the contemporary world is the profit system, then the fight for peace is a fight against capital. From the end of World War II, the danger of war was almost exclusively generated by the geo-political rivalry of the two superpower representatives of competing social systems: the USA and the Soviet Union. When smaller, regional conflicts came along, they were often portrayed as little more than 'proxy' duels in the context of our bipolar world. The collapse of the USSR and the system of bureaucratic socialism it embodied exposed this idea as myth. We are now in a unipolar world, dominated by the world's only remaining superpower - the USA. Yet it is clear that the world today is a more dangerous place than in the days of the cold war, when international relations were frozen by the 'balance of terror' between east and west. Clearly, in the aftermath of September 11, the US has been presented with an opportunity to finish pummelling the new world order into a shape more conducive to its strategic interests. It failed to do this in the aftermath of the original assault on Iraq in 1991: on the back of its success in Afghanistan, it seems determined to finish the job this time around. In contrast to most of its military engagements since the fall of the USSR and the eastern bloc, it now appears to be prepared to act unilaterally. But is the United States really just about to lead a full-scale attack on Iraq? It is hard to say. Clearly, the tough rhetoric of the Bush administration is backed up with real military preparations. Central command has relocated its service HQ to the Gulf; special forces have set up a base in Oman and moved into Kurdish-run areas of Iraq itself and - significantly - the US air force is reported to be moving its base of operations from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, supposedly to bypass Saudi objections to military strikes against Iraq. Will the US really act alone? It is a question it will have to confront as tensions with Iraq are successively ratcheted up. The fragile alliance the Americans succeeded in piecing together to prosecute the successful war in Afghanistan certainly would not hold for military action against Baghdad. Many Middle Eastern regimes are extremely fragile, threatened as they are by a huge array of opposition movements - from islamic fundamentalists to national minorities, from democratic secularists to military adventures. Moreover given the reasons America has cited for targeting Iraq - its development of weapons of mass destruction and its despotic regime - many heads of state may be justified in wondering whether they might be next on the US's hit list. Unilateral American action could see the whole region ignite. European powers are very wary. Neither Germany nor France favour an attack. Only Blair's Britain and Berlusconi's Italy have indicated any degree of enthusiasm. However in Italy the majority of the population oppose war against Iraq. In Britain Blair faces a parliamentary schism. Some 120 Labour backbenchers have already signed an early day motion expressing concern at the bellicose clamourings coming out of Washington and, at a cabinet level, Clare Short has openly voiced dissent. For all of Blair's posturing, he must take note of domestic political concerns for the sake of his political survival. Opinion polls indicate that - in contrast to sentiments in the aftermath of the September 11 atrocities - a majority are against military action. Whether the war to overthrow Saddam Hussain happens in 2002, 2003 or not at all, there are clear lessons here. First, that pleading against the irrationality of war is useless. Yes, we can usefully highlight the obscene waste of resources represented by military spending - the US's gargantuan levels of 'defence' expenditure are unprecedented. We can contrast this massive waste of resources to ways that socially useful spending - on health, education, medical research or culture - is starved. But we have to be wary of this approach. By implication, it suggests the problem is one of resource allocation under capitalism - that with a little more foresight and goodwill, the imperialists could run the world more sanely and make everyone a little more comfortable. Capitalism as a system engenders war, not this or that set of politicians. To kill war, we have to target capitalism. This does not mean that we cannot mobilise on specific questions, or demand specific restrictions on the war plans of the imperialists. But it does mean if that is all we do we will be fighting for peace forever - or at least until a cataclysmic world war renders the question irrelevant. From this flows our attitude to calls for imperialism to disarm itself - or 'Don't start wars', as the CND's central slogan for the March 30 demonstration advises world capitalism. As if this bloody system were led by children who could be told off with a finger-wagging lecture delivered in a firm tone. Pacifism cannot hope to disarm capitalism; it can disarm us, however - the potential gravediggers of this warlike system. Lastly, the demand for peace is a key democratic question. It affects all classes, but the struggle for it can only be effectively led by the working class as part of its programme for revolution and socialism. Yet our movement has systematically underplayed the centrality of democratic questions. The results of this weakness are manifest when we look at the leadership of the peace movement. In effect, the vacuum is filled by pacifists, liberals and petty bourgeois moralists. Imperialism recognises the importance of seizing the banner of 'liberty' and 'democracy' - as sickeningly hypocritical as that is. Its war against the Taliban regime - actually a monstrous creation of imperialism in its way - was lauded as one "for democracy"�. Ditto its potential war with Iraq. The left, while rejecting imperialism's lies should not fall into the trap of rejecting the fight for democracy itself, just because temporarily the capitalists claim it as their own. Yes, we were for the overthrow of the Taliban. Yes, we want to see the end of the barbaric regime of Saddam. But we are for the independent mass mobilisation of the working people of these countries to achieve this. Imperialism played a key role imposing these political horrors on the working people of these areas in the first place. There must be no trust placed in its ability now to deliver democracy to them. Ian Mahoney