07.12.2006
Marxist position on war
Mary Godwin reports on the December 2-3 CPGB school on 'War and Revolution'
CPGB members, supporters and other comrades came together over the weekend of December 2-3 for a school on 'War and revolution'. Four sessions of debate on communist theory on war from the 1840s to the present covered, among other subjects, the development of Marx's and Engels's approach to war; Lenin's writings about World War I; putting revolutionary defeatism into practice; and the failure of the Stop the War Coalition in Britain. As always at CPGB meetings, a range of political views were heard respectfully, but debated sharply.
Comrade Mike Macnair opened the first debate, on 'Marx and war'. He based his speech on volume 5 of Hal Draper's Karl Marx's theory of revolution, also entitled 'War and revolution' (some of it written by Ernest Haberkern). This is a thinner book than the previous volumes in Draper's series, which might imply that Marx had less to say about war than about other subjects covered in the series. In fact this is only partially true. Draper, and even more so Haberkern, who completed the book after Draper's death, were selective about what they included to fit in with their own political agenda. For example, in the 19th century the European powers were expanding their empires through an almost unbroken series of brutal colonial wars, about which Marx and Engels wrote a lot. But these were not covered by Draper and Haberkern.
Comrade Macnair remarked that the historical materialism and political economy that featured in the work of Marx and Engels was not so prominent in their writings on war. This, he said, arose from a deficient understanding of the state, which they took from Hegel. This obscured the nature of states as war-making bodies. Marx and Engels produced valuable material on war, but its theoretical underpinning was weak, comrade Macnair concluded.
He also spoke about the way the manuscripts of Marx and Engels were held after Engels died by the right wing of the German SDP, which restricted the availability of some of their writings. The errors introduced by Lenin as a result of incomplete access to the ideas of Marx and Engels have reverberated down the decades, he declared.
Internationalism
Comrade Macnair gave a brief summary of the development of Marx and Engels's thought about war. In the 1840s they viewed wars against the background of the French Revolution of 1789: a conflict between 'the democracy' - an alliance of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat - and the feudal autocracy. They favoured Germany as embodying the former against Russia as representing the latter. Draper and Haberkern's book addresses the truth or otherwise of the claim that Marx and Engels supported anyone who could defeat Russia and come to the conclusion that they did defend Germany against Russia. But in reality, although Marx and Engels did welcome the defeat of Russia, they did not advocate support for any government opposing it.
Marx and Engels noted how war causes revanchism and therefore impedes working class internationalism. However, defeat of a given state may provoke a revolutionary situation. Later they started to discuss how the socialist movement could stop war by subverting the army. Engels advocated short-service conscription and weapons training for all schoolboys to enable the workers to win over the army and control the officers. He wanted to bring politics into the armed forces and urged the SDP to go outside the law. The SDP leadership recoiled from publishing these ideas.
Debate following the opening included a full discussion of the question of military conscription. Many comrades were dubious about Engels's suggestion, because of the way the army is used against the working class at home and abroad and the way the military instils nationalism into its recruits. One young comrade asked jokingly if Engels would suggest he should join the army when he leaves college. Comrade Phil Kent replied that if there was a conscript army in Britain now there would be mutinies and Britain would be out of Iraq. Comrade Macnair agreed, pointing out that the Americans moved to a professional army after the Vietnam war because the conscript army was so hard to control.
Comrade Peter Manson said communists should use the opportunities opened up by conscription but not call for it. Comrade Cameron Richards agreed about the need to work in a conscript army, but was opposed to the demand for the state to organise a militia: "I'm with the draft dodgers." Comrade Tina Becker said the CPGB needs a programme for the existing army and police: we should demand trade union rights for them. We also, separately, need our own workers' militia.
Defeatism
In the second session comrade Ben Lewis of Communist Students spoke about Lenin and World War I. He discussed the origin of the war, the effect it had on the world workers' movement, how the best members of the movement responded and what lessons we can learn from it. As early as 1907 there were signs of strain in the agreed position of the Second International to oppose all imperialist wars.
As is well known, in 1914 the differences in the International came to the surface and the social patriotic trends supported their own governments by voting for war credits, which Lenin called congealed opportunism. He argued for a split in the International, calling for a break from the right, the centre and those elements on the left who wanted to cling to unity with the opportunists.
Lenin argued that war was not a mere policy of capitalist states, but an inevitable outcome of the contradictions within capitalism. He expressed contempt for 'action conferences' with pacifistic policies, and said war can only be overcome by ending capitalism. He called for a new International which would challenge for state power and turn imperialist war into civil war.
Comrade Lewis spoke about Lenin's idea of revolutionary defeatism, and how it has been misunderstood by Lenin's own comrades, including Trotsky and Luxemburg, as well as later Marxists. Hal Draper, for example, in The myth of Lenin's 'revolutionary defeatism' (1954) claimed that revolutionary defeatism did not figure in the '21 conditions' but was reinvented by Zinoviev to sideline Trotsky. In our own time the slogan of 'Victory to Iraq' can be justified by pulling quotes from Lenin out of context, but is not what he meant. For Lenin revolutionary defeatism meant not the victory of the lesser evil, but the defeat of capitalism and revolution in every country.
In an inter-imperialist war, 'Civil war, not nuclear war' would be a good slogan, comrade Macnair agreed. But in a colonial war, according to the '21 conditions', communists are obliged to fight for the victory of the oppressed nation. It is this which is at the root of Trotsky's support for the likes of the Ethiopian dictator, Haile Selassie. In comrade Macnair's view Trotsky was wrong in this - revolutionary defeatism should apply in oppressed nations as well as in the oppressor nation. It is essential to call for British troops out of Afghanistan, but not for the victory of the Taliban, he added.
Comrade Gerry Downing disagreed. He said neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are imperialist, and we must always be unequivocally for the defeat of imperialism, he argued. We are not in favour of the victory of the Iraqi ruling class, replied comrade Stan Keable. Revolutionary defeatism should not be about victory for either side, it should be about making revolution against both. The slogan 'Rather defeat for UK-US forces than their victory', carried in the Weekly Worker in March 2003, is problematic because it could imply support for Saddam Hussein, he thought.
Iran solidarity
On the second day of the school Yassamine Mather of the Critique group spoke on 'The New American Century and ultra-imperialism'. She focused on Iran, asking what the response of socialists in Iran and Britain should be to the threat of war against the islamic republic. She described an organisation in the US known as Iranian Regime Change, which believes that the US could reinstate a shah in Iran and should be encouraged to do so.
It provides financial and other support to Bush and the republicans, but 9/11 and its aftermath, and even more so the US invasion of Iraq, derailed their schemes by complicating the relationship between US imperialism and the Iranian regime. The regime relies on anti-US rhetoric to pacify its population, but is not really anti-imperialist. It obeys the instructions of the International Monetary Fund and many capitalist firms have factories there. Political islam can offer no alternative to capitalism, and Iran is a client state of global capital. From the US neo-conservatives' point of view, the Iranian regime is not ideal, but it could be worse.
A decade ago it was conceivable that pro-imperialist regime change in Iran might have taken place as a result of internal pressure, but now it is only likely to happen as a result of US intervention. For the left the main focus has shifted from fighting for democracy and against religious interference in private life, to opposing the consequences of the economic decline and the widening gap between rich and poor. The simple slogan 'Don't attack Iran' is insufficient and does not appeal to Iranians who oppose the islamic regime as much as imperialism: it sows illusions in the 'anti-imperialism' of the Iranian government and of political islam. Comrade Mather urged instead practical solidarity with the workers' movement in Iran, where every day workers are striking against non-payment of wages, job losses and factory closures.
There was disagreement about the likelihood of the US attacking Iran in the near future. Comrade Macnair said, although the US neocons want to extend US influence and increase the flow of money into the US, they are pragmatic, and may find a more cost-effective and certain way to intervene in the Middle East. Comrade Conrad warned that the US military has been wounded by the Iraq experience and is now more likely to react "like a cornered beast". As comrade Phil Kent said, although they find it increasingly difficult to control events, they can smash states easily. Comrade Mather said she and her Iranian comrades do not expect an attack imminently. They urge their British comrades to use the interval to implement a better policy than simply saying 'Don't attack Iran' by offering practical support to the working class forces in Iran.
Comrade Nick Rogers agreed that workers' struggles in Iran are important. Although the Iranian government can easily put down strikes against privatisations, a challenge to the nature of the regime might be more successful. As comrade Anne Mc Shane said, the Weekly Worker provides a weekly platform for genuine left forces from Iraq, to publicise an alternative to the line put out by the Socialist Workers Party and its Respect and STWC fronts.
Comrade Mather said such an opportunity to publish is useful, but it is not enough. Iranian exiles need British socialist to join them on things like pickets in London.
Left failings
In the final session of the school comrade Conrad spoke about the British left, specifically the failure of the anti-war movement. He described the SWP's refusal to condemn the 9/11 atrocity in New York, the mistake of allowing the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy to speak at the February 15 demonstration in Hyde Park, and the futile strategy of organising a series of ever-smaller, 'Duke of York' demonstrations.
A fundamental error of the SWP is its unprincipled attempt to keep on board as broad a range of forces as possible by refusing to adopt a position that could challenge the system that leads to war, for fear of alienating elements who support the system. The SWP attempts to get away with this thanks to its lack of an official programme.
In discussion comrade Mather asked what the SWP has gained, if anything, from its alliance with political islam. Comrade Macnair answered that it has gained a temporary escape from the intense contradictions of the Socialist Alliance period. It has been able to preserve its ability to function as an organisation, through a sectarian, frontist turn under the cover of broadness. Comrade Conrad said that the SWP has gained hegemony over actions, such as demonstrations and anti-war conferences.
He added that he did not agree with some comrades that the SWP should no longer be described as a leftwing organisation. It still claims to base its practice on Marxism, and can be criticised for the widening gap between its theory and increasingly opportunist practice.