Is there ever anything as a just war?

[che118]

I need to answer this question for an essay! Any ideas on how can i write i from a left wing view point, with examples to back it up

[mikelepore]

We need words that are weaker than "just" and "justified." Since all wars harm children and babies, I won't go so far as to say it can ever be justified. I will go so far as to say that sometimes good people can't think of a way to avoid war, or they can think another way but they don't recognize it to be workable.

[Tower of Bebel]

class war.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:50 am
I need to answer this question for an essay! Any ideas on how can i write i from a left wing view point, with examples to back it up
A people's war of liberation is inevitable and just. A people's revolution is just. A war of self-defense against an attacker is just, provided the attacker was not provoked by intolerable injustice first (this statement is meant to be generic, it can be torn apart with semantics for days at a time and I will not get into that). The class war is just as long as classes exist. In my opinion the dictatorship of the proletariat is just as well. Of course, any war done for imperialism, for bourgeoisie interests, for class division, the division of labor, for resources at the expense of the working class, subjagation, etc., is unjust.

That should be enough to get you started. I'll post more if anything comes to me.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

War can only be "justified" in regards to necessity. It cannot be justified as an ideal action, because war itself is not ideal. Therefore, any war based on ideals cannot be just - i.e. to attain resources which can be transformed into commodities, or to secure the presense of Imperial power. Such wars cannot be justified as they are based upon certain ideals, not necessity.

War can only be considered just when it necessary to combat unjust conditions.

A war which expands conditions in the interest of the bourgeoisie, monopolist powers, the bourgeois state cannot be justified as it is exploitive and can only be justified in regards to ideals of the bourgeois class which are not the ideals of any other distinct class (the proletariat).

Revolutionary movement is just, 'war efforts' to eliminate bourgeois reactionary movement is just, dictatorship of the proletariat is just- all for the same reasons- it is necessary to eliminate the conditions which exist to serve in bourgeois interest.

[freedomofspeech91]

War it's self is not justified but WHENEVER an oppresed people find there only option is armed struggle or an imperialist invader comes into your country then you must go to war.

[lombas]

I think the Salamanca School definition of a "just war" resembles how I think about it:

(from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca#Just_war))

Given that war is one of the worst evils suffered by mankind, the adherents of the School reasoned that it ought to be resorted to only when it was necessary in order to prevent an even greater evil. A diplomatic agreement is preferable, even for the more powerful party, before a war is started. Examples of "just war" are:

* In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success. If failure is a foregone conclusion, then it is just a wasteful spilling of blood.
* Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.
* War to punish a guilty enemy.

A war is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:

* It is necessary that the response be commensurate to the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
* Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.
* Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.
* It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.

Under this doctrine, expansionist wars, wars of pillage, wars to convert infidels or pagans, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.

(Also see their reaction to the colonization of America)

[Lenin II]

That article is profoundly vague and subjective. By that logic, almost every battle ever waged was justified. Examples:


Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.

What is a “tyrant?” How do you know he is about to attack? U.S. war on Iraq, anyone?


War to punish a guilty enemy.

Guilty of what, and to punish who, and in what way? What must the “enemy,” (which is presumably a civilization or ideology and not just a government) have to have done in order to justify a war? Where do you draw the line? "X is guilty of Y, so we must punish Z for Y." This is the basic mindset of war from the get-go, and doesn't tell us much.

What this article basically says is that any war can be justified. I know it's a loaded question, but surely there must be a better way of building a foundation for objective truth.