Socialists & War

[Joesky]

I'm currently writing up a thirty minute dialogue that i will be giving at a branch meeting on the subject and i was wondering if members could help me expand on it?

So far i have an outline that needs to be built on.

-Intro
-Different Types of war
-Wars Socialists support
*For Liberation
*Progressive Wars
-Social-chauvinism
-Social-Democrats (Labour Party) and War
-Conclusion
* As long as there's Capitalism there will be war.
*So we must strike the hardest when the state is at war to hasten the downfall of imperialistic capitalism
* Examples like Anti-Vietnam movement 1970s, the Stop the War Million man march in London.

I haven't decided on the order of the topics yet as i want the talk to flow as best as it can. So if comrades could help me by providing any good sources of information, some more talking points or any tips on public speaking, it all will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[Blake's Baby]

How about raising the slogan 'No War but the Class War' and explaining patiently why workers supporting one part of the bourgeoisie against another part of the bourgeoisie - this time a local one, rather than a foreign one - will end up with the workers being fucked over yet again? The working class has no interest in capitalism's wars, and devices like 'wars of liberation' end up with lots of dead proletarians and failed micro-states in permanent conflict, controlled by local gangster elites backed by the big powers.

[Joesky]

I'm not talking about Stalinist wars of liberation in Eastern Europe. More along the lines of the wars in Ireland, Sri Lanka and Palestine of self-emancipation...

[Blake's Baby]

I'm talking about all wars in capitalism. That's what 'No War but the Class War' means.

[RED DAVE]

Here is one of the most famous American discourses on war: by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

War Is a Racket - Speech (Read this first)

War Is a Racket - Book

RED DAVE

[ComradeOm]

More along the lines of the wars in Ireland, Sri Lanka and Palestine of self-emancipation...

Connolly is a good starting point then

[AK]

What the hell is "progressive war"?
You need to expand on that, comrade.
Also, http://libcom.org/history/vietnam-gi-resistance is a good website about the resistance to the Vietnam War by American soldiers. You may want to incorporate aspects of that into your point about the anti-Vietnam war movement.

[Joesky]

From Lenin's own work:
"Socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal. But our attitude towards war is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the Anarchists. We differ froth the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within the country; we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created; and we also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary. We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism) to study each war separately. In history there have been numerous wars which, in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany alt wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, autocracy or serfdom), the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (Turkish and Russian). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the historically specific features of precisely the present war."

[AK]

From Lenin's own work:
"Socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal. But our attitude towards war is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the Anarchists. We differ froth the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within the country; we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created; and we also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary. We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism) to study each war separately. In history there have been numerous wars which, in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany alt wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, autocracy or serfdom), the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (Turkish and Russian). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the historically specific features of precisely the present war."

Whilst I don't argue for an extremely violent revolution, I do agree that - despite their imperialist nature - most wars of the past have, in fact, inadvertently given rise to miniscule progress. Such an example is the American Civil War. Whilst no socialist is going to say that it was a war waged for the benefit of humanity, it did abolish slavery in the southern USA - which is a sign of progress (although this was just in exchange for wage slavery).

[Joesky]

Whilst I don't argue for an extremely violent revolution, I do agree that - despite their imperialist nature - most wars of the past have, in fact, inadvertently given rise to miniscule progress. Such an example is the American Civil War. Whilst no socialist is going to say that it was a war waged for the benefit of humanity, it did abolish slavery in the southern USA - which is a sign of progress (although this was just in exchange for wage slavery).

And the power to retract that labour. That is the foundation of the working class struggle.

[Blake's Baby]

But that's progress. I really think it is.

I'd be hard pushed to argue that any war since 1870 was progressive though. I'm not even sure about the Franco-Prussian War to be honest, and Marx was definitely on the side of Prussia in that one. OK, Imperial France had invaded it, and it did lead to German unification and the collapse of the Second Empire, which was progress I think. But I'm somewhat equivocal about German workers killing French workers for the sake of necessary historical developments.

[ComradeOm]

I'd be hard pushed to argue that any war since 1870 was progressive though. I'm not even sure about the Franco-Prussian War to be honest, and Marx was definitely on the side of Prussia in that one. OK, Imperial France had invaded it, and it did lead to German unification and the collapse of the Second Empire, which was progress I think. But I'm somewhat equivocal about German workers killing French workers for the sake of necessary historical developments.

Marx (in The Civil War in France at least) was writing as a contemporary and with the information available to him at the time. Bismarck's role in engineering the war did not come to light until later. In fact, IIRC, Marx explicitly cautioned against turning a defensive war into an anti-French crusade or a war of unification. Progress did not enter into it

[InuyashaKnight]

It really depends on the situation and whats going on.

[The Idler]

The SPGB make a big thing about opposing every war.

[ABCofcommunism]

War is an instrument of the capitalist system to safeguard itself and allow it continuation, take the first gulf war, i know only a little about this war I admit, but from what know Iraq had debts, it took over Kuwait to try and raise the price of oil so it could pay back its debts, what did the forces of international capitalism do, invaded. Did they remove the mad dictator Saddam no, they just fixed things to ensure a supply of cheap oil to keep themselves going, showing no regard for the sufferings of the Iraqi people and the Kurds. But all wars have a bias to the side you take, for example if you support Palestinian freedom don't forget your talking about Israel who's right to exist is denied by countries around it. Same with northern ireland, the loyalist have a side, so do the republicans. Its never clear cut. So a socialist view of war will be bias to the socialist aim.