Results 1 to 19 of 19
Lefist stance on war
Hello,
As I am currently reading Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, I rather accidentally came across the fact that Kropotkin supported the allies during the WWI, which was/is heavily criticized from the left.
I am not that much interested in that specific instance regarding Kropotkin, but rather in the leftist stance on war in general. I understand and share the general leftist opposition to war, but what does it mean not to support a (bourgeoisie) war if, say, fascist Germany is invading pseudo-democratic France and it can't defend itself, why exactly is it a bad idea to help the French by joining the war, if working class would be better under the French bourgeoisie rule than the fascist one? Is it because of potential escalation of war?
No war but the class war. No war between nations no peace between classes. These old slogans really do sum it all up pretty well.
War is a chess game played by the ruling class, using the workers of the world as cannon fodder. Any support for such a war is a complete betrayal of our class and our interests. We seek to wage war against the ruling class, not against fellow workers from other countries.
AnaRchic answered this awesomely, but for Kropotkin's support of the allies during WWI I don't really care that he did, he still made massive contributions to socialism
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
This thread has potential to become a bloody discussion about popular fronts.
I think there is no homogeneous position regarding the scenario. Left-comms/anarchists probably will oppose both sides, as they're two different factions of the bourgeoisie, through sabotage etc, in order to make a capitalist war a civil war.
Others may see fascists as the bigger evil (which they are), and in absence of a strong working class movement, fight for pseudo-democratic France.
I might be taking a shot in the dark, though.
EDIT: And it depends on what caused the war, etc. It's too abstract to a proper answer.
Last edited by motion denied; 29th January 2014 at 23:36.
"We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx
"But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg
fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
Well, I was afraid of this kind of an answer.I am very well aware of these slogans, have heard them many times and I share the sentiment. My question is a little deeper - what these slogans means exactly?
To be more specific and to avoid unnecessary abstractions, why exactly was it a bad idea to support the allies during the WWI? I am quite confident in saying that working class would be better off living under pseudo-democratic regime than the outright fascist one. I do also recognize that another country's involvement in a war lead to more deaths of working class people overall. But the principle as to why there should be no involvement in a (World) war under (almost) any circumstances is not all that clear to me.
Considering that the war has already started and the only way for an attacked country to avoid fascist rule is to be helped by the allies - why not help?
Why are you happy claiming that the exploitation by one set of capitalists is better than the exploitation by another set of capitalists?
'a country' is an abstraction. I thought you were trying to avoid those?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Fascism as such didn't exist during WWI - I assume you're referring to WWII? WWII was somewhat more complex than "good democratic Allies fighting the evil fascist Axis". The Allies were supported by fascist Portugal and Brazil (and fascist Spain was neutral during the conflict), had diplomatic relations with the fascist French regime in Vichy etc. In fact there is no guarantee that "democratic" France would not have ended up much like Vichy France did - Vichy was formed by the remnants of the government of the French republic without overt German pressure after all. Even after the war, "democratic" France engaged in massacres of Algerians that differed very little from the massacre of Jews (in fact, in Paris these massacres were presided over by the same person!).Well, I was afraid of this kind of an answer.
To be more specific and to avoid unnecessary abstractions, why exactly was it a bad idea to support the allies during the WWI? I am quite confident in saying that working class would be better off living under pseudo-democratic regime than the outright fascist one. I do also recognize that another country's involvement in a war lead to more deaths of working class people overall. But the principle as to why there should be no involvement in a (World) war under (almost) any circumstances is not all that clear to me.
Considering that the war has already started and the only way for an attacked country to avoid fascist rule is to be helped by the allies - why not help?
I am not "happy" claiming that. I am saying that it seems rather obvious for me that for all sorts of reasons being under a pseudo-democratic regime is better than being under a totalitarian regime. I think there's no way in denying that.
But no, I am not happy, but my happiness or lack thereof doesn't make my question go away. I just don't see a clear principle in that stance that would be entirely reasonable for me, so I thought someone might help me out with it.
As with regards to a country being an abstraction, sure, but... how is it relevant here? The point is whether an average citizen will live under tyrannical fascist regime or pseudo-democratic one. You can think in terms of countries or in terms of anything else, it doesn't change the point.
Ah, what an embarrassment! I certainly was referring to WWII, at least I had it in mind. In any case, I am not that much concerned about wars where there are no real differences between the rulers; my question, I suppose, is more about when the enemy is a vicious dictatorship, under any reasonable standards worse than any other regime.
Blake's Baby didn't engage in denialism, but rather objected to the misrepresentation of the defense of democracy against totalitarianism as the task of the proletariat.
In a world where wage-labor has triumphed over all previous relations of exchange, the establishment of dictatorship through civil war can be the proletariat's only duty, the sole proletarian imperative.
Last edited by Ember Catching; 30th January 2014 at 16:29.
I generally support violent action as a last resort against brutality. In other words, a war by the oppressed against the oppressor.
However, I dislike war for turning the working class into glorified war criminals.
An example of a positive action for me is the FPMR's assassination attempt at Agusto Pinochet.
A negative action would be basically any war with two belligerents I guess.
"Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
So ole Krop supporting one side in the most disgusting inter-imperialist conflict to the time is excusable, but when we support the Soviet Union against fascism we're bourgeois nationalists?
Don't mind me, I'm just taking notes here.
Apenas um rapaz latino americano apoiado por mais de 50 mil manos
I'm anti-war in the sense that pretty much all war is for the bourgeoisie. If there was one that was not I would have to examine the situation in question and won't take a general stance in a knee-jerk fashion.
Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. ~ Karl Marx
formerly Triceramarx
I don't think anyone who thinks that you're bourgeois for supporting an imperialist state in WWII also thinks that Kropotkin supporting a bourgeois state in WWI is excusable.
Kropotkin was dead wrong in WWI. You're dead wrong now.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I thought Kropotkin died in 1921? But support for imperialist countries defeat is what communists concern themselves with. That is different from supporting one set of capitalists against other imperialists, a la the US army vs. The wermacht. But supporting the US's defeat by any means necessary in this day and age is imperative. Supporting the Nazis defeat by the USSR was also the stance that should of been held during WW2 seeing as, despite Stalinism, capitalism ceased to exist wherever the red army conquered. This was due to the working class's struggle with Stalinism itself which wanted to continue capitalism in the eastern bloc following the war, but was unable to due to the direct contradictions politically and economically that would of entailed.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
Yes, hence his ability to support French imperialism in 1914-18.
Oh, for the banging the head emoticon.
As a capitalist and imperialist state, support for the USSR was not in the interests of the working class, even against Nazi Germany, another capitalist and imperialist state.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I only support wars of liberation and wars of defense. It should still be avoided at all costs.
But there was no private property in the USSR. Everybody in eastern Europe knew that which is why they supported the red army. That expectation is why there was publicly owned, planned economies in the eastern bloc. Of course there were problems with that, but the class struggle was more favorable if the region was under soviet instead of Nazi control. But you think a planned economy is still capitalist, so there's really nothing to argue more.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
If you think there will still be a state and class struggle in socialism, then I'd agree there really isn't any point in us discussing with each other.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
