| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Friday, June 28, 2013
Over many years now of talking publicly about torture by
the US government in Guantanamo, Abu Ghriab, and black sites we still can't even
identify, I've been challenged by ex-prisoners, and family of prisoners here to
recognize that in U.S. prisons, people are tortured, including by solitary
confinement of probably 80,000 prisoners at any one time. 
Is NSA Spying Just
Facebook Gone Wild?
NO!
NSA spying is a serious threat to democracy,
whistle-blowing, the unions, the climate justice movement, the movement against
mass incarceration, the fight for immigrant rights, and every other struggle for
social change.
Bring your neighbors, friends, and coworkers so they can
learn exactly what the government and the surveillance industry are doing and
how to fight it.
Join us to prepare to win the battle for public opinion
regarding the Snowden revelations.
Emergency Forum and
Discussion.
Panelists include:
--Peter Goselin of the National
Lawyers Guild on how spying is used against the movements for social
change
--ACLU of CT attorney explaining the facts and their legal
response.
--Anthony Sorge of Capitalism vs. Climate on spying &
the environmental movement
--Mongi Dhaouadi from the
Council on American Islamic Relations on spying & Muslim community
Presentations followed by an open discussion about how
best to build a movement that is capable of defending our democratic
rights.
Sunday, June 30, 2013 at
3 pm., Islamic Center of Berlin
1781 Berlin Turnpike,
Berlin Connecticut
Sponsored by the CT Coalition to Stop Indefinite
Detention
For more info: Mongi at 860-514-8038 or Chris at
860-478-5300
Save the
following dates:
July 6, 2013: Join us at Riverfest to table, distribute
educational materials on the real impact of NSA spying, and build a June 18
protest.
July 8 & 15: Join us at the Hartford Monday Night
Jazz Concerts to table, to distribute educational materials on the real impact
of NSA spying, and build a June 18 protest.
July 18: Broadly
sponsored picket and rally beginning at the Old State House at 4pm to say NSA!
NO Spying on Us!
| ||||||||||||
FOCUS: Julian Assange
| Edward Snowden's Ordeal Is Just Beginning
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks
Assange writes: "It has now been a year since I entered this embassy and sought refuge from persecution. As a result of that decision, I have been able to work in relative safety from a US espionage investigation."
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks
Assange writes: "It has now been a year since I entered this embassy and sought refuge from persecution. As a result of that decision, I have been able to work in relative safety from a US espionage investigation."
Edward Snowden's Ordeal Is Just Beginning
23 June 13
t has
now been a year since I entered this embassy and sought refuge from
persecution.
As a result of that decision, I have been able to work in
relative safety from a US espionage investigation.
But today, Edward Snowden’s ordeal is just beginning.
Two dangerous runaway processes have taken root in the last
decade, with fatal consequences for democracy.
Government secrecy has been expanding on a terrific scale.
Simultaneously, human privacy has been secretly eradicated.
A few weeks ago, Edward Snowden blew the whistle on an ongoing
program - involving the Obama administration, the intelligence community and the
internet services giants - to spy on everyone in the world.
As if by clockwork, he has been charged with espionage by the
Obama administration.
The US government is spying on each and every one of us, but it
is Edward Snowden who is charged with espionage for tipping us off.
It is getting to the point where the mark of international
distinction and service to humanity is no longer the Nobel Peace Prize, but an
espionage indictment from the US Department of Justice.
Edward Snowden is the eighth leaker to be charged with espionage
under this president.
Bradley Manning’s show trial enters its fourth week on
Monday.
After a litany of wrongs done to him, the US government is
trying to convict him of "aiding the enemy."
The word "traitor" has been thrown around a lot in recent
days.
But who is really the traitor here?
Who was it who promised a generation "hope" and "change," only
to betray those promises with dismal misery and stagnation?
Who took an oath to defend the US constitution, only to feed the
invisible beast of secret law devouring it alive from the inside out?
Who is it that promised to preside over The Most Transparent
Administration in history, only to crush whistleblower after whistleblower with
the boot heel of espionage charges?
Who combined in his executive the powers of judge, jury and
executioner, and claimed the jurisdiction of the entire earth on which to
exercise those powers?
Who arrogates the power to spy on the entire earth - every
single one of us - and when he is caught red handed, explains to us that "we’re
going to have to make a choice."
Who is that person?
Let’s be very careful about who we call "traitor".
Edward Snowden is one of us.
Bradley Manning is one of us.
They are young, technically minded people from the generation
that Barack Obama betrayed.
They are the generation that grew up on the internet, and were
shaped by it.
The US government is always going to need intelligence analysts
and systems administrators, and they are going to have to hire them from this
generation and the ones that follow it.
One day, their generation will run the NSA, the CIA and the
FBI.
This isn’t a phenomenon that is going away.
This is inevitable.
And by trying to crush these young whistleblowers with espionage
charges, the US government is taking on a generation, and that is a battle it is
going to lose.
This isn’t how to fix things.
The only way to fix things is this:
Change the policies.
Stop spying on the world.
Eradicate secret law.
Cease indefinite detention without trial.
Stop assassinating people.
Stop invading other countries and sending young Americans off to
kill and be killed.
Stop the occupations, and discontinue the secret wars.
Stop eating the young: Edward Snowden, Barrett Brown, Jeremy
Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Gottfrid Svartholm, Jacob Appelbaum, and Bradley
Manning.
The charging of Edward Snowden is intended to intimidate any
country that might be considering standing up for his rights.
That tactic must not be allowed to work.
The effort to find asylum for Edward Snowden must be
intensified.
What brave country will stand up for him, and recognize his
service to humanity?
Tell your governments to step forward.
Step forward and stand with Snowden.
--
| |||||||||
 | |||||||||
|
(Please forward
widely)
The warden of Carswell FCI agreed
to forward the compassionate release petition to the DOJ. But the government has denied her plea.The
time to increase the heat is now.
|
Free Lynne Stewart Now-Jesus, Let Grandma Go Home!
From Lynne: Disappointed but Not Devastated
June 26th, 2013
Disappointed but Not Devastated
6/25/13
Disappointed but Not Devastated
My Dear Friends, Supporters, Comrades:
I know we are all disappointed to the marrow of our bones and the depths of our hearts by the news that the Bureaucrats, Kafka like, have turned down my request for compassionate release.
Let me say, that we are planning ahead. The letter from the BOP (soon to be posted on the website) is flawed, to put it mildly. Both factually and medically it has major problems. We intend to go to court and raise these in front of my sentencing Judge Koeltl. At the first sentencing he responded to a query by one of the lawyers that he didn’t want me to die in prison — we’ll see if he can now live up to that. He is of course the same Judge who increased my sentence to 10 years — but this IS very different and we can only hope that we can prevail. Stay tuned for what we need from you. We will never give up.
In the meantime, once again, I grieve for my children and grandchildren who love me so much and had such great expectations of enjoying life together again in our beloved NYC and not just trying to, in the prison visiting room. My Ralph, too, whose dedication and love are only exceeded by the work he does on my behalf — but he is a born fighter and although he hurts, it all comes more naturally to him.
But for everyone else, I hope that your affront at this crass bureaucratic denial of the request which you by your signatures and letters and phone calls demanded — How far can we let this go? when a 73-year old woman who IS dying of cancer (maybe not on their timetable,) her life of good works ignored, be shunted aside … “she does not present circumstances considered extraordinary and compelling … at this time.” We must show them that I cannot be ignored, that YOU cannot be ignored.”
Fight On — All of Us or None of Us. An affront to one is an affront to all.
Love Struggle,
Lynne Stewart
State House Hearing: Budget for All Resolution
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Rally 10am – State House
Steps
Hearing 11am - room A2
With
widespread support among voters across the state, the Massachusetts House and
Senate will hold hearings on 
the Budget for All resolutions, S.1750 and H.3211. Make sure our State
Legislature tells Congress to:- Prevent cuts to vital programs that help all of our families: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits and housing, food and unemployment assistance.
- Create and protect jobs in fields like manufacturing, education, transportation, and other public services.
- End corporate tax breaks, loopholes and offshore tax havens, so that wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share!
- Redirect Pentagon spending to meet human needs. The US war budget is greater than the military spending of the next 10 largest military powers combined. While over half of the country’s discretionary budget is being spent to prepare for war, millions of veterans and civilians are unable to get their basic needs met.
Sequestration has made this fight more important than ever.Budget-cutters in Washington have slashed Meals on Wheels, Head Start, Housing, Education, Fuel Assistance, Unemployment, Health Programs, AIDS Housing, and Family Violence Prevention. Jobs are being threatened and lost, and the President wants to cut even more social programs.
See you at the State House July 10!
Join us to demand a
Budget for
All!
 | ||
|
United for
Justice with Peace is a coalition of peace and justice organizations and
community peace groups in the Greater Boston region. The UJP Coalition, formed
after September 11th, seeks global peace through social and economic
justice.
|
Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By-In Honor Of
The Frontline Defenders Of The Working Class!-Bob Marley’s “Get Up, Stand Up!”
An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend The
International Working Class Everywhere!
********
Fight-Don’t Starve-We Created The Wealth, Let's Take
It Back! Labor And The Oppressed Must Rule!
********
A Five-Point Program As Talking Points
*Jobs For All Now!-“30 For 40”- A historic demand of the labor
movement. Thirty hours work for forty hours pay to spread the available work
around. Organize the unorganized-
Organize the South- Organize Wal-Mart- Defend the right for public and private
workers to unionize.
* Defend the working classes! No union dues for Democratic (or the
stray Republican) candidates. Spent the dough instead on organizing the
unorganized and on other labor-specific causes (good example, the November,
2011 anti-union recall referendum in Ohio, bad example the Wisconsin
gubernatorial recall race in June 2012).
*End the endless wars!- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All
U.S./Allied Troops (And Mercenaries) From Afghanistan! Hands Off Pakistan!
Hands Off Iran! Hands Off Syria! U.S. Hands
Off The World!
*Fight for a social agenda for working people! Quality Free Healthcare For All! Nationalize the
colleges and universities under student-teacher-campus worker control! Forgive
student debt! Stop housing foreclosures!
*We created the wealth, let’s take it back. Take the struggle for our daily bread off the
historic agenda. Build a workers party that fights for a workers government to
unite all the oppressed.
*********
As Isaac Deutscher said in
his speech “On Socialist Man” (1966):
“We do not maintain that
socialism is going to solve all predicaments of the human race. We are
struggling in the first instance with the predicaments that are of man’s making
and that man can resolve. May I remind you that Trotsky, for instance, speaks
of three basic tragedies—hunger, sex and death—besetting man. Hunger is the
enemy that Marxism and the modern labour movement have taken on.... Yes,
socialist man will still be pursued by sex and death; but we are convinced that
he will be better equipped than we are to cope even with these.”
Emblazon on our red banner-Labor and the oppressed
must rule!
**********
Markin comment:
In this series, presented
under the headline Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By, I will post some songs
that I think will help us get through the “dog days” of the struggle for our
communist future. I do not vouch for the political thrust of the songs; for the
most part they are done by pacifists, social democrats, hell, even just plain
old ordinary democrats. And, occasionally, a communist, although hard communist
musicians have historically been scarce on the ground. Thus, here we have a
regular "popular front" on the music scene. While this would not be
acceptable for our political prospects, it will suffice for our purposes here.
*********
Bob Marley Get Up, Stand Up Lyrics
Get up, stand up: stand up
for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up
for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up
for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give
up the fight!
Preacher man, don't tell me,
Heaven is under the earth.
I know you don't know
What life is really worth.
It's not all that glitters is
gold;
'Alf the story has never been
told:
So now you see the light, eh!
Stand up for your rights.
come on!
Get up, stand up: stand up
for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give
up the fight!
Get up, stand up: stand up
for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give
up the fight!
Most people think,
Great god will come from the
skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is
worth,
You will look for yours on
earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights.
jah!
Get up, stand up! (jah, jah!
)
Stand up for your rights!
(oh-hoo! )
Get up, stand up! (get up,
stand up! )
Don't give up the fight!
(life is your right! )
Get up, stand up! (so we
can't give up the fight! )
Stand up for your rights!
(lord, lord! )
Get up, stand up! (keep on
struggling on! )
Don't give up the fight!
(yeah! )
We sick an' tired of-a your
ism-skism game -
Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven
in-a Jesus' name, lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty god is a living man.
You can fool some people
sometimes,
But you can't fool all the
people all the time.
So now we see the light (what
you gonna do?),
We gonna stand up for our
rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah! )
So you better:
Get up, stand up! (in the
morning! git it up! )
Stand up for your rights!
(stand up for our rights! )
Get up, stand up!
Don't give up the fight!
(don't give it up, don't give it up! )
Get up, stand up! (get up,
stand up! )
Stand up for your rights!
(get up, stand up! )
Get up, stand up! (... )
Don't give up the fight! (get
up, stand up! )
Get up, stand up! (... )
Stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up!
Don't give up the fight!
/fadeout/
A Plea For Bradley Manning From Three former Nobel Peace Prize Winners Desmond Tutu, Maraid Maguire
and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. November 14, 2012. As published by The
Nation
and The Guardian (UK)
Last
week, PFC Bradley Manning offered to accept responsibility for releasing
classified documents as an act of conscience – not as charged by the US
military. As people who have worked for decades against the increased
militarization of societies and for international cooperation to end war, we
are deeply dismayed by the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning. The military
under the Obama administration has displayed a desire to over-prosecute
whistle-blowing with life-in-prison charges including espionage and “aiding the
enemy”, a disturbing decision which is no doubt intended to set an example.
We
have dedicated our lives to working for peace because we have seen the many
faces of armed conflict and violence, and we understand that no matter the
cause of war, civilians always bear the brunt of the cost. With today’s
advanced military technology and the continued ability of business and
political elites to filter what information is made public, there exists a
great barrier to many citizens being fully aware of the realities and
consequences of conflicts in which their country is engaged.
Responsible
governance requires fully informed citizens who can question their leadership.
For those citizens worldwide who do not have direct, intimate knowledge of war,
yet are still affected by rising international tensions and failing economies,
the WikiLeaks releases attributed to Manning have provided unparalleled access
to important facts.
Revealing
covert crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, this window into the realities of modern
international relations has changed the world for the better. While some of
these documents may demonstrate how much work lies ahead in terms of securing
international peace and justice, they also highlight the potential of the
Internet as a forum for citizens to participate more directly in civic
discussion and creative government accountability projects.
Questioning
authority, as a soldier, is not easy. But it can at times be honorable. The
words attributed to Manning reveal that he went through a profound moral
struggle between the time he enlisted and when he became a whistleblower.
Through his experience in Iraq, he became disturbed by top-level policy that
undervalued human life and caused the suffering of innocent civilians and
soldiers. Like other courageous whistleblowers, he was driven foremost by a
desire to reveal the truth.
Private
Manning said in chat logs that he hoped the releases would bring “discussion,
debates and reforms” and condemned the ways the “first world exploits the
third.” Much of the world regards him as a hero for these efforts toward peace
and transparency, and he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize as a
result. However, much as when high-ranking officials in the United States and
Britain misled the public in 2003 by saying there was an imminent need to
invade Iraq to stop it from using weapons of mass destruction, the world’s most
powerful elites have again insulted international opinion and the intelligence
of many citizens by withholding facts regarding Manning and WikiLeaks.
The
military prosecution has not presented evidence that Private Manning injured
anyone by releasing secret documents, and it has asserted in court that the
charge of “aiding the enemy through indirect means” does not require it to do
so. Nor has the prosecution denied that his motivations were conscientious; it
has simply argued they are irrelevant. In ignoring this context and
recommending a much more severe punishment for Bradley Manning than is given to
US soldiers guilty of murdering civilians, military leadership is sending a
chilling warning to other soldiers who might feel compelled by conscience to
reveal misdeeds. It is our belief that leaders who use fear to govern, rather
than sharing wisdom born from facts, cannot be just.
We
Nobel Peace Prize laureates condemn the persecution Bradley Manning has
suffered, including imprisonment in conditions declared “cruel, inhuman and
degrading” by the United Nations, and call upon Americans to stand up in
support of this whistleblower who defended their democratic rights. In the
conflict in Iraq alone, more than 110,000 people have died since 2003, millions
have been displaced and nearly 4,500 American soldiers have been killed. If
someone needs to be held accountable for endangering Americans and civilians,
let’s first take the time to examine the evidence regarding high-level crimes
already committed, and what lessons can be learned. If Bradley Manning released
the documents, as the prosecution contends, we should express to him our
gratitude for his efforts toward accountability in government, informed
democracy and peace.
From The Pen Of Frank Jackman
He was drawn like a lemming to the sea to the town, drawn to the siren
call of the town, the last signposts town, Lowell home ground, from when Jean
bon ruled the beat social lion night. Some automatic response deep in his
brain, deep in his DNA called him every so often to go to replenish his soul,
to go where Jack worked his brain with projects like seven banshees and fretted,
fretted over seven hundred boyhood things. He made his way over the dusty
streets, Bridge Street, Aikens Street, Merrimack Street, the vast number of
streets over in three-decker tenement Pawtucketville (now sharing space with
various public building modern U/Mass-Lowell campus facilities) crowded,
over-crowded with the new-born screamers of new generations of different ethnic
groups leaving only a remnant of the old Irish-Italian- Greek –French-Canadian
screamers from Jack time. Drawn too to his river, the Jack river of his youth,
the Merrimack. Ha, merry mack, mary mack, mary mack all dressed in black. Is
that okay Jack, is it okay to speak that way of the ancient loomed river, the
ancient dyed river, the sacred river of Om, of the rushing waters over-
flowing.
He sensed the river, the river pull, the river flow, this day rapid
white-capped, white- capped waves, the waters overflowing the banks creating
tree lakes, oh well, tree ponds and maybe adventures, Jack adventures running
toward the Dracut woods, running toward New Jack City, running toward the
Frisco night and another land’s end. The historic river touched off by the mile
of red, red-brick factory walls now long ago converted to historic sites or
living space for the up and coming of the town.
Is it still a mile of bricks like it says on the points of interest panels
that dot the river edge walk though, it seemed shorter when he walked it this time?
Walked it passing the old Boott Diner closed, no more hamburger/onion/eggs/burnt
offerings grease smells to salivate over, Jack salivate over, thinking Jack
thoughts, thinking about how he had only touched the edges of the beat, beat
down, beatified night, too young to do anything but play the black-bereted mock
heroic faux poet, but what did he know then. Walked along with some empty tank
in his head trying to figure out how anybody could have come out of that
rushing river, come out of the French-Canadian working class quarters and made
that mad man big splash.
Later he walked past the high school, Jack’s school, Jack’s legend
prowess football school and heroic victory over Lawrence up the river, up the
not Jack part of the river and so left to herald some 1912 IWW-led textile
strike as a point of interest, a last time point of interest. Jack’s skipping classes high school now vastly
expanded, also public building modern like some third-rate architect low bid
the world and threw every building no matter the function through a cookie
cutter to, to, oh yah, save costs, to reflect added programs, added
bureaucracies, and the sense that added-ness was important. Past Jack’s cavern school library hiding
place, hiding from goofs, hiding from prying girls, hiding away by himself to
learn two thousand facts of the known world, to read two thousand books of the
known world, to be able to be ready when he day came, when his day came and he
would show the world what writing was all about Hemingway/Dos Passo/Fitzgerald
be damned. That is the secret Lowell, the Lowell that provided the yeast for
his grand experiment when his day did come.
Then onto the great mandala fast by the Lowell Sun sign just ahead on the shortened skyline, the great
mandala that some commissioned sculptor thought appropriate (hopefully not a
low- bid sculptor, not for big-hearted Jack) that formed the core of Jack
square, Jack memory square, Jack honored son square (well after the fact since
before he was a mere beatnik, a bum, unkind to his mother, a drunk and a dope
fiend to straight-laced Lowell). So he sat, sat among the marble looking this
way and that at the etched words on the marbled stacks. Words from Mexico City Blues, words from Visions of Doulouz, words see.
Funny that day he sat among the marble, sat alone for a while, then a
crowd, a young boy crowd, Latino, Asian, maybe a black kid and white mixed in,
came to “possess” jack space. To do fandangle roller-blade tricks against the
creviced landscapes. He thought back to Maggie
Cassidy and a time two, maybe three now, generations removed when Jack and friends
would cover the downtown area with their antics, with their foolery, with their
first young manhood drunks, and with their escape back woods Lowell dreams. Funny too he sensed that day, and he hoped
that he was wrong on that score, that those today young boys were totally
ignorant of the sacred ground they stood on, that they showed not a whit of interest
in the words that outlined their race course. What would Jeanbon say to that.
Then before he left, sobered a little by that hard forgetful fact that
time stirs no ashes, except by accident, he turned, as he always did when he
was called to this town, called like a lemming to the sea to read that last
page, last couple of paragraphs really, from On The Road, his great escape novel, his statement to a less than candid
world. That last part where he talked about his max daddy road wizard pal Dean
Moriarty (nee Neal Cassady) as the father he never knew. Yah, he thought as he walked
away like just like Jack Keroauc, the father we never knew too.
From The Marxist Archives- Imperialism and War
|
Workers Vanguard No. 870
|
12 May 2006
|
 |
| ||
TROTSKY
|
LENIN
|
Imperialism and War
(Quote of the Week)
Throughout the demonstrations against the Iraq war and
occupation, the reformist left has promoted the lie that imperialism can be
reformed and pressured to serve the interests of working people and the
oppressed. Writing in 1915, amid the carnage of World War I, Bolshevik leader
V.I. Lenin explained that war is intrinsic to the system of capitalist
imperialism. This analysis has been confirmed by the second interimperialist
world war and by the numerous predatory wars against colonial and semicolonial
countries. Only socialist revolution can put an end to imperialist war.
Imperialism is the highest stage in the development of capitalism,
reached only in the twentieth century. Capitalism now finds that the old
national states, without whose formation it could not have overthrown feudalism,
are too cramped for it. Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree
that entire branches of industry are controlled by syndicates, trusts and
associations of capitalist multimillionaires and almost the entire globe has
been divided up among the “lords of capital” either in the form of colonies, or
by entangling other countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation.
Free trade and competition have been superseded by a striving towards
monopolies, the seizure of territory for the investment of capital and as
sources of raw materials, and so on. From the liberator of nations, which it was
in the struggle against feudalism, capitalism in its imperialist stage has
turned into the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism
has become reactionary; it has developed the forces of production to such a
degree that mankind is faced with the alternative of adopting socialism or of
experiencing years and even decades of armed struggle between the “Great” Powers
for the artificial preservation of capitalism by means of colonies, monopolies,
privileges and national oppression of every kind.
—V.I. Lenin, “Socialism and War” (1915)
*******Chapter I
The Principles of Socialism and the War of 1914–1915
The Attitude of Socialists Towards Wars
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.
Historical Types of Wars in Modern Times
The Great French Revolution ushered in a new epoch in the history of mankind. From that time to the Paris Commune, from 1789 to 1871, one of the types of wars were wars of a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberating character. In other words, the chief content and historical significance of these wars were the overthrow of absolutism and feudalism, the undermining of these institutions, the overthrow of alien oppression. Therefore, those were progressive wars, and duringsuch wars, all honest, revolutionary democrats, and also all Socialists, always sympathised with the success of that country (i.e., with that bourgeoisie), which had helped to overthrow, or sap, the most dangerous foundation of feudalism, absolutism and the oppression of other nations. For example, the revolutionary wars waged by France contained an element of plunder and conquest of alien territory by the French, but this does not in the least alter the fundamental historical significance of these wars, which destroyed and shattered feudalism and absolutism in the whole of old, serf-ridden Europe. In the Franco-Prussian war, Germany plundered France, but this does not alter the fundamental historical significance of this war, which liberated tens of millions of German people from feudal disintegration and from the oppression of two despots, the Russian tsar and Napoleon III.
The Difference Between Aggressive and Defensive War
The epoch of 1789-1871 left deep tracts and revolutionary memories. Before feudalism, absolutism and alien oppression were overthrown, the development of the proletarian struggle for Socialism was out of the question. When speaking of the legitimacy of“defensive” war in relation to the wars of such an epoch, Socialists always had in mind precisely these objects, which amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By“defensive” war Socialists always meant a“just” war in this sense (W. Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). Only in this sense have Socialists regarded, and now regard, wars “for the defence of the fatherland”, or “defensive” wars, as legitimate, progressive and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just”, “defensive” wars,irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great”powers.
But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more “just”distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term“defensive” war, or war “for the defence of the fatherland” in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common people, of philistines, of ignorant people, by the astute slaveowners. Precisely in this way are the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie deceiving the peoples by means of“national ideology and the term “defence of the fatherland in the present war between slave-owners for fortifying and strengthening slavery.
The Present War is An Imperialist War
Nearly everybody admits that the present war is an imperialist war, but in most cases this term is distorted or applied to one side, or a loophole is left for the assertion that this war may, after all, have a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberating significance. Imperialism is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, reached only in the twentieth century. Capitalism now finds the old national states, without the formation of which it could not have overthrown feudalism, too tight for it. Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that whole branches of industry have been seized by syndicates, trusts and associations of capitalist billionaires, and almost the entire globe has been divided up among the “lords of capital, either in the form of colonies, or by enmeshing other countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation. Free trade and competition have been superseded by the striving for monopoly, for the seizure of territory for the investment of capital, for the export of raw materials from them, and so forth. From the liberator of nations that capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism has become reactionary; it has developed the forces of production to such a degree that mankind is faced with the alternative of going over to Socialism or of suffering years and even decades of armed struggle between the “great powers for the artificial preservation of capitalism by means of colonies, monopolies, privileges and national oppression of every kind.War Between the Biggest Slave-Owners for Preserving and Fortifying Slavery
To explain the significance of imperialism, we will quote exact figures showing the division of the world among the so-called “great”(i.e., successful in great plunder) powers:| Division of the World Among the “Great” Slave-owning Powers | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colonies | Metropolises | Total | ||||||
| 1876 | 1914 | 1914 | ||||||
| “Great” Powers | Square kilo- metres | Inhab- itants | Square kilo- metres | Inhab- itants | Square kilo- metres | Inhab- itants | Square kilo- metres | Inhab- itants |
| millions | millions | millions | millions | |||||
| England | 22.5 | 251.9 | 33.5 | 393.5 | 0.3 | 46.5 | 33.8 | 440.0 |
| Russia | 17.0 | 15.9 | 17.4 | 33.2 | 5.4 | 136.2 | 22.8 | 169.4 |
| France | 0.9 | 6.0 | 10.6 | 55.5 | 0.5 | 39.6 | 11.1 | 95.1 |
| Germany | – | – | 2.9 | 12.3 | 0.5 | 64.9 | 3.4 | 77.2 |
| Japan | – | – | 0.3 | 19.2 | 0.4 | 53.0 | 0.7 | 72.2 |
| United States of America | – | – | 0.3 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 97.0 | 9.7 | 106.7 |
| Six “great” powers | 40.4 | 273.8 | 65.0 | 523.4 | 16.5 | 437.2 | 81.5 | 960.6 |
| Colonies belonging not to great powers (but to Belgium, Holland and other states) | 9.9 | 45.3 | 9.9 | 45.3 | ||||
| Three “semi-colonial” countries (Turkey, China and Persia) | 14.5 | 361.2 | ||||||
| Total | 105.9 | 1,367.1 | ||||||
| Other states and countries | 28.0 | 289.9 | ||||||
| Entire globe (without Polar regions) | 133.9 | 1,657.0 | ||||||
From this it is seen how most of the nations which fought at the head of others for freedom in 1798-1871, have now, after 1876. on the basis of highly developed and “overripe” capitalism, become the oppressors and enslavers of the majority of the populations and nations of the globe. From 1876 to 1914, six “great” powers grabbed 25 million sq. kilometres, i.e., an area two and a half times that of Europe! Six powers are enslaving over half a billion (521 million) inhabitants of colonies. For every four inhabitants of the“great” powers there are five inhabitants of“their” colonies. And everybody knows that colonies are conquered by fire and sword, that the populations of colonies are brutally treated, that they are exploited in a thousand ways (by exporting capital, concessions, etc., cheating when selling them goods, subordination to the authorities of the “ruling” nation, and so on and so forth). he Anglo-French bourgeoisie are deceiving the people when they say that they are waging war for the freedom of nations and for Belgium; actually they are waging war for the purpose of retaining the colonies they have inordinately grabbed. The German imperialists would free Belgium, etc., at once if the British and French would agree “fairly” to share their colonies with them. The peculiarity of the situation lies in that in this war the fate of the colonies is being decided by war on the Continent. From the standpoint of bourgeois justice and national freedom (or the right of nations to existence), Germany would be absolutely right as against England and France, for she has been “done out” of colonies, her enemies are oppressing an immeasurably far larger number of nations than she is, and the Slays who are oppressed by her ally Austria undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those in tsarist Russia, that real“prison of nations”. But Germany is fighting not for the liberation, but for the oppression of nations. It is not the business of Socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) to rob the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between the robbers to overthrow them all. To be able to do this, the Socialists must first of all tell the people the truth, namely, that this war is in a treble sense a war between slave-owners to fortify slavery. This is a war firstly, to fortify the enslavement of the colonies by means of a “fairer” distribution and subsequent more“concerted exploitation of them; secondly, to fortify the oppression of other nations within the “great” powers, for bothAustria and Russia (Russia more and much worse than Austria) maintain their rule only by such oppression, intensifying it by means of war; and thirdly, to fortify and prolong wage slavery, for the proletariat is split up and suppressed, while the capitalists gain, making fortunes out of the war, aggravating national prejudices and intensifying reaction, which has raised its head in all countries. even in the freest and most republican.
“War is the Continuation of Politics by Other” (i.e., Violent)“Means”[1]
This famous aphorism was uttered by one of the profoundest writers on the problems of war, Clausewitz. Marxists have always rightly regarded this thesis as the theoretical basis of views concerning the significance of every given war. It was precisely from this viewpoint that Marx and Engels always regarded different wars.
Apply this view to the present war. You will see that for decades, for almost half a century, the governments and the ruling classes of England, and France, and Germany, and Italy, and Austria, and Russia, pursued a policy of, plundering colonies, of oppressing other nations, of suppressing the working-class movement. It is this, and only this policy that is being continued in the present war. In particular, the policy of both Austria and Russia peace-time as well as in war, is a policy of enslaving and not of liberating nations. In China, Persia. India and other dependent countries, on the contrary, we have seen during the past decades a policy of rousing tens and hundreds of millions of people to national life, of liberating them from the oppression of the reactionary “great” powers. A war on such a historical ground can even today be a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberation war.It is sufficient to glance at the present war from the viewpoint that it is a continuation of the politics of the great powers, and of the principal classes within them, to see at once the howling anti-historicalness, falsity and hypocrisy of the view that the “defence of the fatherland” idea can be justified in the present war.
The Example of Belgium
The favourite plea of the social-chauvinist triple (now quadruple) entente[2] (in Russia. Plekhanov and Co.), is the example of Belgium. But this example goes against them. The German imperialists shamelessly violated the neutrality of Belgium, as belligerent states have done always and everywhere, trampling upon all treaties and obligations if necessary. Let us suppose that all the states interested in the observation of international treaties declared war on Germany with the demand for the liberation and indemnification of Belgium. In such a case, the sympathies of Socialists would, of course, be on the side of Germany’s enemies. But the whole point is that the “triple (and quadruple) entente” is waging war not over Belgium this is perfectly well known, and only hypocrites conceal this. England is grabbing Germany’s colonies and Turkey; Russia is grabbing Galicia and Turkey, France wants Alsace-Lorraine and even the left hank of the Rhine; a treaty has been concluded with Italy for the division of the spoils (Albania, Asia Minor); bargaining is going on with Bulgaria and Rumania, also for the division of the spoils. In the present war waged by the present governments it is impossible to help Belgium without helping to strangle Austria or Turkey, etc.! How does “defence of the fatherland” come in here? Herein, precisely, lies the specific feature of imperialist war, war between reactionary-bourgeois, historically obsolete governments, waged for the purpose of oppressing other nations. Whoever justifies participation in the present war perpetuates imperialist oppression of nations. Whoever advocates taking advantage of the present embarrassments of the governments to fight for the social revolution champions the real freedom of really all nations, which is possible only under Socialism.
What is Russia Fighting For?
In Russia, capitalist imperialism of the latest type has fully revealed itself in the policy of tsarism towards Persia, Manchuria and Mongolia; but, in general, military and feudal imperialism predominates in Russia. In no country in the world is the majority of the population oppressed so much as it is in Russia; Great Russians constitute only 43 per cent of the population, he., less than half; all the rest are denied rights as aliens, Of the 170 million inhabitants of Russia, about 100 million are oppressed and denied rights. Tsarism is waging war to seize Galicia and finally to crush the liberties of the Ukrainians, to seize Armenia, Constantinople, etc. Tsarism regards the war as a means of diverting attention from the growth of discontent within the country and of suppressing the growing revolutionary movement. At the present time, for every two Great Russians in Russia there are from two to three rightless“aliens”: tsarism is striving by means of the war to increase the number of nations oppressed by Russia, to perpetuate this oppression and thereby undermine the struggle for freedom which the Great Russians themselves are waging. The possibility of oppressing and robbing other nations perpetuates economic stagnation, because, often, the source of income is not the development of productive forces, but the semi-feudal exploitation of “aliens”. Thus, on the part of Russia, the war is distinguished for its profoundly reactionary and anti-liberating character.
What is Social-Chauvinism?
Social-chauvinism is advocacy of the idea of “defence of the fatherland” in the present war. Further, this idea logically leads to the abandonment of the class struggle during the war, to voting war credits, etc. Actually, the social-chauvinists are pursuing an anti-proletarian, bourgeois policy; for actually, they are championing not“defence of the fatherland” in the sense of fighting foreign oppression, but the “right” of one or other of the“great” powers to plunder colonies and to oppress other nations. The social-chauvinists repeat the bourgeois deception of the people that the war is being waged to protect the freedom and existence of nations, and thereby they go over to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. In the category of social-chauvinists are those who justify and embellish the governments and bourgeoisie of one of the belligerent groups of powers, as well as those who, like Kautsky, argue that the Socialists of all the belligerent powers have an equal right to “defend the fatherland”. Social-chauvinism, being actually defence of the privileges, advantages, robbery and violence of one’s “own” (or every) imperialist bourgeoisie, is the utter betrayal of all socialist convictions and of the decision of the Basle International Socialist Congress.
The Basle Manifesto[3]
The manifesto on war that was unanimously adopted in Basle in 1911 had in view the very war between England and Germany and their present allies that broke out in 1914 The manifesto openly declares that no plea of the interests of the people can justify such a war, waged“for the sake of the profits of the capitalists” and “the ambitions of dynasties” on the basis of the imperialist, predatory policy of the great powers. The manifesto openly declares that war is dangerous “for the governments” (all without exception), notes their fear of “a proletarian revolution”, and very definitely points to the example of the Commune of 1871, and of October-December 1905,i.e., to the examples of revolution and civil war. Thus, the Basle Manifesto lays down, precisely for the present war, the tactics of revolutionary struggle by the workers on an international scale against their governments, the tactics of proletarian revolution. The Basle Manifesto repeats the statement in the Stuttgart resolution that, in the event of war breaking out, Socialists must take advantage of the“economic and political crisis” it will cause, to “hasten the downfall of capitalism”, i.e., to take advantage of the governments’ embarrassments and the anger of the masses, caused by the war, for the socialist revolution.
The policy of the social-chauvinists, their justification of the war from the bourgeois-liberation standpoint, their sanctioning of“defence of the fatherland”, voting credits, entering cabinets, and so on and so forth, is downright treachery to Socialism, which can be explained only, as we wilt see lower down, by the victory of opportunism and of the national-liberal labour policy in the majority of European parties.
False References to Marx and Engels
The Russian social-chauvinists (headed by Plekhanov), refer to Marx’s tactics in the war of 1870; the German (of the type of Lensch, David and Co.) to Engels’ statement in 1891 that in the event of war against Russia and France together, it would be the duty of the German Socialists to defend their fatherland; and lastly, the social-chauvinists of the Kautsky type, who want to reconcile and legitimatize international chauvinism, refer to the fact that Marx and Engels, while condemning war, nevertheless, constantly, from to 1870-1871 and 1876-1877, took the side of one or another belligerent state once war had broken out
All these references are outrageous distortions of the views of Marx and Engels in the interest of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, in just the same way as the writings of the Anarchists Guillaume and Co. distort the views of Marx and Engels in justification of anarchism. The war of 1870-1871 was a historically progressive war on the part of Germany until Napoleon III was defeated; for the latter, together with the tsar, had oppressed Germany for many years, keeping her in a state of feudal disintegration. But as soon as the war developed into the plunder of France (the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine), Marx and Engels emphatically condemned the Germans. And even at the beginning of that war Marx and Engels approved of the refusal of Bebel and Liebknecht to vote for credits and advised the Social-Democrats not to merge with the bourgeoisie, but to uphold the independent class interests of the proletariat. To apply the appraisal of this bourgeois-progressive and national-liberating war to the present imperialist war means mocking at truth. The same applies with still greater force to the war of 1854-1855, and to all the wars of the nineteenth century, when there was no modern imperialism,no ripe objective conditions f or Socialism, and no mass Socialist parties in any of the belligerent countries, i.e., none of the conditions from which the Basle Manifesto deduced the tactics of“proletarian revolution” in connection with a war between the great powers.Whoever refers today to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Man’s statement that “the workers have no fatherland”, a statement that applies precisely to the epoch of the reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution. shamelessly distorts Marx and substitute, the bourgeois for the socialist point of view.
The Collapse of the Second International
The Socialists of all the world solemnly declared in Basle, in 1912, that they regarded the impending war in Europe as the“criminal” and most reactionary affair of all the governments, which must hasten the downfall of capitalism by inevitably calling forth a revolution against it. The war came, the crisis came. Instead of revolutionary tactics, the majority of the Social-Democratic parties conducted reactionary tactics, went over to the side of their respective governments and bourgeoisie. This betrayal of Socialism signifies the collapse of the Second (1889-1914) International, and we must understand what caused this collapse, what brought social-chauvinism into being what gave it strength.
Social-Chauvinism is Consummated Opportunism
During the whole epoch of the Second International, a struggle raged everywhere in the Social-Democratic parties between the revolutionary and the opportunist wings. In a number of countries a split has taken place along this line (England, Italy, Holland, Bulgaria). Not a single Marxist has any doubt that opportunism expresses bourgeois policy within the working-class movement, expresses the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the alliance of a tiny section of bourgeoisified workers with “their” bourgeoisie against the interests of the proletarian masses, the oppressed masses.
The objective conditions of the end of the nineteenth century exceptionally intensified opportunism, converted the utilization of bourgeois legality into subservience to it, created a tiny stratum of bureaucrats and aristocrats within the working class, and drew into the ranks of the Social-Democratic parties numerous petty-bourgeois“fellow travellers”.
The war accelerated this development and transformed opportunism into social-chauvinism, transformed the secret alliance between the opportunists and the bourgeoisie into an open one. Simultaneously, the military authorities everywhere have introduced martial law and have muzzled the mass of the workers, whose old leaders have nearly all gone over to the bourgeoisie.
Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same economic basis: the interests of a tiny stratum of privileged workers and of the petty bourgeoisie who are defending their privileged position, their“right” to crumbs of the profits “their” national bourgeoisie obtain from robbing other nations, from the advantages of their position as the ruling nation, etc.
Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same ideological-political content: collaboration of classes instead of class struggle, renunciation of revolutionary methods of struggle, helping one’s “own”government in its embarrassed situation instead of taking advantage of these embarrassments for revolution. If we take all the European countries as a whole, if we pay attention not to individuals (even the most authoritative), we will find that it is the opportunist trend that has become the chief bulwark of social-chauvinism, whereas from the camp of the revolutionaries, more or less consistent protests against it are heard nearly everywhere. And if we take, for example, the grouping of trends at the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress in 1907[4], we will find that international Marxism was opposed to imperialism, while international opportunism was in favour of it already at that time.
Unity with the Opportunists Means Alliance Between the Workers and“Their” National Bourgeoisie and Splitting the International Revolutionary Working Class
In the past epoch, before the war, although opportunism was often regarded as a “deviationist”, “extremist”part of the Social-Democratic Party, it was nevertheless regarded as a legitimate part. The war has shown that this cannot be so in future. Opportunism has “matured”, is now playing to the full its role as emissary of the bourgeois in the working-class movement. Unity with the opportunists has become sheer hypocrisy, an example of which we see in the German Social-Democratic Party. On all important occasions (for example, the voting on August 4)[5], the opportunists come forward with an ultimatum, which they carry out with the aid of their numerous connections with the bourgeoisie, of their majority on the executives of the trade unions, etc. Unity with the opportunists actually means today, subordinating the working class to “its” national bourgeoisie, alliance with it for the purpose of oppressing other nations and of fighting for great-power privileges, it means splitting the revolutionary proletariat in all countries.
Hard as the struggle may be, in individual cases, against the opportunists who predominate in many organisations, peculiar as the process of purging the workers’ parties of opportunists may be in individual countries, this process is inevitable and fruitful. Reformist Socialism is dying; regenerated Socialism “will be revolutionary, uncompromising and insurrectionary”, to use the apt expression of the French Socialist Paul Golay. “Kautskyism”
Kautsky, the biggest authority in the Second International, gives us a highly typical and glaring example of how the verbal recognition of Marxism has led actually to its conversion into“Struveism”[6], or into“Brentanoism”.[7]We see this also from the example of Plekhanov. By means of obvious sophistry they rob Marxism of its revolutionary living spirit; they recognise everything in Marxismexcept revolutionary methods of struggle, the preaching of and preparation for such methods, and the training of the masses precisely in this direction. Kautsky, in an unprincipled fashion,“reconciles” the fundamental idea of social-chauvinism, recognition of defence of the fatherland in the present war, with a diplomatic, sham concession to the Lefts it, the shape of abstaining from voting credits, the verbal claim of being in the opposition, etc. Kautsky, who in 1909 wrote a whole book on the approaching epoch of revolutions and on the connection between war and revolutions, Kautsky, who in 1912 signed the Basle Manifesto on taking revolutionary advantage of the impending war, is now, in every way, justifying and embellishing social-chauvinism and, like Plekhanov, joins the bourgeoisie iii ridiculing all thought of revolution, all steps towards direct revolutionary struggle.
The working class cannot play its world-revolutionary role unless it wages a ruthless struggle against this renegacy. spinelessness, subservience to opportunism and unexampled vulgarization of the theories of Marxism. Kautskyism is not fortuity, but a social product of the contradictions within the Second International, a combination of loyalty to Marxism in words and subordination to opportunism in deeds.
This fundamental falseness of “Kautskyism” manifests itself in different ways in different countries. In Holland, Roland-HoIst while rejecting the idea of defending the fatherland, defends unity with the opportunists’ party. In Russia Trotsky, while also rejecting this idea, also defends unity with the opportunist and chauvinist Nasha Zarya group. In Rumania, Rakovsky, while declaring war on opportunism as being responsible for the collapse of the International, is at the same time ready to recognise the legitimacy of the idea of defending the fatherland. All this is a manifestation of the evil which the Dutch Marxists (Gorter and Pannekoek) have called “passive radicalism”, and which amounts to substituting for Marxism eclecticism in theory and servility to, or impotence in the face of, opportunism in practice.
The Marxists’ Slogan is the Slogan of Revolutionary Social-Democracy
The war has undoubtedly created a most acute crisis and has increased the distress of the masses to an incredible degree. The reactionary character of this war, and the shameless lies told by the bourgeoisie of all countries in covering up their predatory aims with “national” ideology, are inevitably creating, on the basis of an objectively revolutionary situation, revolutionary moods among the masses. It is our duty to help the masses to become conscious of these moods, to deepen and formulate them. This task is correctly expressed only by the slogan: convert the imperialist war into civil war; and allconsistently waged class struggles during the war, all seriously conducted“mass action” tactics inevitably lead to this. It is impossible to foretell whether a powerful revolutionary movement will flare up during the first or the second war of the great powers, whether during or after it; in any case, our bounden duty is systematically and undeviatingly to work precisely in this direction.
The Basle Manifesto refers directly to the example set by the Paris Commune, i.e., to the conversion of a war between governments into civil war. Half a century ago, the proletariat was too weak; the objective conditions for Socialism had not yet ripened; there could be no coordination and cooperation between the revolutionary movements in all the belligerent countries; the “national ideology” (the traditions of 1792), with which a section of the Parisian workers were imbued, was their petty-bourgeois weakness, which Marx noted at the time, and was one of the causes of the fall of the Commune. Half a century after it, the conditions that weakened the revolution at that time have passed away, and it is unpardonable for a Socialist at the present time to resign himself to the abandonment of activities precisely in the spirit of the Paris Communards. The Example Shown by the Fraternisation in the Trenches
The bourgeois newspapers of all the belligerent countries have reported cases of fraternisation between the soldiers of the belligerent nations even in the trenches. And the issue by the military authorities (of Germany, England) of draconic orders against such fraternisation proved that the governments and the bourgeoisie attached grave importance to it. he fact that such cases of fraternisation have been possible even when opportunism reigns supreme in the top ranks of the Social-Democratic parties of Western Europe, and when social-chauvinism is supported by the entire Social-Democratic press and by all the authorities of the Second International, shows us how possible it would be to shorten the present criminal, reactionary and slave-owners’ war and to organise a revolutionary international movement if systematic work were conducted in this direction, if only by the Left-wing Socialists in all the belligerent countries.The Importance of an Underground Organisation
The most prominent Anarchists all over the world, no less than the opportunists, have disgraced themselves with social-chauvinism (in the spirit of Plekhanov and Kautsky) in this war. One of the useful results of this war will undoubtedly be that it will kill both anarchism and opportunism.
While under no circumstances or conditions refraining from utilizing all legal possibilities, however small, for the purpose of organizing the masses and of preaching Socialism, the Social-Democratic parties must break with subservience to legality. “You shoot first, Messieurs the Bourgeoisie,”[8] wrote Engels, hinting precisely at civil war and at the necessity of our violating legality after the bourgeoisie had violated it. The crisis has shown that the bourgeoisie violate it in all countries, even the freest, and that it is impossible to lead the masses to revolution unless an underground organisation is set up for the purpose of advocating, discussing, appraising and preparing revolutionary methods of struggle. In Germany, for example, all the honest things that Socialists are doing, are being done in spite of despicable opportunism and hypocritical“Kautskyism”, and are being done secretly. In England, people are sent to penal servitude for printing appeals against joining the army.To regard the repudiation of underground methods of propaganda, and ridiculing the latter in the legally published press, as being compatible with membership of the Social-Democratic Patty is treachery to Socialism.
Concerning Defeat of “One’s Own” Government in the Imperialist War
Both the advocates of victory for their governments in the present war and the advocates of the slogan “neither victory not defeat”, equally take the standpoint of social-chauvinism. A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, cannot fail to see that its military reverses facilitate its overthrow. Only a bourgeois who believes that a war started by the governments must necessarily end as a war between governments and wants it to end as such, can regard as “ridiculous” and“absurd” the idea that the Socialists of all the belligerent countries should wish for the defeat of all“their” governments and express this wish. On the contrary, it is precisely a statement of this kind that would conform to the cherished thoughts of every class-conscious worker, and would be in line with our activities towards converting the imperialist war into civil war.
Undoubtedly, the serious anti-war agitation that is being conducted by a section of the British, German and Russian Socialists has “weakened the military power” of the respective governments, but such agitation stands to the credit of the Socialists. Socialists must explain to the masses that they have no other road of salvation except the revolutionary overthrow of “their” governments, and that advantage must be taken of these governments’ embarrassments in the present war precisely for this purpose. Pacifism and the Peace Slogan
The sentiments of the masses in favour of peace often express incipient protest, anger and consciousness of the reactionary character of the war. It is the duty of all Social-Democrats to utilise these sentiments. They will take a most ardent pan in every movement and in every demonstration on this ground; but they will not deceive the people by conceding the idea that peace without annexations, without the oppression of nations, without plunder, without the germs of new wars among the present governments and ruling classes is possible in the absence of a revolutionary movement. Such a deception of the people would merely play into the hands of the secret diplomacy of the belligerent governments and facilitate their counter-revolutionary plans. Whoever wants a lasting and democratic peace must be in favour of civil war against the governments and the bourgeoisie.
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
The most widespread deception of the people perpetrated by the bourgeoisie it, the present war is the concealment of its predatory aims with “national-liberation” ideology. The English promise the liberation of Belgium, the Germans of Poland, etc. Actually, as we have seen, this is a war waged by the oppressors of the majority of the nations of the world for the purpose of fortifying and expanding such oppression.
Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called “great” powers) should recognise and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, precisely in the political sense of the term, i.e., the tight to political secession. The Socialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this right is a chauvinist.The championing of this right, far from encouraging the formation of small states, leads, on the contrary, to the freer, fearless and therefore wider and mote widespread formation of very big states and federations of states, which are more beneficial for the masses and more fully in keeping with economic development.
The Socialists of oppressed nations must, in their turn, unfailingly fight for the complete (including organisational) unity of theworkers of the oppressed and oppressing nationalities. The idea of the juridical separation of one nation from another (so-called“cultural-national autonomy” advocated by Bauer and Renner) is reactionary.
Imperialism is the epoch of the constantly increasing oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of “great” powers and, therefore, it is impossible to fight for the socialist international revolution against imperialism unless the right of nations to self-determination is recognized. “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations” (Marx and Engels). A proletariat that tolerates the slightest violence by “its” nation against other nations cannot be a socialist proletariat.
Notes
a
[3]The Basle Manifesto on the war issue was unanimously adopted at the special congress of the Second International held on November 4-25, 1912, at Basle, Switzerland. The manifesto revealed the predatory aims of the war the imperialists were preparing and urged workers everywhere resolutely to combat the war danger. The manifesto proposed that in the event of an imperialist war breaking out, Socialists should take advantage of the economic and political crisis to precipitate the socialist revolution. (On the Basic Manifesto, see also V.I. Lenin, The Collapse of the Second International, Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York 1930, Vol. XVIII, pp.273-82.)
At the Basic Congress Kautsky, Vandervelde and the other leaders of the Second International voted for the Manifesto, but as soon as the world war broke out in 1914, they went back on it, and sided with their imperialist governments.
b
[4]The Stuttgart international Socialist Congress, held on August 18-24, 1907. At this congress the R.S.D.L.P. was represented by 37 delegates. Lenin, Lunacharsky, Litvinov and others represented the Bolsheviks.
Most of the work of the congress was conducted in commissions, which drafted resolutions for submission to the plenary sessions. Lenin was a member of the commission that drafted the resolution on Militarism and International Conflicts. Jointly with Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin moved his historic amendment to Bebel’s resolution, declaring that it was the duty of Socialists to take advantage of the crisis brought about by war to rouse the masses for the overthrow of capitalism. The congress accepted this amendment. (On the congress see V.I. Lenin, The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Lawrence and Wishart, London 1943, Vol.IV, pp.314-23, and Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol.XIII, pp.59-65.)
c
[5]The voting on August 4 – Oft August 4, 1914, the Social-Democratic group in the German Reichstag voted in favour of granting the government of Wilhelm II war credits and for supporting the imperialist war. The leaders of German Social-Democracy betrayed the working class and took up the position of social-chauvinism and of defence of their imperialist bourgeoisie.
d
[7]Brentanoism – a bourgeois reformist theory which “recognised the ‘school of capitalism’, but rejected the school of the revolutionary class struggle” (Lenin). Lujo Brentano, a German bourgeois economist, advocate of so-called “State Socialism”, tried to prove that it was possible to achieve social equality within the capitalist system by means of reforms and the conciliation of the interests of the capitalists and the workers. Under the cloak of Marxist phraseology, Brentano and his followers tried to subordinate the working-dan movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie.
a
[8]Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Der Sozialismus in Deutschland, Collected Works, Ger. ed., Berlin 1963, Vol.XXII, p. 251.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)