Marxists, The State and War

Yesterday, I wrote a short blog about the utter confusion of the AWL in relation to the Financial Crisis and how Marxists should respond to it. See: Wonderful Logic . The confusion arose out of their statist Lassallean politics, which in place of attempting to mobilise working class self-activity to resolve workers problems can only see the bourgeois state as the means of effecting solutions. There was more utter confusion in the article in the ludicrous economic theory presented there e.g. the idea that the needs of workers could be met by that State if it simply printed more money! That, of course is not the economics of Marx or even Lassalle, but the economics of John Law or Isaac Pereire, described in Capital by Marx as shysters.

The AWL’s politics in this as in pretty much everything nowadays was really bad, but in reality not much worse than most of the rest of the Left. Permanent Revolution tends to have a better grasp of economic theory, and a better understanding of the crisis, but they too are in thrall to Lassallean statism as much as the AWL. They too have nothing to say to workers, for example, in danger of losing their homes or unable to obtain homes, other than to recommend them to petition the bourgeois State to carry out good works on their behalf. See: Here .

I want to contrast the positions of both groups in the light of this Lassalleanism also in relation to the question of War. Take the AWL’s position above in relation to the Banks, and its method of arguing in relation to Iraq. In Iraq it says, “Marxists cannot demand that the Capitalist State (Imperialism) leave because, absent a sufficiently strong working class, the consequence of such a demand being fulfilled will be, in practice, the destruction of the Iraqi Labour movement.”

So, when the AWL raise the demand for the Banks and finance houses to be nationalised, do they assume then that in Britain, here and now a strong enough Labour Movement exists, and is mobilised, to ensure not only that such nationalisation occurs, but occurs in such a way as to benefit workers, that these institutions are placed under workers control and so on!!!!! If they do, then they really are flying around the cosmos with Posadas looking for extraterrestrials. But, if they do not – and from everything else they say they clearly don’t – believe that to be the case, then how, using the same argument they apply to Troops Out of Iraq, can they raise a demand, the consequence of which they KNOW must have the opposite consequence of that they seek???? In other words the only way that nationalisation of the Banks etc will occur here and now is for the purposes, and on the basis on which it has ALREADY occurred, that of serving the interests of the Capitalist class. For a Marxist as opposed to a Lassallean that comes as no surprise, because contrary to what the AWL now appear to believe about the nature of “democratic imperialism” and its good works, the function of the Capitalist State is precisely to do that to act in the interests of the Capitalists, not the workers!

The reality is the AWL know this, but having given up on the working class they raise these demands not as demands placed in front of the working class, but as recommendations to the bourgeoisie on whose actions they have now come to rely. They cove themselves with Leftish verbiage and demands they know the bourgeoisie will not implement simply as a cordon sanitaire so that they can say at some future point, well we didn’t ask them to do this, or we said they should do the other as well, but they didn’t.

The AWL’s position in Iraq really means relying on the the bourgeois state on “democratic imperialism” to fight the workers battles, because they have no faith in the workers being able to do that. Permanent Revolution, however, do call on the workers in Iraq to fight their own battles, and reject the idea that imperialism can do that for them, or that it is a lesser evil compared with the workers clerical-fascist opponents. But, as my debates with them recently – see link above – have shown their Lassalleanism shows through in the question of War as much as in their calls to the bourgeois state to resolve workers housing problems.

In one of those discussions Bill Jefferies commented, in response to my point that their demand for the State to intervene over the housing question was no different from the AWL’s reliance on the bourgeois State in Iraq,

“Was it "unlikely" in fact "highly unlikely" in fact "so unlikely that it was virtually inconceivable" that the bosses would drop their plans to attack Iraq.

It was.

Should we have refused to campaign against the war? Or stated on every leaflet, "although we oppose the war, there's really very little chance of success, we don't think there's anyway the capitalist state will alter its essence and halt the attack, sorry to shatter your illusions. By the way we want street blockades and strikes which could get you arrested and sacked."

The utter confusion of the Lassallean statism is exposed here as clearly as in the AWL’s demands in relation to the financial crisis. On the one hand we are told that although PR start by knowing that the bourgeois state will not accede to its demands the purpose is really not to obtain its accession to them anyway. It is in reality all just a pantomime through, which the working class can see that bouregois State exposed because it does not accede to them! Yet, they object to beginning that process with what ought to be the very obvious action for anyone wanting to so expose that State on that basis, that is to pointing out from the very beginning precisely the fact that it was “so unlikely that it was virtually inconceivable" that the bosses would drop their plans to attack Iraq.” They feared raising such propaganda for fear of “shattering the illusions” of those who might take part. The very illusions the whole pantomime they tell us was to be staged to bring about!!!!

So, in reality in calling for “Troops Out” in Britain what PR are left with is similarly a demand addressed not to workers, but to the bosses. For a Marxist a demand for “Troops Out” addressed to workers in Britain could only mean a demand that those workers engage in a campaign of strikes and other measures to frustrate Britain’s war drive, and thereby assist their Iraqi comrades fighting that Occupation. In other words all those kinds of actions, like those of the US dockworkers, which Bill thinks workers in Britain should not be called upon to undertake,

“By the way we want street blockades and strikes which could get you arrested and sacked."

as he put it sarcastically.

In other words, PR are left with nothing more than bourgeois pacifism in Britain, pointless demonstrations to call on the bourgeois State to do things it will not do, and they know it will not do, just like the demonstrations the pacifists organised before WWI, or the pacificists, Stalinists, and Social Democrats organised prior to WWII. It has nothing to do with Marxism.

For a Marxist the demand “Troops Out” addressed to Iraqi workers is a demand for those workers to build factory committees, workers defence squads and so on in order to build the necessary infrastructure for a revolutionary war against the Occupation. For a Marxist the demand “Troops Out” in either country can never be a demand let alone a request made to the bourgeoisie. It is a demand addressed to workers NOT to rely on the bourgeois State to recognise it as their enemy, and to take matters directly into their own hands.

The Lassalleanism of the Left has led them into all of the same pacifistic mistakes of the Left in the past. Prior to WWI only a few Marxists avoided that mistake. The Zimmerwald Left refused to get drawn along behind all of that pacifistic nonsense of calling on the bourgeois State not to go to War. They knew that that was precisely what the Capitalist States were going to do whether they demanded otherwise or not, whether they held huge demonstrations against War or not. The task of Marxists was to oppose the War by direct working class action, by socialist Parliamentarians refusing to support War Credits and so on, but knowing, and saying so openly, that War could not be prevented short of an overthrow of the bourgeois state, by turning the guns on your own ruling class. That was precisely what revolutionary defeatism meant, and nothing more.

The idea that workers can control the foreign policy or the military policy of the capitalist state is dangerous nonsense as Trotsky outlined. He wrote,

"Where and when has an oppressed proletariat “controlled” the foreign policy of the bourgeoisie and the activities of its arm? How can it achieve this when the entire power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie? In order to lead the army, it is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize power. There is no other road. But the new policy of the Communist International implies the renunciation of this only road.”

See Here

Yet, this is what the Lasalleanism of both the AWL and PR leads to. PR want to “control” British foreign policy by street demonstrations, and so on to persuade the British State to withdraw the troops. The AWL wants to control British foreign policy by demanding that it act “progressively” in Iraq.

Whilst, independent working class action in Iraq CAN force the withdrawal of imperialist troops, especially if supported by the international working class, it can only do so by smashing the State structures created by imperialism, and replacing them with new state structures not tied to imperialism. In Britain, workers cannot force the withdrawal of British troops against the will of the British State, similarly, without smashing the British State, as Trotsky outlines above. They can engage in actions such as strikes and so on to undermine the British State’s role in Iraq, but it will not be their actions which cause a withdrawal. Rather it will be the actions of Iraqi workers. Imperialist forces will leave for one of three reasons. Either they are militarily deafeated and forced out, or else the economic, military and political cost becomes too high, or imperialism has acheieved its objectives.

The position Trotsky took prior to WWII in his advice to revolutionaries compares starkly with the statism and pacificsm of those who call themselves Marxists today. His position was this. Just as with WWI the War was coming and inevitable. It could not be stopped by pacifistic demonstrations and conferences such as those the Stalinists were supporting which attempted to control the foreign policy of the capitalists states – see quote above. War could only be stopped by revolution, and revolution nearly always came after War had begun. Rather then, he argued, that when the bosses State called for military training workers should accept that call on the basis of it providing the necessary training to turn the guns on the bosses. Just as Marxists should seek to be the most conscientious, most skilled workers in a plant in order to gain the respect of other workers, Marxists in the armed forces should seek to be the most skilled, the most brave for the same reason. That way in both cases they are more likely to be listened to, and although, he says, that when the Marxists forewarn the other workers, fighting alongside them, of what is to come, of how the bosses State will betray them, they will not be listened to, when their words come to pass the workers will begin to listen to them, they will be able to begin to form a nucleus of worker soldiers around them, and that is how the guns do come to be turned on the bosses. That is how revolutions begin. They do not begin by making appeals to the bouregois State, like Oliver Twist asking “Can I have some more please.”