Workers World, Vol. 21, No. 15
April 10 – Because of the urgency that has been imparted to the nuclear issue by the Three Mile Island disaster, plans are now underway for a great number of anti-nuclear activities. Some will undoubtedly turn out to have the broad support of many organizations and will mobilize large numbers of people from around the country.
A principal slogan under consideration in the movement in the discussion of these activities is: “For a non-nuclear world.” This slogan on the surface appears innocuous and is not likely to create a stir. If many thousands turn out for the various rallies and demonstrations, it will not be because of this or that particular slogan but because of an understanding that these events are in general against nuclear power and weapons.
The vast majority will come to protest against the vast network of utilities which operate the nuclear facilities. They will come to protest against the government which has given the utilities, the bankers, and industrialists the green light to do as they please without regard to life or limb so far as the people are concerned. Many will come to protest against the private ownership of the utilities and their operation in the interest of private profit for the millionaires and billionaires.
Undoubtedly slogans such as “Shut down the nuclear plants” or “Declare a moratorium on building new ones” will be very prominent. In protests that have already taken place since the Harrisburg disaster, demonstrators have increasingly taken to the slogan, “People before profits,” which aptly sums up the thoughts and convictions of many millions.
In light of the clear, progressive objective of such demonstrations, it would be erroneous to assume that the slogan of a “non-nuclear world” will become a substantial impediment. Nevertheless, it is important to consider the slogan in the light of the serious political implications it entails for the future of the anti-nuclear movement.
One has to consider this slogan in the light of the world position of the U.S. today before recommending it to the rest of the world. It is objectionable on several grounds. Let us consider it on the most elementary basis.
It would be one thing, for instance, if the U.S. were a poor, oppressed, beleaguered, non-nuclear power surrounded by an array of great imperialist nuclear powers which were menacing the U.S. position, indeed its very existence. There would be a great deal of validity under those circumstances to raising the slogan of a non-nuclear world. It would be understood both as a defensive measure and as an appeal to the rest of the world in the spirit of anti-imperialist solidarity. It would also entail a promise not to begin the construction of atomic facilities, especially if the menacing powers were also to abandon it.
The U.S., however, is not a small, beleaguered, non-nuclear power. The reality of the situation is that it was the U.S. which introduced the atom bomb to the world through Nagasaki and Hiroshima and attempted for many years to retain the tightest monopoly on nuclear facilities and weapons. Moreover, it attempted, and still does today, to use atomic power, especially the most sophisticated atomic weapons, as a form of intimidation and blackmail against all others.
There was considerable world public opinion which sought be a variety of political and diplomatic means to persuade the Truman administration to abandon nuclear weapons. Indeed, in different ways there was an attempt to raise the slogan, directed to the U.S., “Let’s have a non-nuclear world” – destroy the nuclear weapons and facilities. It scarcely needs to be added that not only the Truman administration but all succeeding administrations turned a deaf ear to the slogan of a non-nuclear world.
The truth behind the politics and diplomacy of the U.S. capitalist establishment is that by insisting first on continuing the nuclear monopoly and then, when the monopoly was broken, on speeding up at a dizzying pace the further research, development, and construction of complex and sophisticated nuclear weapons and facilities, it virtually forced the USSR, China, and other countries into the race in nuclear weapons. And by continuing the arms race, the U.S. military-industrial complex has created a world phenomenon which indeed threatens millions of people with annihilation.
The source of the threat must first of all be located. It is not hard to do so. It is right here in the U.S. It travels under a variety of pseudonyms, but it is probably best described as the military-industrial complex, whose infrastructure rests on the fusion of banking and industrial monopoly interests. They hold in their hands both the military and civilian production of atomic facilities. That this is done in the interest of garnering fabulous super-profits is a fact known by the entire world.
There is no doubt that those who propose the slogan believe they are taking a broad view of history and are attempting to extend the horizon of the struggle beyond the U.S., in a word, to taken an internationalist position. There are, however, two varieties of internationalism – one of them true and the other false.
True internationalism by the working class and oppressed people in a capitalist society begins with placing the obligation and responsibility for maintaining and supporting atomic as well as other armaments on the shoulders of the “own” ruling class. In other words, the struggle must be directed first and foremost not against the “foreigners” but the military-industrial complex and the bankers and generals right here at home. Here is where the source is and it is here the threat continues to grow and grow.
By raising the slogan of a non-nuclear world, the responsibility is shifted away from the “home territory” towards “foreign lands,” an ancient and hoary device used for distracting the popular masses at home and directing their anger abroad. It is also a form of dictating to other countries, especially those without coal, oil or other fuels, on how they should develop. This position of making the anti-nuclear struggle conditional upon the rest of the world in reality limits the struggle and exposes the true content of the slogan as being not internationalist but nationalist – the nationalism of an imperialist ruling class.
True internationalism in the contemporary period, on the other hand, must take into account that in the unremitting hostility of the imperialist countries (who are all allied with the U.S. and all contribute to each other’s maintenance and security) against the revolutionary masses of the oppressed countries throughout the world, nuclear threats and intimidation play a large part. True internationalism of the working classes in all the imperialist countries demands that each of them direct their main efforts in the struggle against atomic annihilation against their own imperialist country first.
It is easier, for instance, for the French workers to attach the U.S. capitalist establishment than to attack their own capitalist government for perpetuating the atomic race. Similarly with the British, German, and Japanese. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. is the principal culprit in the development of atomic weapons.
Internationalism demands first of all solidarity among the workers. In the era of monopoly capitalism, each ruling class tries to shift the responsibility away from itself towards the other, the foreign imperialist ruling class, engendering chauvinism at home. Proletarian class solidarity can only be achieved if each working class perceives its own ruling class as its principal antagonist.
Internationalism means self-sacrifice by each working class in the interests of those in other countries, not making demands on more deprived and under-privileged working classes.
Suppose, as an example, that in the future a socialist Bangladesh, which has neither coal nor oil, were able to make a go of it with nuclear energy. It would be a risk that they might have to take. But that would be for the workers’ and peasants’ government of Bangladesh to decide.
Of course, if Bangladesh were part of a cooperative socialist commonwealth of nations, the latter might be able to make available the necessary resources to allow it to develop a socialist industry without nuclear power.
The socialist countries, and this includes China and the USSR, regardless of their current differences, have on innumerable occasions ever since Nagasaki and Hiroshima proposed the destruction of all atomic weapons. Not so the U.S. or other imperialist countries. This is a matter of record.
All proposals for nuclear disarmament which would at least reduce the arms race have come either from the Soviet Union or China, not from the U.S.
So far as civilian atomic development goes, it would be erroneous to make a demand upon the socialist countries to abandon atomic energy development at a time when their fundamental political problem is the external threat from imperialism. An objective, careful, and protracted investigation of the possibilities of nuclear energy cannot be conducted in the socialist countries as long as the external threat remains and the atomic arms race goes on.
The driving force in capitalist society is super-profit. Even those who deny the progressive class character of the Soviet Union or China must admit that it is precisely this motive which is absent as the fundamental driving force in the socialist countries.
Of course, the fact that the socialist countries have the potential of planning their economies doesn’t mean that the leadership always responds to the needs of the people adequately and correctly.
Given a world environment free from counter-revolutionary subversion and imperialist threats of war as evidenced by the ever-growing defense budgets in all the imperialist countries, the possibilities will be enormous for socialist countries to make the best possible choice with regard to atomic energy.
Last updated: 11 May 2026