Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From New Militant, Vol. II No. 21, 30 May 1936, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Marxists have always taken the position that the question of war in the modern imperialist epoch is as inseparable from the capitalist system of society as is the class struggle. Our attitude towards war is therefore the same as our attitude towards the class struggle: our aim is in both instances to work for the defeat of capitalism and to secure the victory of the working class.
This fundamental criterion the Stalinist leaders have thrown overboard long ago. Having abandoned the Marxian position the Comintern and all its sections now reincarnates in new form s and under new conditions the ideas of social patriotism which characterized the great betrayal in 1914.
To the Stalinist leaders the fundamental differentiation in the
present day world does not proceed along the irreconcilable lines of
opposing and antagonistic classes. To them the main division occurs
between good capitalists and bad capitalists, between which the
working class is to take sides, for and against, to rely on the
former against the latter. On the one hand in this division the
forces for peace and on the other the forces for war, not divided
along class lines, but divided into peaceful countries and nations of
warlike intentions: a world divided between the capitalist
democracies and the Fascist aggressors.
In his report on the Communist Party position on war and the coming Presidential elections Browder names the Fascist aggressors:
“It is clear to the whole world,” he says, “where the threat to peace comes from. It comes Immediately from Hitler, Mussolini, the Japanese imperialists.”
On the other hand, he informs us, “we now have a number of countries which are directly threatened by the military aggression of the fascists and face the danger of losing their State and national independence, countries like Czechoslovakia, Austria and Belgium.” In Czechoslovakia, says Browder, “the Communists will probably (?!) refrain from voting on the military budget.” He is not sure! for you see, the situation – not the bourgeois rule – but “shifts from moment to moment.” In any event he assures us:
“The Communists will recognize the necessity of military resistance to possible Hitler invasion requires that there be available the utmost possible fighting weapons against Hitler.”
The Czechoslovakian Stalinists have likewise declared that they will defend the fatherland. Their “beloved” leader, Gottwald, came straight from Moscow to the seventh convention of his party to reassure his hearers that this “new line” does not really mean social patriotism:
“Comrades,” said Gottwald, “there is no
doubt but that the defense of the republic against fascism can be
interpreted to mean class peace, reformism, social patriotism. But
this is not necessarily the correct interpretation. And we Communists
do not interpret our position this way.”
How else can it be interpreted? The social democrats of 1914, although equally treacherous, were at least much more frank. On August 4th Hugo Haase rose in the Reichstag session, the only speaker On the list, to proclaim in the name of the social democratic fraction, and amid applause from the Junker reaction:
“Now we are making good what we have always stressed: in the hour of danger we do not leave the fatherland in the lurch.”
In 1914 these fatherland defenders in the various nations entered the services of their respective bourgeoisies to the tune of the war cry, “Kultur versus Czarism” or “Democracy versus Kaiserism.” Today Browder proclaims:
“And when Hitler fascism goes beyond the borders of Germany it must be met by military means (!!!). At the moment the greatest threat of the military forces of Hitler are against Czechoslovakia, Austria, France and Belgium.”
But the question arises: by whose military means is this
aggression to be defeated? Who will organize and direct the military
operations? Do the Stalinists answer: the proletariat! No. This is to
be left in the hands of the “forces of peace” – the
bourgeois democracies among the capitalist nations – supported by
the Communist parties and such workers as the Stalinist leaders can
mislead by their deceptive slogans of defense of national
independence. Obviously this defense is also to include Austria where
the Stalinists and the Heimwehr may take up the cry in unison: “Long
live the independence of Democratic Fascist Austria.”
Nothing shows more clearly than this the completely anti-Marxist attitude of the Stalinists toward the problem of national state independence among capitalist nations. Marxists recognize as well established the fact that the national state became a frightful impediment long ago to the economic and cultural development of humanity. The defense of the national state is therefore a reactionary task, worthy only of the depraved handmaidens in the service of decaying capitalism. Not the defense of the national state, but the wiping out of all national state borders is the task of the proletariat
And how does Browder really propose to defend the independence of these national states? Obviously he relies upon the bourgeoisie but not entirely. In face of the war threats he demands the complete independence of the working class movement.
“But”, he adds, “the complete independence of the working class movement does not mean, however, that the peace policy of the working class movement of each question and in each country is directly opposed to the policy of the capitalist government – the government of the bourgeoisie within that country.”
Not directly opposed to the policy of the capitalist government!
In other words, follow the war map and not the map of the class
struggle; this is the advice of Browder. You may make your
reservations, but do not oppose directly the policy of the capitalist
government. Like Plekhanov, the one time brilliant Marxist, who
stooped to the level of defender of Czarism in 1914: “The
marauders (the Kaiser’s armies) are at the border of my country
and are ready to rob and murder.” “Make your
reservations.” he urged the Duma deputy, Durianov, “ – this
is absolutely necessary – but vote for the credits. The rejection
of the credits would be a betrayal (of the people) and abstention
would be cowardice, vote for the credits.” Today this is
implemented by Browder: “We are not pacifists ... when Hitler
fascism goes beyond the borders of Germany it must be met by military
means.” – Make your reservations in times of war or
preparations for war – but do not oppose directly, the policy of
the capitalist government! What a frightful parallel with the
betrayal of 1914.
Vote the credits! Not only Czechoslovakia, Austria and Belgium. “There are other countries,” says Browder, “like France and the United States, which for their own particular interests are interested in maintaining peace, which are not furthering the development of war, which are resisting these developments.” And the French Stalinists echo: vote the credits!
In 1914 the manifesto of the French Socialist Party proclaimed:
“Spontaneously, without waiting for any other manifestation of the popular will, he (the head of the government) has appealed to our party. Our party has replied: Here!”
And in 1936 Jacques Duclos, leader of the French Communist Party:
“We are for the safety and freedom of our country. We do not want to vote credits blindly. We want to know what is done with them. The budget vote is a political act in which the struggle against fascism inside and outside the country must be taken into consideration.”
Duclos is faithful to the Franco-Soviet pact and to the “new line” of Stalinism. He does not want the credits squandered. He wants it actually to go for the strengthening of France’s military means. And Marcel Cachin, his equally faithful co-worker, may now repeat what he said in 1914 under the auspices of the Social Democratic Party: “We promise to fulfill our duty completely, as Frenchmen and as socialists faithful to the International."
France had then been attacked by the Kaiser’s troops, so he
maintained. And now again we are told that the greatest threats of
the military forces of Hitler are directed among other countries
against France.
What kind of a war would it be, should these threats be carried out? The Daily Freiheit of May 19 gives the answer thus:
“If Hitler should attack France it would be an imperialist attack on his part, and if France should in that situation defend herself, it would be a natural case of self defense which has nothing to do with imperialism because imperialism means the grabbing of foreign lands in the interests of home capitalism.”
French imperialism would not grab foreign lands; God forbid!
French imperialism does not want colonies. It didn’t in 1914
either said the French social patriots. It was just plainly and
simply attacked. Did not Vaillant write in l’Humanité,
then the official socialist party organ: “In face of the
aggression, the socialists will fulfill their whole duty to the
fatherland for the republic and for the revolution.” “More
than that,” answered the satisfied editor of Le Temps
on August 4, “we do not ask of M. Edouard Vaillant and his
friends.” More than that no bourgeois can ask from Duclos,
Cachin, Stalin or Browder. More than that they cannot even ask from
Mr. Olgin, whose articles printed in the Daily Forward, after
the United States had entered the war in 1917, were presented in
Washington by Abe Cahan as proof that the Forward was
patriotic, that it called upon the American mothers to give their
sons for the country and therefore the Forward should not be
suppressed.
But imperialist France is not only in danger of attack, according to Browder. Together with the United States it is interested in maintaining peace. These two countries, he insists, are not furthering the development of war; they are “resisting these developments.” We are not sure that the editor of Le Temps, even in his most exalted moments of bourgeois hypocrisy, would guarantee that much for France. As for the United States, Browder has unquestionably accepted in earnest and is ready to dish out the bourgeois demagogy about the strongest armaments being the best guarantee of peace. No doubt the rival capitalist powers have a different understanding of President Roosevelt's one billion dollars military budget. They have learned to know the capitalist United States as a powerful force struggling aggressively for world hegemony and not hesitating to use any means at its command to gain this objective. But in this respect Browder also gives a warning.
The capitalist United States is “interested in maintaining
peace ... not furthering the development of war ... resisting these
developments,” that is, provided power is not taken out of the
hands of the Roosevelt administration. In these coming elections,
“the victory of the Republican Party-Liberty League-Hearst
combination,” exclaims Browder, “would throw power on the
side of the war makers.” The question of war is here again
presented not as an inevitable outgrowth of the capitalist system,
caused by the forces that capitalism itself sets into motion, but as
something instigated only by the bad capitalists. The working class,
according to this has the choice, not of building a revolutionary
party for the overthrow of capitalism, but purely the choice between
the good and the bad capitalists.
“The main enemy of the people of America today is the Republican-Liberty League-Hearst combination,” says Browder in his statement on the C.P. position in the coming elections. He adds; “We must place as the center of our work in the election campaign the need for combatting this reactionary bloc and defeating its plans in 1936.” This is where the emphasis is to be placed according to Browder, not direct opposition to the capitalist system, far from it, but merely opposition to the bad capitalists. In line with this it was quite natural for him to make the announcement at a press conference a few days before: “We would not do or say anything that would tend to turn Roosevelt support over to the Republican candidate.” What is the objective meaning of this statement? Can it be anything else but to support Roosevelt? or at least to take care that none of the potential supporters are lost from the Roosevelt camp, which God forbid, may mean the victory of the Republican-Liberty League Hearst combination – the victory of the bad capitalists over the good capitalists.
Surely in taking this position Browder remains entirely consistent
and he remains faithful to his Stalinist line of policy. And this
extends also to his position, and to the C.P. position, on the
farmer-labor party question. Browder wants to “collaborate
organizationally with those who are committed to the support of
Roosevelt in 1936” – Labor’s Non-Partisan League, he
explains in his usual “lucid and learned” fashion, “not
merely the continuation of the role of labor as auxiliary to the old
parties.” He wants to see in it also the beginnings of a
farmer-labor party. But to ordinary mortal beings how would this be
possible.
Can a movement fulfill the role not merely as an auxiliary to the old parties, i.e., to the capitalist parties, or even to the one of them which carries the Roosevelt label, and at the same time be a beginning toward a working class political movement? Obviously this question is not decided merely by forms or by labels but by the ideological position and by the program it stands for. And in this case, in particular, no doubt need exist that this very thing which is the old and at the same time is supposed to be the beginning to something new still would retain its previous ideological position and program. At its best the same auxiliary to the old capitalist parties, possibly minus the Roosevelt label, possibly with a brand new farmer labor name would continue the tradition and the program of the Roosevelt New Deal. But it would continue under new objective conditions as a more effective barrier damming up the path of advance for the revolutionary movement. For as we have emphasized often before, in such a case the shedding of the old shell of Rooseveltian bourgeois reformism can be expected to coincide with the time when objective conditions make the new clothing of farmer-labor party reformism a more effective means of arresting the revolutionary advance.
In taking this position Browder also remains entirely consistent.
In inverted form he proves that the question of war in the modern
imperialist epoch is as inseparable from the capitalist system of
society as is the class struggle. A false position in regard to the
question of war leads inevitably to an equally false position toward
the everyday issues of the class struggle. It leads not to the
victory of the working class but to its defeat.
“We must,” says Browder in concluding his report on the war question, “crystallize such a mass opinion in America directed towards restraining the instigators of war that the United States will become an effective international force, will become a positive contribution to the world front of struggle for peace.”
He does not want the mere slogan Keep America Out of War, because that is the slogan of isolation, of neutrality. Well and good. He wants to link up America with the other capitalist imperialist nations to which he attributes the virtue of restraining war developments. In a somewhat different situation, but still with the same objective meaning Morris Hilquit opposed American isolation in 1917. When Debs went to prison for his courageous anti-war stand Hilquit protested:
“I do not advocate an immediate separate peace, a withdrawal by America. Nothing that I have ever said or written could justify such a sweeping assertion ... I want America to act, not to withdraw."
Browder now wants America to act, not to withdraw. In his statement, cited above, one cannot quarrel with his idea of crystallizing mass opinion toward restraining instigators of war. But who are the instigators of war? Is this a question merely of certain people of certain nations? Marxists reject such a conception and emphasize time and again that war is inevitable concomitant of capitalism regardless of which nation fires the first shot. And much more decisively must we reject Browder’s deceptive and delusive prattle about making America a “positive contribution to the world front of struggle for peace.” Proceeding from the Marxist conception that the causes of war are inherent in capitalism and that actual war grows inevitably out of this form of society and, proceeding further from the Marxist conception that only the working class achieving its historic mission of overthrowing capitalism can secure peace, it follows necessarily that both of these questions of war and peace are fundamentally the question of class forces, and the relationship of class forces. Petty bourgeois Philistines may call upon America – capitalist America – to become a positive contribution to the world front of struggle for peace. Revolutionists will address this call to the American working class and to its allies.
In this lies the fundamental distinction between the Marxist position and the position of Browder and his Stalinist fellow bureaucrats. Their position proceeds from the Stalinist peace policy of the Soviet Union which has for its premise the preservation of the status quo of the boundaries of capitalist nations, of the relations between these nations as well as of their internal equilibriums. In other words the status quo of the capitalist system of society alongside of which the Soviet system is supposed to be able to exist peacefully. This policy cannot tolerate any upsets or any overturns. That would be its antithesis. It leaves no room for a policy of proletarian revolution. The Marxist policy aims directly for the proletarian revolution as the only way of eliminating imperialist war.
Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 7 May 2018