Several times in our press we have examined
the reasons for this new American (and English, and…)
attack in the area reaching from the Balkans to Central
Asia through the Middle East, as well as the constant diplomatic
tug-of-war or lack of it. Here, we are interested in dealing
with the responses towards which a movement that truly wishes
to stop the imperialist war should be moving.
First of all, we stress: "imperialist war". That
is, a war whose roots are to be found in the irremediable
contrasts typical of the culminating phase of capitalist
development - the phase where this mode of production reaches
the peak of its destructive potential and putrefaction,
where competition and the extortion of plus value become
frenetic, where control over sources of raw materials and
sharing out of the markets become essential, especially
in a time of crisis like the present. It is a war that follows
a pattern determined by material laws: in the very same
way that development of capitalism into imperialism is determined
by material laws - a pattern which the Communist movement
(as an economic and social science) has known perfectly
for a hundred and fifty years.
This imperialist war pacifists would like to oppose: both
lay pacifists belonging to the area including (with some
different shades of meaning or perplexities) the greens,
the 'Ulivo' (party of the Olive Tree), supporters of old-time
Stalinists (Rifondazione Comunista) and a variegated range
of disobedient non-globals (in a word - and looking beyond
the borders of miserable… 'Little Italy' - a strongly
diluted form of social democracy), as well as the religious
pacifists, from His Holiness the Pope to various different
churches and denominations, grass-root communities, street-worker
priests and whoever else you can think of. All of them animated
by strong moral indignation: war hurts, brings suffering
and destruction, does not serve to smooth out differences
but creates new ones, etc. etc..
How can we possibly deny it? The fact is that for all of
these people, according to a convergence of opinion that
is becoming more evident day by day, the "war"
is, on the one hand, a sort of metaphysical evil and, on
the other, the product of the egoism and obstinacy of individuals,
of one powerful and heartless man or another (perhaps with
a personal interest in certain raw materials, certain sources
of minerals or oil). For them, the enemy is not a mode of
production which - after representing an initial step ahead
for the human species and saving it from the obscurity and
historical backwardness of feudalism - exhausted its positive
and propulsive phase long ago and is now agonising with
all the disastrous and inauspicious effects of an agony
that is being prolonged beyond all limits. No, the enemy
is one villain or another, some personification of metaphysical
evil or another. Who should finally be replaced, through
a vast movement of opinion and indignation, by good guys,
entrusting the safeguarding and monitoring of all this to
the eagle eye of international organisms, some of which
already exist (the UNO, the NGO network, democratic channels
of participation, certain 'friendly' governments, the 'movement
of movements', Porto Alegre as a happy oasis, etc.), and
some of which have yet to be created (from the grassroots,
by a general spread of conscience that would pervade people,
groups and parties with its moral principles: in a word
- evangelisation).
In the midst of all this, is there any talk of "mode
of production"? of "economic laws"? of "imperialism"?
of "class"? of "states" as the tools
used by a ruling class to detain power? Please! Things of
the past, covered in mould, best forgotten! Viva Jesus Christ,
viva Saint Francis, viva Tolstoy, viva Don Ciccio, viva
subcomandante Marcos, and Naomi Klein (and now viva Lula
and Chavez, too)! They (and others yet to come) will be
entrusted with the mission of restoring morality to history,
after Bush, Blair and all the other baddies have trampled
it underfoot out of mere personal interest and extreme greed.
The fact that this way of thinking (this most banal project
of universal pacifism) is identical to that of Enemy Number
One (on one side the goodies, on the other the baddies:
the really good goodies, the really bad baddies) does not
concern these people in the least, lost as they are in a
sea of molasses, priestly rhetoric and fine sentiments.
How, then, can the war be stopped? By rings-of-roses, rainbow
flags on balconies, big folk festivities in the "south
of the world", appeals and petitions by famous people,
a piece of white cloth tied to your arm or your bag, a bunch
of leaflets thrown into the chamber of Parliament, round
tables with panels of experts and speeches on television,
and so on. All that can be expected of a body of opinion
is to bring into operation that vague, impalpable and fleeting
essence that constitutes "conscience"; all that
can be expected of a purely moral stance is thumping of
chests, falling to the ground with your eyes shut. Is all
this enough to stop an imperialist war? And supposing there
were to be another clamorous "attack", perhaps
at the heart of "pacific" old Europe, where would
all these fine souls stand? Historically, pacifism has always
proved to be quite ready to side with warfare, once…the
appropriate conditions have matured (there is no lack of
examples, both in the First and in the Second World War)
- to become acutely nationalist and chauvinist, when "the
country is in danger". Wait and see...
But it is not just by its willingness to be transformed
into warmongering that pacifism opens up the way for imperialist
war. It does so in a far more subtle, deeper and more dangerous
way. It does so (according to its very nature) by disarming
- in the face of imperial war - all those (individuals,
social groups, classes) that fall into the trap. It is theoretical,
political and material disarmament. To forget and deny the
economic origins of the impulse towards war that is inherent
in capitalism, particularly in its imperialist phase, means
disarming. To fuel any illusion of appeals to a sense of
morality or cultivate confidence in organisms considered
to be impartial (the UN!) means disarming. To lead people
to believe that the problem lies in a few lurid individuals
usurping a healthy, democratic (?) way of life, which should,
instead, be revived and indeed strengthened, means disarming.
We are no sorry Cassandras when we say that before very
long we shall be witnessing the most 'amazing' pirouettes,
the most 'surprising' of about-turns, when the knotty problems
of pacifism in all its various forms have to be seriously
and urgently disentangled. If it has not been sufficiently
opposed, and in good time, it will, unfortunately, be too
late. The work of disarmament will have progressed and put
down roots and the way will be wide open for a new world
massacre.
How, then, can we fight against the imperialist war (and
at the same time neutralise the pacifism that opens up the
way to it)? Firstly by recognising that it is indeed a question
of an imperialist war, and thus rooted in a mode of production
that possesses its own specific characteristics. Next, by
fighting against this mode of production and its particular
economic laws. But what does this mean? What are the implications
and the strategic and tactical developments involved?
The Communists' brief, when faced with imperialist wars,
has always been revolutionary defeatism. This means refusing
to side with any of the opposing fronts and open battle
against the bourgeoisie in your own country. It is true
that now, after more than seventy years of counter-revolution,
during which Fascism, Stalinism and democracy have given
one another a hand in destroying the Communist programme,
the memory of a tradition, the sense of certain concepts,
it is difficult to launch a slogan like revolutionary defeatism.
It feels like crying in the desert. Yet all the slogans
of revolutionary Communists are projected towards the future,
since they point both to an objective to be achieved and,
at the same time, to the path that should be followed to
achieve it. The time when a slogan like "revolutionary
defeatism" will be able to mobilise and bring together
the proletarian masses, carrying with them those who are
tired of bleating and feel the urge to return to the fight,
may seem to be a long way off. Yet this slogan encompasses
a strategy which also regards our miserable present.
Revolutionary defeatism today means refusing to conceive
of the capitalist economy as the collective good, to be
defended and supported. It means refusing to yield to the
blackmail of sacrifice in favour of the national economy,
or "donating your work to your country", which
tomorrow becomes "donating your life to your country".
It means refusing to sacrifice your own needs in terms of
living and working conditions (higher pay, shorter working
hours, employment, health protection inside and outside
factories, medical care, pensions, housing, etc.) to the
fluctuations of the national economy. It means refusing
to limit, isolate, attenuate or suspend your own battles
because of a "social pact", made necessary by
the "critical period the country is going through".
It means refusing to ban from prospective action terms like
"indefinite general strike without warning, halting
production, workers' pickets". It means refusing to
think in terms of "nation" or "fatherland"
and starting to think once more in terms of "class"
and, above all, of "international class", gathering
together to support the weaker and more easily blackmailed
and exploited categories, those who are (beyond all rhetoric)
true class brothers - the immigrants. It means starting
to build up once more a network of organised relations from
factory to factory, from one struggle to the next, from
one category to the next, being well aware that in all this
the official trade unions (which take the fate of the national
economy so much to heart) will always represent not a natural
ally but a true enemy. It means starting once again to side
with a class to defend basic objectives (jobs, living and
working conditions, the unchallenged use of strikes as a
weapon). It means starting once more to reason in terms
of revolutionary politics, a revolutionary party, real and
tangible internationalism. These and no others are the preconditions,
the first steps to take in the direction of revolutionary
defeatism. They are already the beginnings of revolutionary
defeatism. We are well aware that the road is a long and
difficult one. It has to go through the phase of opposition
to the state (which is not a neutral body but a tool for
defending the interests of national capital), an arduous
retrieval of concepts and habits lost in time, a break with
the trade unions that have gone over to the other side of
the barricades or whose practices and prospects are confused
and contradictory, the worldwide reorganisation of the international
Communist party, equipped with firm theory, a political
programme that is not based on day-by-day improvisation,
serious organisation - not one of heralds and wordmongers.
Yes: ours is a battle cry, the same that Communists have
been shouting for a hundred and fifty years. Because that's
what is needed; not bleating, whining, prayers and appeals.
31.3.2003
