A Socialist Response
“The Socialist Party of Great Britain, like a voice crying in the wilderness, has always maintained that capitalism and war are inseparable. There can be no capitalism without conflicts of economic interest. From these arise the national rivalries and hatreds, the fears and armaments which may at any time provoke war on a terrifying scale“
This argument, from our 1936 pamphlet, ‘War and the Working Class’, remains a valid statement today when assessing the conflict and war in the Ukraine taking place nearly a century later in February 2022. Many people believe wars are inevitable due to “human nature“. Others tell us that a particular war is necessary and justifiable in terms of the “national interest“.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain opposition to wars is on grounds of class – an old-fashioned term, maybe but it is a fact that most people live by selling their labour-power for wages whenever and wherever they can. Without a job, life is bleak.
Socialists argue that workers should not let themselves be dragged into wars caused by disputes between different sections of the capitalist class. As we stated in the 1936 pamphlet:
“There is only one safe rule for the working class to follow when urged by the capitalists to support capitalist wars. No matter what form the appeal may take, they should examine the question in the light of working class interests. Ask yourself the question: ‘Have the working class of one nation any interest in slaughtering (and being slaughtered by) the workers of another?’; ‘Have they any interest in supporting one national section of the capitalist world against another?’ “
The wages system constantly creates a surplus in the form of rent, interest and profit; it is a system of class exploitation where workers are paid less in wages and salaries than they, in fact produce. Worldwide, there is a class division and class struggle – opposing interests between employers and employed, between Labour and Capital.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain’s consistent, principled and uncompromising record of opposition to wars is unique. We urge workers to join us in working to end this profit system and replace it by a new society – one based upon common ownership of the world’s productive resources, where democratic co-operation will replace cut-throat economic competition which is cause of war.
2
War and the Working Class
Question: Why do wars, like the one in Ukraine, happen, given that everyone you ask says they are against war, that wars only cause destruction and distress, and never solve any problems?
It is quite a paradox. Politicians all declare they detest war. Governments spend a small fortune on diplomacy in attempts to prevent wars. Look at the tens of thousands of pounds ferrying politicians from London to Ukraine or Moscow. World institutions, like the United Nations, are funded at vast expense in order to prevent wars happening – something they always fail to do.
Wars are extremely destructive. They cause terrible waste – waste of human lives, waste of economic resources, and destruction of whole cities. There are long-term consequences too: survivors who are disabled or scarred mentally and emotionally by the trauma. The effects of war may handicap them, both socially and economically, for the rest of their lives.
The list is a long one, but you get the point. So, the question is: who could possibly benefit from war?
Or, put another way, in whose interests are wars fought? To answer that we need to show how the capitalist system operates. It is the socialist contention that modern wars are fought because of the rivalries between various sections of the capitalist class. War being the last resort to resolve these rivalries.
So, what of Putin and the war in Ukraine?
For a start, politically, Putin represents the Russian ruling class even though their interests are often divided, as they are in all nations. He makes decisions along with other government officials on what they think is right for Russian capitalism in a world of competing nation states.
We are given acres of copy exploring what is in his mind. With global warming, he may be thinking ahead about food supplies – Ukraine is a major exporter of wheat (No.3 in the world) – especially to the Middle East and North Africa. Then there are the industries and distribution points which can be plundered and workers profitable exploited. Or he might simply be seeing a chance, long-term, to manipulate key world markets and governments by destabilising commodity prices, like oil and gas, so creating political instability. Then there are the important mineral and coal reserves in Ukraine that are what he’s really after whilst maintaining that his main goal is to stop Ukraine joining NATO to create a buffer zone between Russia NATO countries in the Baltic and in East Europe.
If you read Putin’s “Historical Essay” about Ukraine on the Delphi Initiative website, first posted on the rt /Russia Today site you will find it is historically tendentious and clearly propagandist. It is fantasy politics looking back to the days when the Soviet Union was a superpower.
Putin’s speech in February 2022 blamed Lenin for the Ukrainian problem. He ignored Stalin except for praising him in orchestrating the ‘Great Patriotic War’ and suggested that the 1930s famine the Khlodomor (hunger-death) was not caused by Stalin’s genocidal policy, as the UN maintain, but by nature.
Putin also falsely accuses Ukrainians of being Nazis – talk of the pot and the kettle! Putin likes to be seen on a black motorbike, with a club of black-clad bikers – a neo-Nazi thuggish group like the Trumpist bikers in the US.
For a long time, Putin’s aim has been to restore Greater Russia – to recover Russia’s power over all Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic States. As with the fantasy entertained by Trump to make “America Great Again” as with Chinese imperialism or Boris Johnson wanting the UK to be a new “super powerhouse” on the world stage, harking back to its former imperial prestige. All countries are imperialist, expansionist and in violent competition with other capitalist countries.
Today, Putin says he respects the sovereignty of former Soviet republics, that Ukraine is “an exception”. Even in February this year, he was saying he had no intention of invading Ukraine – and overnight his forces were trucking into the Lukhansk and Donetsk in support of the Russian separatist movement. Now Putin announces a ‘military operation’ in Ukraine’s Donbas region.
Boris Johnson has a similar mindset – he loves to talk of “Global Britain !” All countries want to be the big fish in the global pond, to be seen as a superpower with ‘exceptionalism’ pretensions. There is a famous painting by Pieter van der Heyden of ‘Big Fish Eat Little Fish’ (1557) – an image of the large fish eating the small fish, that adequately symbolises the bitter competitive rivalry of capitalist nations. Johnson, in the House of Commons, rebuked Putin for wanting a Hobbesian world of ‘all against all’. Well, that is capitalism with its competition, conflict and war.
As the various propaganda machines spew out their call for nationalism and democracy whilst demonizing of the enemy, it’s interesting that in the USA Fox News (owned by Murdoch) appears to be taking the “isolationist” line: “What business is it of ours where the border between Ukraine and Russia is?” So, it seems the American capitalists haven’t abandoned their ‘gung-ho, go get’em’ attitude. Even in Russia, we suspect not everyone is behind Putin’s military adventure in the Ukraine.
The capitalist class in Russia will have to pay for Putin’s war through taxation out of their profits. As the SPGB has often argued, warfare is expensive, and much socially produced wealth is literally destroyed without even changing hands. As for the workers, it is they who will lose their lives in conflicts and suffer the after effects on behalf of their masters.
Capitalism is a system where competition is the rule. At one level, there is commercial competition between companies. At another level, the capitalists of one country are in competition with the capitalists of other countries. They compete at every turn: to gain control of key raw materials or mineral resources, to economise on transport and distribution costs and to organise production so as to produce their commodities as cheaply as possible.
They spend a lot on advertising and marketing to ensure that customers will choose their products or services as against those of their competitors. At times commercial competition heats up, boiling over into armed conflict – war. To find out in whose interests wars are fought you need to know what they are about – that is, what they are really fought over, not what the politicians tell us.
The socialist position is that every country, the whole world, is divided into two classes with opposing interests. There is the vast majority who own little except their ability to work, and there is the small, but powerful, minority class of those who own and control the land, factories, mines, oil wells, transport systems etc. and the commodities produced by those they employ and exploit.
So, when wars break out over raw materials, trade routes or markets, it is obvious that they are being fought in the interests of some section of the capitalist class, not in the interests of the working class. Wars are fought over the employers’ interest, not those of the workers.
That is one reason why The Socialist Party of Great Britain has consistently declared that workers should recognise that they have no interests at stake which would justify getting involved in wars. We are also opposed to war because war propaganda is used to distract the working class from recognising their class interests. In wartime, workers are bombarded with hyped-up propaganda about the so-called ‘national interest‘ and the ideology of nationalism. Workers are urged to see the workers of other countries as the enemy, whereas their real enemy is the worldwide capitalist class.
In short, socialists oppose war because we object to being forced to kill our fellow workers in the interests of the employers, and also because war propaganda drowns the issue of the class struggle, the worldwide struggle of labour against capital.
Propaganda – What They Say War is About
In order to persuade us that war is absolutely necessary, unavoidable and justifiable, governments use a number of fairly standard pretexts. They tell us it is a question of ‘national interest‘. But since the majority of the ‘nation‘ consists of people who own no oil wells, gas reserves, goldmines or any other natural resource, their meagre assets are not the issue in any war and, if they are lucky enough to survive, will be no better off at the end of it. This so-called ‘national interest’ is nothing to do with us, it is simply the commercial assets and interests of the capitalist class, our employers, that are at stake.
The same point can be made in answer to the argument that this is a war in defence of ‘our‘ country (the Motherland or Fatherland). We, the working class, do not own the country. If we did, we would hardly need to go to work for wages or salaries. Those who do own the country, including its mineral resources, industries, supermarkets, etc, are the capitalist class. They have something to defend; the working class do not.
Another argument used to justify war is the claim that it is about the defence of democracy. Yet, curiously, the same government which is suddenly concerned about defending democracy was only yesterday doing deals with dictators. Putin was feted in the West. Germany co-operated in building a gas pipeline. Business was conducted. Russia was part of the global finance system. The assassination or imprisoning of opposition politicians and journalists was conveniently forgotten when it came to trade and profit and, let us not forget, there are Russian oligarchs funding the Tory Party – invest a few million and your application for a British passport will be fast tracked and assured. The City is awash with ‘dirty money’, and it has been so for years, enriching bankers, financiers, hedge fund managers, property developers, lawyers and accountants.
Also, it should be noted that the very first casualty of war is democracy. In World War I restrictions on press freedoms were imposed. The Defence of the Realm Regulations (November 1914) was a catch-all law prohibiting any political activity except in support of the blood-bath. After conscription came in, conscientious objectors were jailed, including some members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Again, in World War II, the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) was imposed. Conscription was brought in before the war even started. So-called ‘enemy aliens’, including refugees and children, were held in internment camps, and many were deported.
How governments and politicians support democracy and people having access to opposing political ideas, can be seen in Kier Starmer’s call for the Russian state-controlled TV network RT (Russia Today) to be banned from broadcasting in the UK. Many have compared Starmer to Clement Attlee. In Labour’s contempt for democracy, we can recall the situation where the Second World War was supposed to be about defending democracy and opposing dictatorship, however, Britain promptly suspended universal suffrage and became a totalitarian one-party state as Labour MPs joined the Coalition Government which announced sweeping “special powers“. Attlee, Lord Privy Seal, announced: “we are taking power over all persons and property” (HANSARD, 22 May 1940). So much for democracy.
There is an obvious contradiction: if the aim was to defend democracy, why destroy free speech? Why suspend national and local elections? Why impose a one-party state? And why such a totalitarian regime? How can you defend democracy by stopping it?
Starmer is in a long tradition of politicians who only want their views and their views alone from being heard. Workers should have nothing but contempt for politicians like Starmer who wants to be seen as more patriotic than the Tories, more war-like than Boris Johnson and more ruthless towards Putin than the Tory government, anything to secure the votes of non-socialists. In short, politicians who claim that a war is justified if it is about ‘freedom and democracy’ are simply not to be believed.
Democracy is not something they would go to war about. If that were the case, how come there are so many dictators in the world? Instead of going to war against a dictatorship, capitalist governments are much more likely to sell them weapons. A government’s real concern is the so-called ‘national interest‘ – which really means the interests of their capitalists not those who have to sell their labour. Only when these capitalist interests are involved do governments find it necessary to go to war.
Sometimes the case is made that a war is one of ‘self-determination‘ or ‘national liberation‘. In most cases, such wars result in a dictatorship or a one-party state, often corrupt as well as ruthless. The workers remain, as before, the have-nots. The struggle was over who should profit from the country’s raw materials, markets and labour force. Liberation was never the issue, only a convenient pretext.
We do not, like the left-wing liberals, think that capitalism can be reformed and regulated or that if the imperialist ambitions of countries are defeated that this will somehow solve all the world’s problems. Just a casual look at history will show that all those endeavours have been in vain.
The media see the world in black and white. The Western media see it as a struggle between “evil” Putin and plucky democratic Ukraine with institutions like NATO beyond criticism. The Russian media paint NATO as “evil”, the West wanting to economically contain and cripple Russia while Putin is a saint looking after the interests of all right thinking Russians. Socialists do not take sides in capitalism’s wars. We do not weigh up the arguments of each side and come to a conclusion about who to support. We oppose all of capitalism’s wars and have done so through the First and Second World Wars right up until today in Ukraine.
Capitalism cannot function as a peaceful social system. If workers want a world without war and conflict then they are going to have to drop their nationalist illusions, reject “exceptionalism”, stop supporting and voting for capitalist politicians and join with their fellow world workers as socialists to politically and democratically abolish capitalism and establish socialism
Until then, the socialist response to the conflict and war in Ukraine is:
“a plague on both your houses.”
(photo: Okinawa. 1945)
