Does (A) "revolutionary defeatism" have anything to do with (B) "wishing horrors [deaths, injuries, etc.] on people," be they on Iraqis or US & allied soldiers? Do LBO-talk posts on the war on Iraq have anything to do with either (A) or (B)?
What does the concept of "revolutionary defeatism" in the Marxist tradition mean anyway? Perhaps, we have to clarify the term first of all, to see if "revolutionary defeatism" really equals wishing for high levels of casualties, as is suggested above, and if any of the LBO-talk postings on the war on Iraq actually qualifies as "revolutionary defeatism":
***** V. I. Lenin Defeat of "Our" Government in The Imperialist War Written: Before Jyly 26, 1915 First Published: Stosial-Demorkrat No. 43, July 26, 1915; Published according the text in Sotsial-Demockrat...
A revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot but "wish the defeat of its government."
This is an axiom. It is disputed only by the conscious partisans or the helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists. To the former, for instance, belongs Semkovsky from the Organization Committee (No. 2 of his Izvestia); to the latter belong Trotsky and Bukvoyed;[1] in Germany, Kautsky. To wish Russia defeat, Trotsky says, is "an uncalled-for and unjustifiable political concession to the methodology of social-patriotism which substitutes for the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions that cause war, an orientation along the lines of the lesser evil, an orientation which, under given conditions, is perfectly arbitrary" (Nashe Slovo, No. 105.)
This is an example of the inflated phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism. "A revolutionary struggle against the war" is an empty and meaningless exclamation, the like of which the heroes of the Second International are past masters in making, unless it means revolutionary actions against one's own government in times of war. A little reasoning suffices to make this clear. When we say revolutionary actions in war time against one's own government, we indisputably mean not only the wish for its defeat, but practical actions leading towards such defeat. (For the "penetrating reader": This does not at all mean to "blow up bridges," organize unsuccessful military strikes, and in general, to help the revolutionists defeat the government).
In using phrases to avoid the issue, Trotsky has lost his way amidst very simple surroundings. It seems to him that to wish Russia's defeat means to wish Germany's victory. (Bukvoyed and Semkovsky express more directly this "thought," or rather, thoughtlessness, which they have in common with Trotsky.) In this Trotsky also repeats the "methodology of social-patriotism"! To help people that do not know how to think, the Berne resolution (Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 40;[2]) made it clear that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now wish the defeat of its government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky have preferred to evade this truth, while Semkovsky (an opportunist more useful to the working class than others, thanks to his naively frank repetition of bourgeois wisdom) openly blurted out the following: "This is senseless, because either Germany or Russia must win" (Izvestia, No. 2).
Take the example of the Commune. Germany defeated France, but Bismark and Thiers defeated the workers! If Bukvoyed and Trotsky had done some thinking, they would have realized that their point of view is that of a war of the governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they pay homage to the "political methodology of social-patriotism," to use Trotsky's affected language.
Revolution in war time is civil war. Transformation of war between governments into civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ("defeats") of the governments; on the other hand, it is impossible to strive in practice towards such a transformation without at the same time working towards military defeat.
The "slogan" of defeat is so vehemently repudiated by the chauvinists (including the Organization Committee, including the Chkheidze fraction) for the very reason that this slogan alone means a consistent appeal to revolutionary action against one's own government in war time. Without such action, millions of the most revolutionary phrases concerning "war against war and conditions, etc." are not worth a penny.
He who wishes earnestly to dispute the "slogan" calling for the defeat of one's own government in the imperialist war, would have to prove one of three things: either (1) that the war of 1914-1915 is not reactionary; or (2) that revolution in connection with it is impossible, or (3) that co-ordination and mutual aid of the revolutionary movement in all belligerent countries is impossible. The last reason is particularly important for Russia, because this is the most backward country, where an immediate Socialist revolution is impossible. This is why the Russian Social-Democrats had to be the first to advance the theory and the practice of the defeat "slogan." The tsarist government was perfectly right when it asserted that the propaganda of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Fraction was the only example in the International of not only parliamentary opposition but of real revolutionary propaganda in the masses against their government, that this propaganda weakened the military power of Russia and aided its defeat. This is a fact. It is not clever to hide from it.
The opponents of the defeat slogan are simply afraid of themselves when they do not wish to realize the most obvious fact of the inseparable connection between revolutionary propaganda against the government and actions leading to its defeat.
Is it possible to have co-ordination and mutual aid between the Russian movement, which is revolutionary in the bourgeois-democratic sense of the word, and the Socialist movement in the West? This has not been expressed by any one of the Socialists who, in the last decade, expressed themselves publicly, and the movement of the Austrian proletariat after October 17, 1905,[3] proved such a possibility by the facts of real life.
Ask any Social-Democrat who calls himself internationalist whether or not he approves of an understanding between the Social-Democrats of the various belligerent countries concerning united revolutionary actions against all belligerent governments. Many will answer, as did Kautsky, (Neue Zeit, October 2, 1914) that this is impossible, and therewith they will most clearly manifest their social-chauvinism. For this is, on the one hand, a notorious, flagrant untruth, a slap in the face of commonly known facts and of the Basle Manifesto; on the other hand, if it were true, the opportunists would be quite right in many respects!
Many will answer that they sympathize with such an understanding. To which we will say: If this is sympathy is not hypocritical, it is ridiculous to think that, in the war and for the war, formal understandings are required, such as the election of representatives, arrangement of a meeting, signing of an agreement, appointment of a day and an hour! Only Semkovkys are capable of thinking that. An understanding concerning revolutionary actions within even one single country, not to speak of a number of countries, can be realized only by the force of the example of earnest revolutionary actions, by their being launched, by their development. It is impossible, however, to launch them without wishing the government defeat, and without contributing to such a defeat. The change from imperialist war to civil war cannot be "made," as it is impossible to "make" a revolution -- it grows out of the multiplicity of diverse phenomena, phases, traits, characteristics, consequences of the imperialist war. Such growth is impossible without a series of military reverses and defeats of those governments which receive blows from their own oppressed classes.
To repudiate the defeat slogan means to reduce one's revolutionary actions to an empty phrase or sheer hypocrisy.
What substitute is proposed for the defeat slogan? It is the slogan of "neither victory nor defeat" (Semkovsky in the Izvestia, No. 2, also the entire Organization Committee in No. 1). This, however, is nothing but another version of the "defense of the fatherland" slogan. This is a justification of the chauvinism of all imperialist nations whose bourgeoisie is always ready to say -- and does say to the people -- that it is only fighting "against defeat." "The meaning of our vote of August 4 [was] not for the war but against defeat," writes the leader of the opportunists, E. David, in his book. The Organization Committee as well as Bukvoyed and Trotsky put themselves entirely on the same ground with David when they defend the slogan "neither victory nor defeat"!
Upon closer examination, this slogan means "civil peace," renunciation of class struggle on the part of the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since class struggle is impossible without dealing blows to "one's own" bourgeoisie and "one's own" government, and to deal a blow to one's own government in war times means (Bukvoyed, take notice!) high treason, it means helping to defeat one's own country. Whoever accepts the "Neither victory nor defeat slogan" can only hypocritically be in favor of the class struggle, of "breaking civil peace"; such a one must in practice renounce an independent proletarian policy, because he puts before the proletariat of all the belligerent countries the absolutely bourgeois task of guarding their imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of a real, not verbal, breaking of "civil peace," of accepting the class struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties of the government and its bourgeoisie with the aim of overthrowing them. This, however, cannot be achieved, it cannot be striven at, without wishing the defeat of one's own government, without contributing to such a defeat.
When, before the war, the Italian Social-Democrats raised the question of a mass strike, the bourgeoisie replied, undoubtedly correctly from its standpoint, that this would be high treason, and that they would be dealt with as traitors. This is true, and it is also true that fraternization in the trenches is high treason. Whoever writes against "high treason" as does Bukvoyed, or against the "disruption of Russia," as does Semkovsky, proceeds from a bourgeois, not from a proletarian, standpoint. A proletarian cannot help deal his government a class blow; he cannot reach out (in practice) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of the "foreign" country which is at war with us, without committing "high treason," without contributing to the defeat, the dismemberment of "his" imperialist "great" power.
Whoever is in favor of the "Neither victory nor defeat" slogan is a conscious or unconscious chauvinist, at best a petty-bourgeois pacifist, at all events an enemy of a proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the existing ruling classes.
Let us look at the question from one more angle. The war cannot but call forth among the masses the most stormy feelings which destroy the usual sluggishness of mass psychology. Without adjustment to these new stormy feelings, revolutionary tactics are impossible.
What are the main currents of these stormy feelings? (1) Horror and despair. Hence the growth of religious feelings. Once more the churches are full, the reactionaries rejoice. "Wherever there are sufferings, there is religion," says the arch-reactionary, Barres. He is right, too. (2) Hatred for the "enemy," a feeling carefully fanned by the bourgeoisie (more than by the priests) and of economic and political value only to the bourgeoisie. (3) Hatred for one's own government and one's bourgeoisie -- a feeling of all class-conscious workers who understand, on the one hand, that war is "a continuation of politics" on the part of imperialism, which they meet by "continuing" their hatred for their class enemy, on the other hand, that "war against war" is a silly phrase if it does not mean revolution against their own government. It is impossible to arouse hatred against one's own government and one's bourgeoisie without wishing their defeat, and it is impossible to be non-hypocritical opponent of "civil" (class) "peace" without arousing hatred towards one's own government and bourgeoisie!!!xe
Those who stand for the "Neither victory nor defeat" slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, since they "do not believe" in the possibility of international revolutionary actions of the working class against its governments, and since they do not wish to help the development of such actions, this, though undoubtedly difficult, being the only Socialist task worthy of a proletarian. It is the proletariat of the most backward of the belligerent great countries that, especially in the face of the shameful treason of the German and French Social-Democrats, must, through its party, undertake revolutionary tactics. Such tactics are absolutely impossible without "contributing to the defeat" of the government; they alone, however, lead to a European revolution, to the permanent peace of Socialism, to freedom for humanity from the now prevailing horrors, miseries, debasements, relapses into bestiality.
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm> *****
What Lenin advocated in the context of an inter-imperialist war was (1) revolutionary actions by the proletariat of an imperial power against "their own" government, reaching out in practice to proletarian brothers and sisters of the "foreign" countries at war with it; he thought that (2) the working class taking such revolutionary actions and practicing international solidarity basically amounted to wishing and contributing to the defeat of "their own" imperial government; and he further argued that (3) military defeats and even setbacks of an imperial power would in turn foster revolutionary conditions in its own home territory. (1), (2), and (3) are the essence of (A) "revolutionary defeatism"; (A) is not at all the same as (B) "wishing horrors on people." How many LBO-talkers actually hold Lenin's perspective on an imperialist war and have recently argued for it here? -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>