the 2006 Marx memorial add re s s

Marxism and imperialist wa r

by A n d rew Murr ay chair of the Stop the War Coalition

We can learn from Marx himself,

and from the work of many Marxists

over the 20th century, that the

essence of this drive to domination

and war can be found in the logic of

c apitalist accumu l a t i o n , in the drive

to exploit ever greater numbers of

working people, in the demand fo r

ever more surplus value and the

m a x i mum possible pro f i t .

Join the fight for peace and socialism I want more information o please tickto join the Communist Part y / Young Communist League ❏

n a m e

a dd re s s

age if under 25 phone return to Communist Party Ruskin House 28 Coombe Road C roydon London CR0 1BD

e mail 020 8686 1659 e mail office@commu n i s t - p a rt y. o r g . u k

c o m mu n i s t - p a rt y. o r g . u k

Communist Pa rt y

Stunning hammer and sickle flags £6£7 post free Send payment cheques to CPBor go to www. c o m nu n i s t - p a rt y. o r g . u k

N ew stocks now in!

60p daily from your newsagent

and online at www. m o r n i n g s t a r o n l i n e. c o. u k

daily paper of the anti-war movement

w w w. s t o p w a r. o r g . u k

w w w. c n d u k . o r g

w w w. s o l i d n e t . o r g

w w w. m a rx l i b r a ry. n e t

C O M I N G S O O NThe new C o m munist Pa rt y pamphlet on imperialism and waro rder now for £2.50 post fre e

N ew pamphlet by John Fo s t e r£2 plus 5p postage and packing

It is an honour to be asked by the exe c u t i vecommittee of the Communist Pa rty to addressthis annual commemoration of the life and wo rk

of Karl Marx. M a ny distinguished communists havemade this address in the past. Rereading some ofthese speeches I was struck not only by the manyp r o found points made, but also by their ra t h e rdiplomatic chara c t e r.

This may be Marxist, but it is not a bit Marx-like.The revo l u t i o n a ry bu ried here was endlesslyd i s p u t a t i o u s , often truculent and utterly intolerant ofa ny attempt to confound or compound thed o c t rines to which others gave his name. F r o mMarx we can perhaps learn that diplomacy may bean ove r- rated virt u e. Complacency and anavoidance of uncomfo rt a ble controve rsy prove dp r o blematic when our movement led one-third ofthe wo rl d ’s people in building socialism – it isdisastrous when, as today, the Commu n i s tm ovement is weak and fra g m e n t e d , still searching fo ra way forward in an era of counter- r e volution andi m p e rialist war. So I shall endeavour to bec o n t r ove rs i a l . I cannot assert that anything I sayn e c e s s a ri ly represents what Marx would say if hewere alive today – those are often questionabl eclaims – but I will try to look at the question in hispolemical spiri t .

In being asked to address the question of Marxand imperialist war, we face a double diffi c u l t y. M a r xhimself ceased his lifelong labours before moderni m p e rialism and its wars really secured their death-g rip on the wo rl d . He did, of cours e, address theplunder of India and Ireland by the British Empire,but here his wo rks need to be carefully weighed ands c ru p u l o u s ly analy s e d .

For example, one of his most famous passages inrelation to India acknowledged the brutality of Bri t i s hrule over the sub-continent, yet at the same timeexalted its progressive wo rk in uprooting A s i a t i cbackwardness and implanting in its place thedynamism of European capitalism. I would like tothink he would not have put the question in exactlythe same way later on, when the economic andsocial destru c t i veness of imperialism was more fullyr e vealed as a systemic block to the development ofthe peoples of A s i a . He might also have reflectedthat human progress is not unilinear, with all countri e srequired to advance to “ c i v i l i s a t i o n ” , emanating fromEurope alone, by the same route.

The single

i d e o l og i c a l

s t a n d a rd – the

idea that in

taking an

i n t e r n a t i o n a l

stand the

v a n g u a rd of the

working class

had to be

animated by the

same principles

eve ry w h e re -

was the ideal

that Marx fo u g h t

for in his time

against Lassalle,

P roudhon and

Bakunin and that

Lenin fought fo r

against Kautsky.

H ow Marx

scorned the idea

of unity for its

own sake on an

i d e o l og i c a l ly

s og gy basis

Lenin and the Communist Intern a t i o n a l , r e f l e c t i n gon later developments in wo rld capitalism, made then e c e s s a ry corr e c t i o n s . But if Marx did not alw ays hitthe mark with eve ry detailed observ a t i o n , from ap e rs p e c t i ve of 150 ye a rs on, the essence of histhinking is as much a guide as ever in the presenti m p e rialist war. We should not doubt the scope ofthe challenge the wo rld faces – the determ i n e dattempt of the wo rl d ’s only superp ower to imposeits own interests on the whole of humanity in whate ven the Pentagon has recently admitted will be a“long war".

It is no exaggeration to call this a wo rld war inmore than embryo. At present, I ra q , Afghanistan andmuch of the fo rmer Yu g o s l avia are under directo c c u p a t i o n . M i l i t a ry bases are springing up acrossthe face of the earth in readiness for new conflicts.C o u n t ries presently threatened include Cuba,Ve n e z u e l a , I ra n , S y ria and North Korea.

We can learn from Marx himself, and from thewo rk of many Marxists over the 20th century, t h a tthe essence of this dri ve to domination and war canbe found in the logic of capitalist accumu l a t i o n , in thed ri ve to exploit ever greater nu m b e rs of wo rk i n gp e o p l e, in the demand for ever more surplus valueand the maximum possible profi t . These features thepresent war has in common with the two greatwo rld wars .

It is this logic which starts by intensifyingexploitation eve rywhere – for example, in the factthat the ave rage wo rker in the USA itself presentlywo rks fo rty per cent longer hours than twe n t y - fi veye a rs ago, with little or no improvement in realwages over the same period – and ends with wars ofconquest to control resources, open marke t s ,p rivatise assets and remove those who will notc o m p ly.

And it is this situation, of cours e, which continu e sto bring millions of people around the wo rld outonto the streets to demonstrate against imperi a l i s mand for peace.

What is the role of Communists then? It isoutlined above all in the words of The CommunistM a n i fe s t o: “they point out and bring to the front thecommon interests of the entire wo rking class,independent of all nationality” and “ a lw ays ande ve rywhere represent the interests of the move m e n tas a whole". F u rt h e r, C o m munists bring to the fo r ethe class question – the question of productionrelations – at eve ry stage.

This is more than ever necessary when thed e velopment of the imperialist dri ve for dominationin the post-Cold War wo rld throws up a host of newi s s u e s , where different classes are drawn into conflictin new fo rm s , when religious and national fo rm soften ove rl ay the essential issues, and where no classwo rldwide presents a single face politically. This hasbeen true to some degree of all great wars , but it isp a rt i c u l a rly acute when, as today, the wo rking classwields only a small influence at the level of statep ower and where the ideological positions ofi m p e rialism often go unchallenged in mass politicald i s c o u rs e.

Taking the internationalist view is not necessari lys i m p l e. Do we believe that the occupation of Iraq –the most central issue in the wo rld struggle today –is entirely illegitimate and should be endedi m m e d i a t e ly? Or do we believe that it has beenlegitimised by the United Nations and should beended at some point in the future, when the politicalsituation in Iraq appears more favo u ra ble? In pra c t i c e,behind purely verbal camouflage, C o m munist part i e sh ave different positions on this. They cannot ber e c o n c i l e d . One or other meets the intern a t i o n a linterests of the wo rking class.

This debate needs to be had without beingb a s h f u l . C o m munists wo rking in the spirit of Marxcannot accept the idea that the wo rking class doesnot have a single ideological standard. Of cours e, n oone Pa rty or guru can lay down that standardu n i l a t e ra l ly. The struggle for it has to be the jointe n d e avour of all Commu n i s t s . But to accepteclecticism ideologically is not only to go against thes p i rit of scientific socialism, it also we a kens the unitedfront needed against the imperialist war.

The single ideological standard – the idea that intaking an international stand the vanguard of thewo rking class had to be animated by the samep rinciples eve rywhere - was the ideal that Marxfought for in his time against Lassalle, Proudhon andBakunin and that Lenin fought for against Kautsky.H ow Marx scorned the idea of unity for its own sakeon an ideologically soggy basis.

M a r x ’s whole life was an insistence on socialismas a science, as a knowledge-based system ofu n d e rstanding the development of human societyand the struggle for its emancipation. A struggle fo ra single ideological standard was perhaps hisobsession – it did not make him easy company, but itdid make him great.

H ow that fighting unity of Communists isrestored is critical in the fight against imperialist war,with all the complications it presents.

Ta ke the novelty that George Bush has nowproclaimed his open-ended war as a “campaign fo rd e m o c ra c y " . Let us pass over for a minute theo bvious hy p o c risy of the US’s support fo rd i c t a t o rships from Saudi A rabia to Pa k i s t a n , and itscontempt for the democratic choice of the LatinA m e rican peoples in one country after another.

We must say that a “war for democra c y ” is anoxymoron under imperi a l i s m . I m p e rialism is in itsessence un-democra c y. It can provide the routine ofmanaged elections and the veneer of publ i ce x p r e s s i o n , but in its ve ry marr ow it is the ra p a c i o u sseizure of the wealth of nations, the denial to peoplesof any control over their own destinies, it is nationalh u m i l i a t i o n , racism and barely - veiled coercione ve ry w h e r e. N owhere can this be seen more clearlythan in Ira q , where the pictures of torture and bestiala buse in abu Grahib and elsewhere are the authenticp o rn o g ra p hy of neo-colonialism, where a city likeF a l l u j a h , the size of Cove n t ry, can be ra zed withb a r e ly a mu rmur and where the US Ambassador andthe British Foreign Secretary now dictate to theI raqis what manner of gove rnment they must fo rm .

Yet there is a revisionist position which poses thedemand for democracy – the legitimate aspiration ofall peoples eve rywhere – against the struggle fo rfreedom from imperi a l i s m . N e ver in our history havethe two been so interdependent. We must restoreto democracy its class essence – democracy fo rwhom? – and say that those who expect imperi a l i s mto deliver democracy in Iraq or elsewhere will meetdisappointment or wo rs e.

Another question that has come up sharp ly in thepresent imperialist war is a variation on the familiarp r o blem of imperialist economism, against whichLenin fought so sharp ly in the fi rst great imperi a l i s tw a r. In its contempora ry fo rm , it poses socialdemands against the national and anti-imperi a l i s ts t ru g g l e. It reduces the campaign against imperi a l i s mto demanding trade union ri g h t s , u rges thesatisfaction of economic problems without posing thefundamental task of national democra t i ce m a n c i p a t i o n . Such arguments are familiar from thes t ruggle against British imperialism in Ireland, w h e r ethey have been marg i n a l i s e d , and they are increasinglyseen to be bankrupt in relation to Iraq as we l l .

What is the essence of the situation in Iraq? Itwas well put by the Iraqi Communist Pa rt y, w h i c hs a i d : “The A n g l o - A m e rican imperialists who occupiedour country and robbed us of our independencewith the collaboration of a handful of nationalt ra i t o rs , t o d ay wo rks more frenziedly than ever tot u rn our country into a war base.”That statementw a s , a l a s , issued in 1954 rather than more recently,but it retains its full force today.

F i n a l ly, there is the eve r-dangerous embryo ofc h a u v i n i s m , n e ver more than dormant in the Bri t i s hwo rking-class move m e n t , against which both Marx andEngels wrote so copiously. This finds its expressionmost recently in confusion in the face of the imperi a l i s trace-baiting of Muslims in Europe. It is a simple tri c k– keep poking devout Muslims with a stick until a smallm i n o rity respond in an extreme and absurd way, a n dthen turn on the whole community like a pack ofhounds saying “ l o o k , these people are alien to ourc i v i l i s a t i o n .” It is chauvinism when we neglect too b s e rve that the vast majority of the wo rl d ’s Muslimscome from countries in a great arc from Morocco toI n d o n e s i a , c o u n t ries which have without exceptionbeen colonies or semi-colonies well within livingm e m o ry, whose peoples have been oppressed andtheir countries ra p e d , not because they were Muslimbut because they stood in the way of imperialist super-p r o fi t . Their presence in large nu m b e rs in Europeanc o u n t ri e s , including our ow n , is likewise a consequenceof the imperialist wo rld system.

S e c u l a rism is an important pri n c i p l e. S o, n e e d l e s sto say, is free trade unionism. So is equality fo rwo m e n , and for gays and lesbians. But we can stillh ave a secular chauvinism, or a trade unionc h a u v i n i s m , if these principles are not fought for inthe context of an understanding of the dialectics ofi m p e ri a l i s m , and in particular of the perv a s i veness ofracism against Muslim people in Britain today.

We all know that Marx described religion as “ t h eopium of the people". Let us also recall that hepreceded that famous phrase by writing that “ r e l i g i o nis the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a

h e a rtless wo rl d , and the soul of soulless conditions,”an analysis which serves well in considering the socialcircumstances imposed on many Muslims in Europet o d ay.

It is equally wrong to allow the sometimesreligious fo rm of the struggle for national liberation inp a rticular countries to distract from the core of theq u e s t i o n . L e t ’s remember that the Mahdi – the “ m a dM a h d i ” of contempora ry chauvinist propaganda - wholed the uprising in the Sudan against the hero ofEmpire General Gordon was a theocra t . Yet W i l l i a mM o rri s , one of Marx’s fi rst fo l l owe rs in England and aman who alw ays insisted on describing himself as ac o m mu n i s t , o b s e rved that when the Mahdi tookK h a rtoum and killed Gordon the important thing wasthat “Sudan is once again in Sudanese hands". That isthe point of significance – in Ira q , in A f g h a n i s t a n(another disastrous British neo-colonial opera t i o nwhich must not be ove rl o o ked) and elsewhere.

These are points of supreme importance in thewo rk for the realisation of the pers p e c t i ve of KarlMarx today and will determine in large measure ourown pers p e c t i ves for advance in Bri t a i n .

Marx wrote in 1861 that “in no part of Europeare the mass of the people more utterly ignorant ofthe foreign policy of their country than in England.”He could not write that today. Issues of fo r e i g npolicy excite people of all classes, old and yo u n g , a sseldom befo r e. The great anti-war movement hasput Bush and Blair’s wo rld policies at the heart ofalmost eve ry issue of public debate.

This is not philanthropy. Foreign and domesticpolitics march as one. I m p e rialist war is breedingt e rr o rism as never befo r e, and terr o rism in turn isthe pretext for authori t a ri a n i s m , and for a sustainedassault on libert y. If successful, that assault will haveas its main consequence making it easier for thosebent on hegemonising the wo rld to launch furt h e rw a rs if they feel the need.

And these are the circumstances in which wemust fight for the victory of the wo rk i n g - c l a s ssocialism which Marx outlined as the inevitabl erealisation of humanity’s destiny. A c t u a l ly, t h e s ecircumstances are not so bad. It was Lenin who, in aprescient passage in Left-Wing Communism observe dthat “it is possible that [in Britain] the breach will befo r c e d , the ‘ice broke n ’ , by a parl i a m e n t a ry cri s i s , or bya crisis arising out of the colonial and imperi a l i s tc o n t ra d i c t i o n s .”That colonial and imperialist crisis is allaround us today, despite the superficial calm andt riviality of contempora ry British bourgeois politics,with all parties contriving to dance on the head of thesame pin in the so-called “centre ground.” As thei m p e rialist war unfo l d s , so we can be sure will themass movement against it, which will be manifest on aglobal scale once more next we e ke n d . It is a stru g g l efor peace, a struggle for national independence, as t ruggle for the pri o rities of social justice rather thancapital accumulation and ultimately a struggle for thecore ideal of Karl Marx – the restoration of humanityto its essence, a restoration which today can only liethrough the defeat of a wo rld system which mu t i l a t e shumanity – spiri t u a l ly and often phy s i c a l ly. The defe a tof imperialist war is the supreme task of Marxists andC o m mu n i s t s , united as one across the wo rl d , t o d ay.

It was Lenin

w h o, in a

p re s c i e n t

p a s s age in Left-

W i n g

C o m mu n i s m

o b s e rved that "it

is possible that

[in Britain] the

b reach will be

fo rc e d , the 'ice

b ro ke n ' , by a

p a r l i a m e n t a ry

c r i s i s , or by a

crisis arising out

of the colonial

and imperialist

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s ”

Designed by Nick Wright