Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From New International, Vol. VI. No. 5 (Whole No. 43), June 1940, p. 98.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Certain bourgeois writers express the opinion that the international cartels, representing one of the most striking forms of the internationalization of capital afford us the hope of the maintenance of peace under the capitalist system. Theoretically this opinion is absurd, while in practice it is a sophism and a dishonest defense of the worst opportunism. The international cartels show to what point capitalist monopolies have developed and WHAT is the object of the struggle between capitalist groups. This last circumstance is the most important; it alone shows us the historico-economic direction of events. For the FORMS of the struggle can change, and do change constantly, because of various relatively temporary and special causes, but the ESSENCE of the struggle, its class CONTENT, CANNOT change while classes exist. It is easy to understand for example, that it may be useful for the interest of the German bourgeoisie to hide the REASON for the actual economic struggle (the division of the world) and to emphasize one FORM or another of it. Kautsky makes the same mistake. And it is a question not of the German bourgeoisie, but of the bourgeoisie throughout the world. The capitalists divide up the world, not because of original Bin, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to take this road in order to get profits.
The latest period of capitalism shows us that definite relations are being established amongst capitalist groups, relations BASED on the economic partition of the world; whilst, parallel with this fact and in connection with it, definite relations are being established between political groups, between States, on the basis of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of the “struggle for economic territory”. (N. Lenin: Imperialism)
When the function of militarism against the enemy abroad is called a national function, it does not mean that it is a function which corresponds to the interests, the welfare and the will of the exploited peoples ruled by capitalism. The proletariat of the whole world has no advantage to expect from this policy which necessitates militarism directed against the enemy abroad; its interests are, in fact, opposed to it in the most striking way. This policy serves directly or indirectly the interests of the exploiting classes of capitalism. It tries with more or less dexterity to pave the way into the world for the recklessly chaotic production and senseless and murderous competition of Capitalism. In doing this it tramples under foot all the duties of civilization towards the less developed peoples. And in reality it attains nothing save that it insanely endangers the whole fabric of our culture by conjuring up the complications of a world war. (Karl Liebknecht: Militarism and Anti-Militarism)
Under the circumstances the question of victory or defeat becomes, for the European workers, in its political, exactly as in its economic aspects, a choice between two beatings. It is, therefore, nothing short of a dangerous madness for the French Socialists to believe that they can deal a death blow to militarism and imperialism and clean the road for peaceful democracy, by overthrowing Germany. Imperialism, and its servant militarism, will reappear after every victory and after every defeat in this war. There can be but one exception: if the international proletariat through its intervention should overthrow all previous calculations. (Rosa Luxemburg, The Crisis in the German Social Democracy)
Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 18 October 2014