Printable version
	Prometheus Research Series 2	HOME

Continued from left column

Since the party convention the seceding faction has evolved consistently in the direction of traditional left socialist anti-mili­ta­rism which at bottom is only a form of pacifism. The resolute struggle of the party majority against the Burnham-Shachtman faction, and its de­ci­sive victory in the struggle, were the necessary con­di­tions for the survival of the party. An un­re­lent­ing antagonism to the deserters on every point is no less necessary. The party cannot have the slightest reason for con­cil­ia­tion on any point with the faction of deserters inspired by petty-bourgeois fright before the stern realities and complexities of the developing war.

Adapting Our Tactics to War

6. The im­pe­ri­al­ist war is not our war and the mili­ta­rism of the capitalist state is not our mili­ta­rism. We do not support the war and mili­ta­rism of the im­pe­ri­al­ists any more than we support the capitalist ex­ploi­ta­tion of workers in the factories. We are against the war as a whole just as we are against the rule of the class which conducts it, and never under any cir­cum­stances vote to give them any confidence in their conduct of the war or prep­ara­tion for it, not a man, not a cent, not a gun with our support. Our war is the war of the working class against the capitalist order. But only with the masses is it possible to conquer power and establish socialism; and in these times the masses in the military organizations are destined to play the most decisive role of all. Consequently, it is impossible to affect the course of events by a policy of abstention. It is necessary to take capitalist mili­ta­rism as an established reality which we are not yet strong enough to abolish, and adapt our practical tactics to it. Our task is to protect the class interests of the workers in the army no less than in the factory. That means to participate in the military machine for socialist ends. The pro­le­tar­ian rev­olu­tion­ists are obliged to take their place beside the workers in the military training camps and on the battlefields in the same way as in the factory. They stand side by side with the masses of worker-soldiers, advance at all times and under all cir­cum­stances the independent class point of view, and strive to win over the majority to the idea of transforming the war into a struggle for their socialist emancipation.

We Go Where the Workers Go

Under conditions of mass mili­ta­ri­za­tion the rev­olu­tion­ary worker cannot evade military ex­ploi­ta­tion any more than he can evade ex­ploi­ta­tion in the factory. He does not seek a personal solution of the problem of war by evading military service. That is nothing but a desertion of class duty. The pro­le­tar­ian rev­olu­tion­ist goes with the masses. He becomes a soldier when they become soldiers, and goes to war when they go to war. The pro­le­tar­ian rev­olu­tion­ist strives to become the most skilled among the worker-soldiers, and dem­on­strates in action that he is most concerned for the general welfare and protection of his comrades. Only in this way, as in the factory, can the pro­le­tar­ian rev­olu­tion­ist gain the confidence of his comrades in arms and become an influential leader among them.

The total wars waged by the modern im­pe­ri­al­ists, and likewise the prep­ara­tions for such wars, require com­pul­so­ry military training no less than the ap­pro­pri­ation of enormous funds and the subordination of industry to the manufacture of armaments. As long as the masses accept the war prep­ara­tions, as is in­du­bi­ta­bly the case in the United States, mere negative agitation against the military budget and conscription cannot, by itself, yield serious results. Moreover, after Congress had already appropriated billions for armaments and was certain to pass a conscription bill without serious opposition, such negative agitation against conscription was some­what belated and easily degenerated into mealy-mouthed pacifism. This proved to be the case with the organizations (Thomasite Socialists, Love­stoneites, etc.) affiliated with the preposterous conglomeration which calls itself the “Keep America Out of War Committee”—a vile and treacherous tool of the “democratic” im­pe­ri­al­ists. The hypocrisy of their pacifism is indicated by the fact that, si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly, they declare themselves in favor of the victory of Britain. Equally treacherous is the purely pacifist agitation of the Stalinists, employed today on behalf of Stalin’s foreign policy under the Hitler-Stalin pact; and certain to be abandoned tomorrow when Stalin so orders, if he finds it necessary to switch partners. The pacifism of Browder and the pacifism of Thomas stem from different roots but are identical in their betrayal of the interests of the working class. Under the rule of a modern im­pe­ri­al­ism which is already arming to the teeth, an abstract fight against mili­ta­rism is at best Quixotic.

Our Program for This Period

The revolutionary strategy can only be to take this mili­ta­rism as a reality and counterpose a class program of the proletariat to the program of the im­pe­ri­al­ists at every point. We fight against sending the worker-soldiers into battle without proper training and equip­ment. We oppose the military direction of worker-soldiers by bourgeois officers who have no regard for their treatment, their protection and their lives. We demand federal funds for the military training of workers and worker-officers under the control of the trade unions. Military appropriations? Yes—but only for the es­tab­lish­ment and equipment of worker training camps! Compulsory military training of workers? Yes—but only under the control of the trade unions!

Such are the necessary concrete slogans for the present stage of the prep­ara­tion of U.S. im­pe­ri­al­ism for war in the near future. They constitute a military transitional program supplementing the general po­lit­ical transitional program of the party.

7. U.S. im­pe­ri­al­ism prepares for war, materially and ideologically, without waiting to decide in advance the date when actual hostilities shall begin or the precise point of attack. The workers’ vanguard must likewise prepare for war without dependence on speculative answers to these sec­ond­ary questions. The mil­itar­iza­tion of the country in prep­ara­tion for war is taking place before our eyes. All our work and plans for the future must be based on this reality.

The Future Belongs to Us

The first stages of mili­ta­ri­za­tion and war present enormous difficulties to our party because we have to swim against the stream. The party will be tested in a preliminary way by its capacity to recognize these difficulties and hold firm when the struggle is hard and the progress slow. Only a party fortified by the great principles and world associations of the Fourth In­ter­na­tion­al will be able to do this.

We are not a party like other parties. We alone are equipped with a scientific program of Marxism. We alone retain an unshakable confidence in the socialist future of humanity. We alone are ready to meet the universal mili­ta­rism of decaying capitalism on its own terms and lead the pro­le­tar­ian struggle for power accordingly.

The war in its course will utterly destroy all other workers’ parties, all half-and-half move­ments. But it will only harden the bona fide party of the Fourth In­ter­na­tion­al and open the way for its growth and eventual victory.

The future belongs to the party of the dic­ta­tor­ship of the proletariat, the party of the Fourth In­ter­na­tion­al. It needs only to be true to itself, hold firm, dig in and prepare the future.

---

1. Capitalism has plunged the world into a horrible vortex of war and mili­ta­rism. This testifies not to the vitality of capitalism but to its fatal weakness, its incapacity to regain stability. The epoch of the death agony of capitalism and the beginning of social trans­for­ma­tion is an epoch of universal mili­ta­rism. It can be brought to an end only by the definitive victory of the proletariat. This is the essential feature of the present world situation.

2. The intervention of the United States in the present war, or its clash with a victorious Germany or Japan at a later date, is predetermined by all the cir­cum­stances. All the realistic leaders of American capitalism clearly understand this. Only a few pacifist fools have the slightest doubt about it. The two main groups in the camp of U.S. im­pe­ri­al­ism—in­ter­ven­tion­ist and so-called isolationists—differ only in regard to military strategy. Both are agreed on the policy of preparing to fight and grab. The stupendous arms program adopted by Congress has and can have only one meaning: military aggression in the near future on a world scale.

The question whether German im­pe­ri­al­ism, having conquered Europe, can or cannot “attack” the United States has nothing to do with the real issue. The very existence of one aggressive and expanding im­pe­ri­al­ist power in the modern world is an “attack” on the others. The United States, as an im­pe­ri­al­ist power having its foundations throughout the world, is “attacked” any­where a rival power attempts to seize a market, a piece of territory or a sphere of influence.

Whether the United States directly intervenes in the present European war, or defers open military action for another point of attack is only a sec­ond­ary consideration in evaluating the per­spec­tive. The real course is clear: U.S. im­pe­ri­al­ism is preparing with all possible speed to put its strength and its weakness to the test of war on a colossal scale.

The Fundamental Lesson

3. In the epoch of mili­ta­rism great questions can be decided only by military means—this is the fun­da­men­tal lesson of the developments of the present war.

The agents and apologists of democratic im­pe­ri­al­ism—the social democrats, the centrists, the trade-union reformists and the pacifists—fill the air with lamentations over the smashing military victories of Hitler and spread the sentiments of pessimism and prostration.

We Fourth In­ter­na­tion­alists thrust aside these traitors and panic mongers with hatred and con­tempt. Our task is to ascertain what has been destroyed and what has been proved by the mo­men­tous events in Europe and to draw the necessary conclusions for the future struggle.

Reformism Cannot Live Today

In the first place the victories of the fascist war machine of Hitler have destroyed every plausible basis for the illusion that a serious struggle against fascism can be conducted under the leadership of a bourgeois democratic regime. The war in Europe, as previously in the Spanish rehearsal, has shown up the hollowness, the rottenness and the contemptible cowardice and greed of the whole ruling stratum of the bourgeois democrats. They are unwilling to sacrifice anything but the lives of the duped masses. To save their personal lives and their property they were ready in one country after another to capitulate to fascism and seek its protection against the wrath of their own people.

No less complete and devastating has been the de­struc­tion of the traditional reformist labor move­ment. At best, this traditional move­ment—the parties and the trade unions—was pacifist in character. That is, it was designed for peace, not for war. Parties which confined themselves to protests against the horrors of war, and did not seriously conduct a struggle for power to end the system which causes war—such parties were completely helpless when submitted to the test of war. The same proved true of the outwardly imposing trade unions. All concepts of peaceful, gradual, reformist progress within the framework of capitalism, and all parties and organizations which represented these concepts in any degree, were smashed like a house of cards.

Bolshevism Alone Stands Up

The war in Europe has once again, and more categorically than ever, posed the fundamental al­ter­na­tive of the epoch of wars and revolutions: either the dic­ta­tor­ship of fascist capitalism, or the dic­ta­tor­ship of the proletariat. The attempt of the European workers under the influence of the reformist labor bu­reau­cra­cies, to find in democratic capitalism a third al­ter­na­tive, led to catastrophe. The third al­ter­na­tive has been destroyed in blood and fire. But the program of the workers’ fight for power has not been destroyed. When the workers of Europe rise again—and rise they will—that program will be their banner. These are the fundamental lessons of the war.

4. Bolshevism alone, which aims to direct the workers’ move­ment to the seizure of political power by revolutionary means, stands up and gains strength under the test of the great new events. War and mili­ta­rism, which crush all other organizations and discredit all other programs, only provide a new verification of the premises of Bolshevism. The military epoch has room only for parties which inspire the workers to scorn all half measures, to stop at nothing, and to carry their struggle through to the very end. These are parties of a new type having nothing in common with the reformist-pacifist parties of the traditional labor move­ment. Such a party is the Socialist Workers Party. Its program can be described in one phrase: dic­ta­tor­ship of the proletariat.

Ridding Ourselves of Pacifism

5. The certainty that the United States also will be dominated by mili­ta­rism confronts the party with the categoric necessity to purge itself of all remnants of liberal, petty-bourgeois pacifist tendencies and con­cep­tions carried over from the past, in particular from the left social-democratic move­ment. Pacifism is a debilitating poison in the workers’ move­ment. Pacifism, in all its forms, is no more than a protest in time of peace against war; in the face of actual war it thrusts the workers like sheep, unarmed and de­fense­less and without a program, into the slaughter. In our epoch, which is completely dominated by mili­ta­rism, negative protests against war are of no avail whatever. The proletariat requires a positive program which takes the facts of war and mili­ta­rism, the characteristic features of decaying capitalism, as the starting point for practical actions.

The first impact of the war in Europe revealed a petty-bourgeois centrist tendency in the Socialist Workers Party which took shape as a faction. Under the leadership of Burnham and Shachtman this minority faction waged a disruptive struggle in the party and attempted to overthrow the Marxist doctrines in favor of journalistic improvisations. The disruptive struggle of the Burnham-Shachtman faction culminated in their desertion of the party in a typical petty-bourgeois recoil against the discipline of the pro­le­tar­ian majority of the party. The open repudiation of socialism by Burnham within less than two months after he had deserted the party was only the logical sequel to the course he followed in the party struggle. Burnham’s betrayal of socialism confirmed to the hilt the party’s char­ac­ter­iza­tion of this pretentious mountebank and the petty-bourgeois faction he organized and ma­neu­ver­ed into a split.

Top Right