CWO reviews ‘Their Wars – Our Dead: Anarchist Reflections on Anti-Militarism’
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The CWO on the book’Their Wars – Our Dead: Anarchist Reflections on Anti-Militarism’:
An attempt by the CWO to convince anarchists that, as advocates of minority action, they too believe in a vanguard and should take the next step and become Leninists. They might also have the same trouble convincing the anarchists of the CWO’s position, alluded to in the last paragraph, that a third world war is inevitable because without one capital accumulation cannot continue.
The last chapter of the book, on anarchists in Britain in the Second World Slaughter, looks interesting as it discusses the SPGB position and members’ actions in a fair way. The SPGB was of course opposed to the war but took the position that, as it wasn’t a mere anti-war party, there was no point in taking on a state at war, with the support of most workers, by calling on troops to mutiny or to turn “the war into civil war” (not that the anarchists really did anyway) or “revolutionary defeatism” (ie hope that the other side wins), and getting smashed by it.
ALB wrote:
‘[…] or “revolutionary defeatism” (ie hope that the other side wins),[…]’.
Speaking of which, here are leftcoms (the ICC) against the notion:
Good on the ICC for rejecting “revolutionary defeatism” (the absurd doctrine that revolutionaries should call for the other side in a war to win). Also, their position on a third world war seems better than of the CWO (even if it is based on the view that capitalism is collapsing economically through lack of external markets):
“During the debate, significant differences emerged regarding the method of analysis and its implications for the proletariat’s struggle. On the assessment of the dynamics of war, the majority of the groups present asserted that the world was heading “towards a third world war”, whilst the ICC, going against the current, maintained that: “we are heading towards a proliferation and generalisation of conflicts across the world, against a backdrop of growing chaos, ultimately threatening to destroy humanity”.
Left-communist dissatisfaction with the CWO/ICT position also from the Fredo Corvo group :
Commenting (full comment below) on the the ICT’s ‘May Day 2026: No Sacrifices for this System – Against War and All Forms of Nationalism!’, he they wrote:
‘Although the ICT has dropped its pet thesis of a permanent crisis from the basic positions of its NWBTCW [No War but the Class War] committees, it begins its May 1 statement with “The capitalist crisis only gets worse and worse, with world war becoming an increasing reality. This crisis of a lack of sufficient surplus value is extending the competition between capitalists into a contest between states.”
However, reality shows that the history of the 1930s crisis is not repeating itself; that crisis led to World War II. Now, it is the Iran-U.S./Israel conflict and massive rearmament that are leading to the end of the economic boom, with the first signs of crisis emerging. This is exactly the opposite of what the ICT claims.
The ‘common banner’ under which we are supposed to rally, according to the ICT, thus obscures clarity about the situation in the world. ‘
Another point of difference with the ICT is its Neo-Leninism. For example, the ICT talks about the ‘spontaneity’ of the working class, contrasting this with the leading role of the Party. As Trotsky noted regarding the February Revolution of 1917, speaking of ‘spontaneity’ obscures the actual discussions within the working class and the Bolsheviks’ activity therein that preceded February.
These two differences alone demonstrate the need for revolutionaries to cooperate on certain issues in the struggle against war while retaining the right and duty to act independently on other essential matters. However, the ICT does not even acknowledge the existence of many dissenters among those who refer to the communist left. [This ‘refer to’ is an often seen mistranslation of what in English should be ‘identify with’ or ‘claim to be of’. Cf French ‘se réclamer de’ — ZJW]
Instead, the ICT speaks of ‘wallowing in criticism and squabbles that lack purpose or direction’, a statement comparable to that of the Spanish Stalinists during the Spanish Civil War of 1936.’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.