directory
1 The origin of the war determines the nature of the war
2 How do you view the war of foreign expansion during the period of the bourgeois revolution?
3What kind of defensive war is just?
4 types of war outside of offense and defense
5What is the nature of the russo-Ukrainian war today?
6 It is necessary to establish a correct view of war
For a long time, we have been accustomed to the concept of war: a war of aggression is unjust, and a defensive war, that is, a war to defend the motherland, is just. Generally speaking, it is true, but it is far from enough. The most crucial thing is that, according to Marxism, this is not the fundamental basis for determining the nature of war.
On what basis, then, do Marxists judge the nature of war or military action? Lenin, the great revolutionary teacher, gave us a scientific answer in Socialism and War (Attitude of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party towards War) (July-August 1915).
First of all, if you want to understand the nature of war, you must know the source of the war, and if you don't know the source of the war, you don't know why the war happened and why the course of the war is the way it is. And, exactly. This is something that most people don't know much about.
With regard to the origins of war, Lenin pointed out briefly at the beginning of this work: "Unlike the bourgeois pacifists, we understand that war is inextricably linked to the internal class struggle, and that it is impossible to abolish war without abolishing classes and establishing socialism." Lenin pointed out two points here: the first is the origin of war, which actually comes from the class struggle in the country. This war, of course, including foreign wars, is also the root cause, not what we are talking about as a national contradiction. When we talk about the recent wars in Russia and Ukraine today, we all shy away from the analysis of the class contradictions within these two countries, that is, we do not see the internal contradictions, the general cause of this war. Secondly, Lenin pointed out the way to eliminate war: to abolish the classes and to establish socialism. This is one of the important contents of Lenin's work, and the two are necessarily related, but they are not the focus of my little essay.
After pointing out the origin of war — the class struggle — Lenin went on to point out what kind of war is just and what kind of war should be supported and helped! Lenin said: "Moreover, we fully recognize that the civil war, the war of the oppressed classes against the oppressed classes — slaves against the slave owners, serfs against the landlords, wage-workers against the bourgeoisie — is justified, progressive and necessary. "I think this view of Lenin will not be refuted by anyone, except for the bourgeois elements who deny the existence of classes. It is made abundantly clear here that this sentence is an overview of how the nature of all wars throughout human history should be judged. The reason why we support Chen Sheng, Wu Guang, the Good Man of the Green Forest, the Huangchao Uprising, Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, and the Boxer Rebellion is that these wars are all wars waged by the oppressed ruled class. From this point of view, the nature of the Anshi Rebellion, the Jurchen war to destroy the Northern Song Dynasty, and the nature of the so-called Wuhu Chaohua in history all need to be reconsidered!
Therefore, as some people have done, it is not enough to simply deny war altogether. So why are these wars against oppression just and why are they progressive? Why must it be supported? Lenin pointed out: "There have been many such wars in history, and although they inevitably bring about all kinds of tragedies, atrocities, disasters and sufferings like any war, they are progressive wars, that is to say, "It can be said that Lenin's central reason here is twofold, first, to destroy or overthrow the reactionary autocracy, and second, to benefit the development of mankind. These two points are actually the relationship between the two wings of one body, the relationship between the palms of the hands and the back of the hands, if there is no former, there is no latter. And without the latter, the former will not succeed. It can be said that this is the fundamental criterion for Marxism to judge the nature of war. If the nature of the war is incompatible with this, then it does not matter whether justice is unjust or unjust, or whether it is unjust and should be condemned.
Lenin further cited the historical war of the bourgeoisie as an example. He begins with the example of a progressive war by the bourgeoisie. "The French Revolution ushered in a new era in human history," he said. From that time until the Paris Commune, one of the types of warfare was a bourgeois progressive, nationally liberating war. In other words, the main content and historical significance of these wars is to overthrow the autocratic and feudal systems, to destroy these systems, and to overthrow foreign oppression. "We are now criticizing capitalism, but not everything about capitalism is denied, and capitalism in this period of history should be affirmed and supported. Because the war of this period was to overthrow oppression, promote the birth and construction of capitalism, and promote the development of the productive forces at that time. We must point out, lenin here pointed out in particular, "the overthrow of foreign oppression", which involves what we today call the inter-state question, the national question, and not a domestic contradiction. That is to say, the problems between the countries and the contradictions of the nations are the extension and externalization of the contradictions of the domestic classes, and the two are linked, and they are also the relationship between the palms of the hands and the backs of the hands. In other words, in order to resolve the class contradictions in the country, it is necessary to resolve the contradictions between the states and the nationalities. The view that national contradictions, state contradictions and class contradictions have nothing to do with them is superficial, superficial, and does not see the fundamentals.
Lenin then gives two examples of the progressive nature of bourgeois warfare:
The first is the war of the French Revolution, and the second is the question of how to judge the military character of Germany in the Franco-Prussian War. Lenin said, "For example," lenin's two examples have one thing in common: a war of aggression has been waged against the outside world, and we know that the scale is not small, and the intensity is not low. Especially Napoleon's foreign wars, which we are familiar with. It can be said that Lenin was highly supportive of napoleon and the German military operations of the Franco-Prussian War here. Of course, Lenin pointed out here the reasons.
Moreover, we must point out that the foreign wars of France and Germany at this time are both the development of domestic class contradictions and the necessary external expansion for the settlement of domestic contradictions.
It can be seen that at this point, Lenin naturally came to the view that "the war of aggression cannot be simply negated." Wars that overthrow the old system, the overthrow of the oppressors, and the development of the productive forces are wars that we should support, whether aggressive or not. To this day, who among us does not admire Napoleon as a true hero? It is because his war has brought liberation and progress to the place where he is!
Lenin's views are by no means isolated, and the Confucian concept of war of The Confucian Mencius, which is admired by everyone, is consistent with Lenin's views, Mencius said: "Wang Ru shi benevolent government to the people, provincial punishment, thin taxation, deep ploughing and easy to carry." The strong man cultivates his filial piety and faithfulness in his spare time, and when he goes into his father and brother, he can make the strong armor of Qin Chu a strong soldier. When he seized his people, he was forbidden to cultivate in order to support his parents, who were frozen and hungry, and his brothers and wives were separated. He drowned his people, and the king marched on him, and who was the enemy of the king? Therefore, it is said: 'The benevolent are invincible.' "Mencius said very clearly here, I practice benevolent government, and the other side does not practice benevolent government, then I can defeat him, Mencius here is to encourage King Hui of Liang to launch a foreign war based on benevolent government." This, of course, is a war of progress.
So what kind of defensive war is next, that is, the war to defend the motherland is just?
Lenin pointed out: "The rationality of the 'defensive' war which the Socialists speak of in terms of the wars of this epoch has always referred to these objectives, that is, the revolution against the medieval system and serfdom. What socialists call 'defensive' war has always meant 'just' war in this sense (a term Wie Liebknecht used on one occasion). Socialists have only recognized in this sense that 'defence of the fatherland' or 'defensive' warfare is just, progressive and just. What does Lenin mean by these words? Lenin's explanation is immediately followed by the above quotation. Thus, the "defence of the fatherland" and the "defensive" war which Lenin recognizes here are just, and refer to the war of aggression of a nation that resists the backward relations of production against a nation of advanced relations of production. For example, our War of Resistance Against Japan is actually such a war. Japanese imperialism is a mixture of The big bourgeoisie and the big landlord class in Japan, and from the bourgeois point of view, this mixture in Japan is far less progressive than the liberal capitalism of Britain and the United States at that time, and there was already a more advanced political force on the mainland at that time, the Communist Party of China. Therefore, Japan's invasion of the mainland was a war waged by backward society against the more advanced society of the time, which was of course unjust and inevitably a war of defeat. Napoleon invaded Germany, but brought progress to the fragmented Germany of the time —and it was institutional, substantial progress. Japan's invasion of the mainland has brought great pain and disaster. This is there for all to see. Of course, the military actions of the war group that encircled Napoleon at that time were unjust, because they were to defend the power of the backward feudal lords, to defend the Bourbon Dynasty, which was essentially abandoned, the small German princes who were still feudal at that time (there were more than 300 small lieutenants in Germany at that time), and even the tsarist regime of serfdom. They were waging a war waged by the backward social forces against the products of the advanced French Revolution, a war against the bourgeoisie of the French revolution at that time, and naturally the condemnable party, although from Napoleon's point of view they were more akin to anti-aggression.
Lenin specifically mentioned the mainland, which was already the era of the Beiyang warlords of the Republic of China. Lenin said: "If tomorrow Morocco declares war on France, India declares war on Britain, Persia or China declares war on Russia, and so on, these wars will be 'just' and 'defensive' wars, and whoever attacks first will attack." Any Socialist would hope that the oppressed, subordinate, sovereignly incomplete State would triumph over the 'big' State of the oppressor, slave owners and plunderers. "It is pointed out here that countries, including the continental continents, would have been just if they had first waged war against the nation-states that oppressed them. It should be noted in particular that Lenin's concept of defensiveness and the concept of justice are consistent (Lenin uses it only here). For at that time people thought that any defensive war was a just war, which is the same as what we think today. However, it is clear that the oppressed nations and peoples referred to here actively wage "aggressive" wars against the oppressed nations, such as attacking each other first, or even invading their territory.
Having explained what kind of defensive operations, the defense of the fatherland, are just and should be supported, it is further pointed out that if it is not such a war between progress and non-progress, then it has nothing to do with whether it is called justice or not. In particular, I would like to stress that the war of progress, the war of justice, is in fact a war for the development of the productive forces, a war for the overthrow of the old relations of production and the establishment of new ones. The progress of war can be found in the historical basis of the basic Marxist principles of the productive forces and the relations of production.
Lenin said: "But suppose that a slave owner with 100 slaves is at war with a slave owner with 200 slaves in order to divide the slaves more 'fairly'." It is clear that the use of the concept of 'defensive' war or 'defence of the fatherland' on such occasions is historically a forgery and is in fact nothing more than the deception of cunning slave owners against the common people, petty citizens and ignorant people. This is how the present imperialist bourgeoisie, in the present war between slave owners for the consolidation and strengthening of slavery, uses the concept of 'nationality' and the concept of defending the fatherland to deceive the people. ”
Lenin pointed out here in particular that a war similar to the war waged by two slave owners for the purpose of dividing up slaves does not have any meaning of "defense" or "defense of the motherland", which means that there is no one who invades whom, who is of a righteous character. Two street gang bosses fighting for turf, you have to say that the boss who takes the first place to grab the turf is aggressive and unjust, and the defensive gang boss is just, which is not ironic for those small people who are bullied by this so-called defensive gang boss, such as women forced into prostitution, small shop owners who are forced to pay protection fees? Does it make sense? That is why Lenin pointed out that both sides of the First World War at that time were unjust, that it was a war between the two major imperialist blocs for the international market and territory, and that there was no need for any concept of aggressive war and the defense of the motherland, and such a concept had nothing to do with it!
If we look again at the nature of today's Russo-Ukrainian war, it is easy to understand.
Some say that Russia is the party to the invasion, unjust, and deserves to be criticized. While the Ukrainian side is defensive, the war to defend the motherland should be supported. It is true that the Russian side is the invading side. But we condemn the Russian side not because of the war of aggression, but because it is in fact a war against the declining oligarchy of the Russian bourgeoisie, a war against the interests of the ruling class that oppresses the proletariat in Russia. We know that after the start of the war, there were anti-war demonstrations in Moscow, and many people were arrested.
What about the Ukrainian side? It seems that Ukraine is blameless. Not really. We know that the Ukrainian regime is only formally manifested as a so-called independent regime. The Ukrainian regime since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been controlled and influenced by Western forces. In 2014, European and American Western countries wanted to overthrow Ukrainian pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. And support the Ukrainian opposition in the demonstrations at home! This has led to a political crisis in Ukraine. In the end, Yanukovych was deposed by the Ukrainian parliament supported by European and American countries. This is something that everyone knows. To this day, Zelenskiy is begging the West for protection and help, either to join NATO or the European Union. Unfortunately, no one wants it! Thus, the Ukrainian regime is in fact a regime controlled by international capital, a branch of international capital that does not really represent the Ukrainian people. How can a foreign-controlled comprador capital be in power represent the Ukrainian people?
Second, the Ukrainian regime has been suppressing the proletariat since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and in Ukraine the Communist Party is illegal. The Current Ukrainian regime is also a bourgeois regime, not a working-class regime, not a people's regime – before the war began, a large number of Ukrainian plutocrats flew away. According to the Overseas Network quoted by Russian media on February 14, in recent days, a group of the richest people in Ukraine are collectively "fleeing" Ukraine, and about 20 chartered and private planes have taken off from the capital Kiev on the 13th alone. According to reports, one of the private planes that left on the 13th belonged to Ukraine's richest man, Linat Akmetov. Ukraine's second-richest man, steel magnate Viktor Pinchuk, left Ukraine at the end of January. Oligarchs fleeing Ukraine in recent days include Vadim Nowitzki, a politician businessman with $1.3 billion in assets, and Oleksandr Yaroslavski, the ninth richest ukrainian on The Rich list. There were also many parliamentarians running with them! It can be seen that the democratic election is a joke here. The elected representatives actually took the lead before the great war came! What is the point of such an election? That is to say, the real state masters of Ukraine have run away.
So, if the big capitalists run away, the Ukrainians will not defend the motherland? If we use Lenin's point of view, it is, no, and it should be an uprising! Overthrow the bourgeois regime in Ukraine and restore the dictatorship of the proletariat! Unfortunately, Putin is of course also anti-communist, and the invasion of Ukraine by such a powerful foreign enemy is bound to suppress the Communist Party and proletariat in Ukraine. So don't think that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is bad for Ukraine, but that by suppressing the local Communist Party and the proletariat, it is also helping the local bourgeoisie – how can the weak bourgeoisie deal with the local proletariat alone? Putin has pro-Russian factions in Ukraine, not without reason, that is, to jointly oppose the proletariat and communism!
In fact, we fundamentally know that the current Russian-Ukrainian war is essentially the result of NATO's eastward expansion, the result of the struggle between international monopoly capital and local capital forces in Russia or the former Soviet Union. In the process, the capitals that rose up in the former Soviet Union gave in, suffered losses, and felt the threat of international capital. International capital is now mired in an economic crisis and has to use tricks to expand its territory and strike at its competitors. This is evident from the fact that Europe and the United States launched economic sanctions against Russia immediately after the war between Russia and Ukraine. This is nothing more than an economic war outside the military war. In fact, economic sanctions against Russia are very effective.
Of course, the territory of the hot war is in Ukraine, while the territory of economic warfare covers Russia, and its allies.
In short, the Russo-Ukrainian war was in fact a war between international monopoly capital and the capital that rose up in the former Soviet Union (of course, this capital was less powerful). It's like a struggle between a larger gang and a smaller gang fighting for turf.
Therefore, although Russia is not a just war, the Ukrainian side is by no means just, because Ukraine is only an agent of Western capital, a white glove, in fact, this is a struggle between Russian capital and Western capital, and naturally Western capital cannot talk about justice and defense, or even defend the motherland. Those rich Ukrainians who fled tell you what the motherland is!
Therefore, it is wrong to support either side. The mainland government's approach is very wise. However, we do not mean that there is no tendency, because although the forces on both sides are the forces of capital, but one of the big capitals is in direct contradiction with us, we can use the power of Russian capital to leverage the pressure of European and American capital on us, so we are tendentious.
Lenin, on the side of Tsarist Russia, which was at the time of the two opposing blocs, did not support either side, but put forward the strategy of "turning the international war into a civil war", which finally achieved the victory of the great October Revolution of the proletariat. Today's Ukraine and Russia may not have the situation they were.
Finally, it needs to be explained that the war from the point of view of attack or aggression or from the perspective of defending or defending the motherland is by no means an academic question, by no means just a moral question; on the one hand, Lenin broke through such a leak and came up with the strategy of "turning an international war into a civil war"; on the other hand, it was this opposition to the understanding of the morality of war that caused the bankruptcy of the Second International! The communist movement suffered great setbacks, especially the german revolution, which could have been successful, to the end of the failure, and to this day Germany, the homeland of Marxism, remains a bourgeois state.
For a long time, our lack of propaganda against Leninism, the lack of a correct outlook on war, and the lack of education in the Marxist class viewpoint have led to today's erroneous views becoming the mainstream views. This is extremely unfavorable in the context of the great changes in the past century. It is necessary to know that the scientific concept of war is part of Marxism. The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat by violent overthrow of bourgeois power is the basic principle of Marxism, and if there is no correct concept of war, this basic principle of Marxism will inevitably disintegrate. Leninism, the lesson of the correct outlook on war, we must make up for it today, and we cannot postpone it any longer.