Comrades, we need a cogent theoretical and class analysis of the present war crisis.footnote＊ Yes. But to structure an analysis in a consecutive rational manner may be, at the same time, to impose a consequential rationalityfootnote1 upon the object of analysis. What if the object is irrational? What if events are being willed by no single causative historical logic (‘the increasingly aggressive military posture of world imperialism’, etc.)—a logic which then may be analysed in terms of origins, intentions or goals, contradictions or conjunctures—but are simply the product of a messy inertia? This inertia may have drifted down to us as a collocation of fragmented forces (political and military formations, ideological imperatives, weapons technologies): or, rather, as two antagonistic collocations of such fragments, interlocked by their oppositions? What we endure in the present is historically-formed, and to that degree subject to rational analysis: but it exists now as a critical mass on the point of irrational detonation. Detonation might be triggered by accident, miscalculation, by the implacable upwards creep of weapons technology, or by a sudden hot flush of ideological passion.footnote2 If
Twenty-one years on, and the immediacy of this question, as well as the political demands of the moment, break up the mind. I can offer no more than notes, fragments of an argument. Some fragments must take the form of questions, addressed to the immobilism of the Marxist Left.
A swift caricature of whatever theory underlies this immobilism would run like this. It is in stance a priori: the increasingly-expert literature on weaponry, militarism, and in peace research remains unread.footnote4 It is informed by a subliminal teleology: history must move through its pre-programmed stages, do what men will, and we may refuse, with
In its story-line it goes something like this. The original, and also the replicating, cause of Cold War lies in the drives of world imperialism. These drives are then analysed, with attention to Africa, South-East Asia, Latin America, and with a peroration about the Middle East and oil. China is invoked as part of the revolutionary heritage: its inconvenient diplomatic and military postures are then forgotten.footnote5 Europe is passed over without analysis, except in its accessory role in world imperialism. State socialism, however ‘deformed’ (and here Marxists of different persuasions offer different grade-marks for deformity), has a military posture which is ‘overwhelmingly defensive’. This can be confirmed by an a priori exercise, through a brief attention to differing modes of production and social systems: the capitalist mode is motivated by the drive for profit and for new fields of exploitation, whereas the arms race imposes an unwelcome burden upon socialist states (however deformed) by diverting resources from socialist construction.
As for the Bomb, that is a Thing, and a Thing cannot be a historical agent. Preoccupation with the horrors of an imaginary nuclear war is diversionary (did not the Vietcong call that bluff?), and it leads to hideous heresies, such as ‘neutralism’, ‘pacifism’, and to utter confusion in the class struggle. cnd exemplified such capitulations to moralism and ‘pacifism’, which is why it ‘failed’. Meanwhile, the antiimperialist struggle prospers in the Third World (Vietnam, Angola, Iran, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe), and eventually it will be carried thence to the ‘barbarians’ in the capitalist heartlands.footnote6 The best that these barbarians can do, while they wait, is to engage in frontal class confrontation until the capitalist economies begin to buckle.