XV. The Meaning of the Dictum “War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means”

The Marxist approach to conflicts and wars is based on the understanding that they are not a separate issue of politics in general but rather a specific aspect of it. Friedrich Engels and V.I. Lenin were big admirers of the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz of the early 19^th century, who summarized the essence of any military conflict by the famous words: “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.” [1]

In his book On War Clausewitz stressed and elaborated this point: “War is an instrument of policy; it must necessarily bear its character, it must measure with its scale: the conduct of war, in its great features, is therefore policy itself, which takes up the sword in place of the pen, but does not on that account cease to think according to its own laws.” [2]

Indeed, wars are waged by any class not as an end in itself but for specific political and economic goals, i.e. in order to impose their interests. This applies both to the policy of the bourgeoisie as well as for the policy of the proletariat and other oppressed classes.

An imperialist state might attack a rival in order to get control over strategic territories or its colonies (e.g. World War I between Germany, France, Britain, Russia, et.), a Great Power might attack a semi-colony in order to rob its economic resources (e.g. the US invasion of Iraq 2003) or to stop a rebellion undermining the imperialist domination in the region (e.g. Russia’s two wars against Chechnya in the mid-1990s and early 2000s). Or it can be a war of the oppressed classes in order to drive out foreign invaders (e.g. the Afghan resistance against the U.S. forces since 2001 or the Somali struggle against the Ethiopian-led AU troops) or to bring down a reactionary dictatorship (e.g. in Cuba against Batista 1953-59, in Libya against Gaddafi in 2011 or in Syria against Assad since 2011).

To put it in the words of Lenin: „With reference to wars, the main thesis of dialectics, which has been so shamelessly distorted by Plekhanov to please the bourgeoisie, is that “war is simply the continuation of politics by other [i.e., violent] means”. Such is the formula of Clausewitz, one of the greatest writers on the history of war, whose thinking was stimulated by Hegel. And it was always the standpoint of Marx and Engels, who regarded any war as the continuation of the politics of the powers concerned— and the various classes within these countries—in a definite period.“ [3]

War is part of politics; the latter can not exist without the former. A pamphlet of the US-American Trotskyists published in 1936 formulated this fundamental idea with much apropos:

“The moral, religious, racial and ideological disguises that war wears must not be allowed to hide the fundamental conflicts which are the true sources of modern war. The general conclusion is inescapable: Modern war is neither accidental nor due to the evil of human nature nor decreed by God. War is of the very essence of imperialist-capitalism, as much a part of capitalism as wage labor. To speak of capitalism without war is like speaking of a human being without lungs. The fate of one is inextricably bound to the fate of the other.” [4]

From this follows that Marxists approach issues of wars not with a different method than other features of the struggles between classes. Hence, the working class policy is directed towards defending its independence from the ruling class (respectively its different factions) of all imperialist powers in times of peace as well as in times of war. And it is fighting in order to weaken the capitalists and eventually to overthrow them in times of peace as well as in times of war.

Lenin pointed to the fundamentally same principles of the class struggle in times of peace as well as during wars: “War is a continuation of policy by other means. All wars are inseparable from the political systems that engender them. The policy which a given state, a given class within that state, pursued for a long time before the war is inevitably continued by that same class during the war, the form of action alone being changed.” [5]

This idea was repeated by Trotsky in the founding program of the Fourth International: “Imperialist war is the continuation and sharpening of the predatory politics of the bourgeoisie. The struggle of the proletariat against war is the continuation and sharpening of its class struggle. The beginning of war alters the situation and partially the means of struggle between the classes, but not the aim and basic course.” [6]

This is true both for issues of domestic as well as foreign policy. Trotsky insisted in his theses on War and the Fourth International on the close and inseparable relationship between the internal and external policies of both the ruling class and the proletariat. The vanguard of the proletariat advocates a policy of class independence from any imperialist bourgeoisie and from each of their fractions – both of those at home and of those abroad: “The foreign policy of each class is the continuation and development of its internal policy.” ^[7]

In other words, the entire method of revolutionary defeatism has no "special tactics" for war, but rather dictates the continuation of tactics directed to promote the independence of the working class of every imperialist bourgeoisie (and each fraction of this), which are valid for all phases of the class struggle – whether in times of war or peace.

For this reason, Marxists apply the very same method of "revolutionary defeatism" not just in cases of conflicts between imperialist countries. Likewise the RCIT also applies such a method, for example, on issues like the membership of imperialist states in inter-state alliances (e.g. the issue of membership in the European Union). [8]

Another, similar, issue is the case of elections in which only open-bourgeois candidates are competing (e.g., in the presidential election in the USA between the candidates of the Republican and the Democratic Parties). In such situations, revolutionaries cannot support any of these candidates and therefore call for abstention. [9]

In this context it is worth drawing attention to Lenin’s observation that revolutionaries should study the writings of Clausewitz because of the closeness of political tactics and military tactics. In an article published during the last period of Lenin’s lifetime, the Soviet historian V.I. Sorin attributed to the leader of the Bolshevik the following views on the significance of Clausewitz : "Lenin said that 'political and military tactics are called Grenzgebiet (a borderland) in German and party workers could study with advantage the works of Clausewitz, the greatest of German military theoreticians.'" [10]

In summary, Marxists don’t change their approach to the ruling class in times of war, hence, the working class must fundamentally oppose its imperialist government equally in times of peace as well as in times of war. The politics of revolutionary defeatism has always the same programmatic root: namely, the struggle for the political independence of the working class from all fractions of the bourgeoisie and from all imperialist powers.