"In a strike, I am for my class, right or wrong;
in a war, I am for my country, right or wrong". Ben Tillet, union leader
"You may not be interested in war, but war is
interested in you."
― Leon Trotsky
Dave Sherry's book is a reliable and well-written
introduction to the complex history of the First World War. Written from the
standpoint of the historical genre "history from below" its fourteen
chapters cover all the most critical aspects of the war and subsequent
revolutions.
Like many similar historical subjects, there is
little agreement among historians as to the origins of the war to end all wars.
Some right-wing historians have attempted to rehabilitate the First World War,
as a "necessary" war for democracy.
As Sherry states "That is one of the reasons I wrote the book.
There is a truly myopic view of some British historians who see it as just a
war on the Western Front".
As the Marxist writer, Nick Beams perceptively writes
"the question of its origin remains controversial. The reason is that this
issue is of direct relevance to the analysis of contemporary events. Roughly
speaking, there are two contending positions—that of Marxism and various forms
of bourgeois liberal scholarship. The Marxist analysis, to summarise it in the
broadest terms, is that the war was the outcome of conflicts, rooted in an
objective and irresolvable contradiction of the capitalist mode of production:
that between the global character of the economy and the nation-state system in
which the profit system is grounded. The opposing theories boil down to the
conception that the war arose out of the political mistakes, miscalculations
and misjudgements of various bourgeois politicians and it could somehow have
been averted if only wiser heads had prevailed" [1].
The book does demolish some myths that have
surrounded the events of 1914. One myth propagated by numerous historians is
that the war fell from the sky that nobody could have foreseen the war and the
carnage that followed. Another myth is that the war was solely German
imperialisms greed for new markets and intent of world domination.
Sherry also draws the readers attention not only to
the betrayals of the various parties such as the German Social Democratic Party
(SPD) but to the strikes, occupations and mutinies across each country are well
detailed. He also documents how these struggles were betrayed by their
leadership.
Sherry correctly concentrates on the socialist
movement's opposition to the war. In his book, War and the International Leon
Trotsky makes two interrelated points. The first point is that he relates the
origins of the war to the historical development of capitalism. The second
point is to outline the development of a strategy for the international working
class in the face of the betrayals by the leaders of the Second International,
especially that of German Social Democracy (SPD). The SPDs repudiated the
decisions of its own Congress to provide support for their own ruling elite's
support of the war.
For people such as the revisionist Edward Bernstein
who propagated the fallacy that capitalism had somehow overcome its
contradictions and would not plunge humanity into the abyss the war cruelly
exposed this myopic judgement.
To the orthodox Marxist the collapse of capitalism
and its drive to war was entirely predictable as Marx wrote "In the social
production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations,
which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate
to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The
totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of
society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political
superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions
the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social
existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of
development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with
the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing
in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they
have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces,
these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social
revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the
transformation of the whole immense superstructure".[2]
Leon Trotsky makes a similar point in his book, the
War and the International "The forces of production which capitalism has
evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the
present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive
forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to
break through the state boundaries. The whole globe, the land and the sea, the
surface as well as the interior have become one economic workshop, the
different parts of which are inseparably connected."[3]
One of the strengths of Sherry's book is that despite
its short length he does explain that the war was a product of the growing
inter-imperialist rivalries that had been simmering for the previous thirty
years or so.
The proceeding thirty years before the First World
War saw the emergence of Imperialism. A handful of industrialised capitalist
nations dominated the world. At the head of these countries stood substantial
corporate and banking conglomerates who were exporting capital on a global
scale. These rival powers battled for the control of markets and sought even
cheaper labour in Africa and Asia.
German capitalism sought to challenge Britain's
strategic and geopolitical interests. To a degree previous to the outbreak of
war conflicts between the major imperialist powers had been regulated by a
series of alliances between the major imperialist powers in the form alliances
which pitted the Triple Entente against the Triple Alliance.
As Leon Trotsky pointed out "The future
development of world economy on the capitalistic basis means a ceaseless
struggle for new and ever new fields of capitalist exploitation, which must be
obtained from the same source, the earth. The economic rivalry under the banner
of militarism is accompanied by robbery and destruction which violate the
elementary principles of human economy. World production revolts not only
against the confusion produced by national and state divisions but also against
the capitalist economic organisation, which has now turned into barbarous
disorganisation and chaos. The war of 1914 is the colossal breakdown in history
of an economic system destroyed by its inherent contradictions." [3]
Trotsky believed that war not only signalled the
downfall of the nation-state, but it ended the historical role of capitalism.
This analysis came under sustain attack from figures such as Woodrow Wilson who
said this was not a breakdown of capitalism and hence no need for socialism.
Trotsky's viewpoint was supported by Elie Halevy
(1870-1937)[4] in a series of lectures published in 1938 as The Era of
Tyrannies), Halévy said that world war "had increased national control
over individual activities and opened the way for de facto socialism. In
opposition to those who saw socialism as the last step in the French
Revolution, he saw it as a new organisation of constraint replacing those that
the revolution had destroyed".[4]
The Marxist viewpoint regarding the war has been vigorously
challenged by a coterie of right-wing bourgeois historians. One such historian
is Niall Fergusson. Fergusson it would appear has spent most of working life
seeking to overturn Marxist historiography. As Nick Beams writes "Ferguson
adopts the crude method deployed by so many in the past. According to his view,
for the analysis of Marxism to be valid, we must be able to show that political
leaders made their decisions by a kind of profit-and-loss calculus of economic interests,
or that there was a secret cabal of businessmen and financiers operating behind
the scenes and pulling the strings of government. Failure to find either, he
maintains, cuts the ground from under the feet of the Marxist argument".
Ferguson believes he was smart when he wrote his
attack on the fundamental Marxist conception that the war arose as an
inevitable product of the capitalist mode of production—the struggle for
markets, profits and resources.
As Beams points out the "The point upon which
Marxism insists is not that war is simply subjectively decided upon by the
capitalist class but that, in the final analysis, it is the outcome of the
objective logic and contradictions of the capitalist profit system, which work
themselves out behind the backs of both politicians and businessmen. At a
certain point, these contradictions create the conditions where political
leaders feel they have no choice but to resort to war if they are to defend the
interests of their respective states.
Beams also mentions another historian who takes issue
with Marxism on the origins of the war, although from a slightly different
perspective. The British historian Hew Strachan who according to Beam's "points
to the crucial role of the alliance system is not only failing to prevent war
but helping to promote it. When the crisis of July 1914 erupted, each power,
conscious in a self-absorbed way of its potential weakness, felt it was on its mettle,
that its status as a great power would be forfeit if it failed to act."
The book two has two significant weaknesses one is
the significant omission of far more complete opposition to bourgeois
historians attacks on fundamental Marxist conceptions. Another thing I am not
sure about is whether the genre of history from below is the best way to
describe such complex questions or war, revolution and inter-imperialist
rivalries.
Whether we will see a flood of-of patriotic nonsense
written about the 20018 anniversary of the ending of the first world war
remains to be seen. As Sherry points out, the war was a clash of ruling classes
which were the hell-bent in protecting their interests at the cost of millions
of dead. Sherry's book is an excellent basic introduction to these events.
[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/10/lect-a10.html
[2]
] K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique
of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, with some notes by R.
Rojas.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
[3] War and the
International (Colombo: Young Socialist Publications, 1971),
[4]
The Era of
Tyrannies Hardcover – January 1, 1966
by
Elie Halevy (Author), R. K. Webb (Translator)
