### WHY THE ANTI-MISSILES
MOVEMENT?
In order to understand why the antiscope, it is necessary to go back to the crisis that faced imperialism in general, and U.S. imperialism in particular, at the time of the war in Indochina. this clearly shows that the anti-missiles movement is not something accidental but profoundly rooted in the structure of world polities.
defeat of the United States in Indochina was not so much a military defeat as above all a political one - the greatest political defeat that imperialism has suffered since the victory Chinese revolution in 1949. deed one of the great strengths of the NUF and North Vietnamese leadership that it understood that, while the war was being fought militarily in Indochina, its outcome would be decided politically by the pressures brought to bear on the U.S. government from both without and
The course
within the country.
Even the timing of the NLF's great military offensives in the light of political conditions and with political objectives. The Tet offensive of 1972 secured the favourable Paris Peace Accords. And the 1975 offensive was pressed at a time of maximum paralysis within the United
This integration of political and military struggle by the NLF made it possible to benefit from the deepening economic, social, and political crisis inside the imperialist countries to secure victory. NLF's struggle gained the undisputed support of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world and created mass op position inside the imperialist states to the war policies of their governments. The combined results of the military struggle itself, the economic effects of the war inside the United States, the relative economic advantages given to the U.S.'s imperialist rivals by war, and the great wave of working-class struggles in Western Europe from 1968 to 1975 created the greatest political crisis of imperialism since World War II. Finally, the Vietnam War was lost inside the imperialist countries - above all inside the United States. It was this reality that determined U.S. international policy.
THE NIXON DOCTRINE'
Faced with intolerable internal political opposition to the deployment of U.S. ground troops in Indochina, ruling class under Nixon /Kissinger had no choice but to undertake a major readjustment of its tactics. It was politically impossible at that time to follow the policy of massive direct U.S. military intervention utilised by Kennedy, Johnson, and their predecessors. Therefore, the so-called Nixon Doctrine was launched. It aimed to control and defeat the colonial revolution through relying more on a series of heavily armed pro-imperialist states (South Vietnam, Iran, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, South Korea, etc.) Political support for imperialist policies was sought from the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies through 'detente'. The goal was to drastically reduce the political op position to ruling-class policies inside the and other imperialist countries, and gain time to reorganise the U.S. economy and military apparatus.
The policy of 'detente', therefore, did not - contrary to the views of the
Soviet bureaucracy represent the victory of some "liberal' or 'progressive' wing of the American bourgeoisie (not very likely with Nixon in command!). It was adopted because the effects of the
Vietnam War had become intolerable inside the imperialist countries themselves.
As Kissinger put it in a somewhat apologetic manner, What else could we do otherwise than calm the atmosphere, when in this country (the United States) the political climate was close to that of a civil war? (Politique Internationale, Autumn 1982.)
The policy of detente could, therefore, never be for imperialism anything other than an enforced tactical retreat designed to enable it to reorganise its forces from a firmer basis. Detente was a policy by U.S. imperialism to try to halt or limit the enforced retreat, make it in the best possible order, and in general conserve the maximum of forces for a new offensive. The Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies duly acquiesced in the policy. They thereby created the best conditions for the new offensive by imperialism, which culminated in Reaganism.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF DETENTE
Inside the imperialist countries, the ruling-class policies accompanying the Nixon Doctrine and detente undoubtedly achieved important political successes. From 1972 onwards, following the withdrawal of the mass of American ground troops from Indochina (and, therefore, the ending of high U.S. casualty rates) Nixon succeeded in ending the mass street demonstrations against Vietnam War in the United States. From 1975 onwards, the West European ruling classes, utilising the opportunities created by the policies of the reformist parties and the impact of mass unemployment, retook the offensive against their working classes, after having been clearly on the defensive since 1968. From 1975maJor ruling-class successes were achieved in Portugal, Britain, France Spain, and Italy. The immediate political crisis of 1968-75 inside the imperialist centres was overcome.
However, the concessions that the capitalist rulers had been forced to give directly and indirectly to the working people in the imperialist countries in 1968-75 had weakened the capitalist system on a world scale. The military pullbacks made
13
----- photo credits and running heads -----
79,
situation that existed prior to 1968. This to that of the working class of the entire necessary by the need to calm the situation inside the United States and the other imperialist countries resulted in disasters for imperialism in the colonial and semi-colonial world. The 'strong and stable semi-colonial regimes that Nixon Doctrine called for beefing up turned out to be economically, socially, and politically vulnerable. Vietnamese regime was overthrown in
The South African invasion of Angola was defeated by Soviet-backed Cuban troops at the beginning of 1975. The white border states of South Africa — Angola, Mozambique, and 'Rhodesia' -were overthrown, although the U.S. State Department had counted on them remaining in place for the forseeable future.
By 1979, this series of defeats in the colonial world began to escalate qualitatively. The shah of Iran was overthrown, ending that country's role as a U.S. relay in the Middle East. Somoza in Nicaragua created a revolutionary crisis in Central America, opened full-scale war in El Salvador, deepened the impact in the Caribbean of the overthrow of the Gairy regime in Grenada. Only the imperialist allies of the United States and a few ultra-reac tionary states (Israel, South Africa, and more problematically some of the Latin dictatorships) could be regarded as stable bases of support for U.S
Under these circumstances, the U.S ruling class had no choice given its depenon maintaining exploitation and oppression, but to embark on a massive
*Reaganism' was not an option but a necessity. As it was put by Secretary of Defense Weinberger in a 28 April 1981 San Francisco speech, *We must become sufficiently strong to defend our interests anywhere they are threatened.'
POLITICAL NEEDS
On the technical/logistic side of their military buildup, there should be no doubt that the Ü.S. ruling class has made important progress. However, the problem is that this military buildup inside the imperialist countries has necessarily recreated many of the problems that the 'Nixon Doctrine' and 'detente' were designed to overcome. It has brought the questions of militarism, of the threat of conflict and war with the Soviet Union, of imperialist wars against semi-colonial countries, right back into the centre of the situation in the imperialist countries. And now these problems are interlocked with an austerity qualitatively worse than at the time of the Vietnam War. It is this combination that has produced the enormous scope of the anti-missiles and antidemonstrates that despite their successes from 1975 to 1979 and despite the sharp changes in the forms of struggle, that have taken place, the ruling classes in the imperialist countries did not succeed in qualitatively and in re-establishing the is despite the fact that undoubtedly today, facing austerity, the working class is generally on the defensive, whereas in 1968-1975 it was taking offensive
As regards the fight against militarism and imperialist wars, however, the situation is far more favourable to the historic interests of the working class than it was at the beginning of the Vietnam War. The most immediate prospect of a major crisis inside the imperialist countries today is the combining of this fight against missiles and nuclear weapons with a new upturn of struggles against austerity and the other effects of the economic crisis.
In the coming years, all these aspects will come together. There will be general elections in Western Germany and probably in Britain. There will also be some upturn of the world economy and, therefore, better conditions for working-class struggles against austerity. bination has the elements of important political crises in at least important parts of Western Europe, and there is no doubt that the West European imperialists are genuinely concerned about such a possibility. They are not convinced that they can get the missiles into Europe, or at least into key countries, against the opposition of massive sections of the
Some believe that even if they do this will be at the expense of a political crisis with long-term effects. Hence the frenetic flurry of manoeuvres on the diplomatic front in the last weeks.
WHAT STRATEGY?
Under these circumstances, have to understand what major stakes for the international class struggle in the broad sense are involved in this fight against the missiles. It will affect the future of the working class not only of the imperialist states but also of the semi-colonial countries and the Soviet Union. The anti-missiles movement is not some sort of propaganda forum in which left groups present their ideas. It is a major part of the international class struggle (understood in its full and historic dimensions). If left-wing organisations aim to split or divert that movement, and were to succeed in that, they would deliver blow against the international working class. What is important for revolutionaries is that the anti-missiles movement succeed. This means that the following fundamental tasks face revolutionaries within the anti-missiles movement.
Firstly, the missiles movement must not base itself on the arms negotiations at Geneva or whatever other diplomatic manoeuvres may open up between the United States and Soviet bureaucracy. The strength of the anti-missiles movement is the way in which it brings enormous forces to bear on one single and precise object:No introduction of Pershing II and Cruise Missiles in 1983! That goal corresponds not only to the interests of the West European working class but world. This struggle to prevent the introduction of the missiles can be won. And that will alter favourably the relationship of forces between the working people and the capitalists in every country. Even if the missiles are installed, the capitalists can be dealt a portentous political defeat if the struggles against them increase in breadth and determination. Obviously in such a confrontation the long-term political costs for imperialism are exstruggle of course, invariably means a fight with the line of the reformists — the need to build a left wing in the movement. It means rejecting the line of 'equal responsibility' of the United States and the Soviet Union for the threat of war, the idea of 'two super powers', of linking withdrawal from NATO to the question of the Warsaw Pact, etc. It means fighting against any acceptance of proposals such as Reagan's and NATO's so-called 'zero option'. It also means taking on the debate underway in many countries over civil disobedience - explaining that while not all civil disobedience need be rejected (although terrorism of the type carried out spasmodically in West Germany should be), it is not the strategic way forward. Rather, it is necessary to explain, the way forward lies in mass mobilisations of the antimissiles and labour movement.
It will be whether the demonstrations of 1983 qualitatively exceed in size even those of 1982, whether the anti-missiles movement is carried even further into the labour movement, whether it can be made central issue in the coming elections in Europe, that will decide the immediate outcome of the struggle. The actions and plans we report in this issue from Holland, Britain, and West Germany are signposts on the way forward.
LINKS WITH THE COLONIAL REVOLUTION
Secondly, while a fundamental source of the strength of the anti-missiles movement is its unity on its central demands, forces within it should seek to the closest possible contact with the developing struggles in the colo-
An excellent example of this was provided by the role of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) during
The CND is a mass campaign that has mobilised 300,000 people in demonstrations on the single issue of unilate al British nuclear disarmament and against the introduction of Cruise and Pershing II missiles into
As such, it plays a real role in the political life of the country and powerfully affects its labour movement. For example, the impact of its campaigns was one of the main factors that led to the two-thirds vote at the 1983 Labour Party Conference in favour of unilateral nuclear
It would be a criminal betrayal of the interests of the masses of working people in terms of the historical
TOGETHER CAMPAIGNI imperialist system continues to threaten to break at its weakest links in the semi- colonial countries - above all today in
Central America.
But to that problem has now been added the beginning of a
WE CAN DISARMAR
STOP
THE new upturn of struggle of the working classes in the imperialist countries. The anti-missiles movement is a crucial part of that.
THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
More important even than the immediate struggle, however, is what it reflects in a longer historical perspective. For thirty
BOMB
CUT years, imperialism has brought death and destruction to the peoples of the colonial
It, however, seemed to bring to the workers of the home countries themselves peace. The great convulsions of the first and second world wars, and all that went with them, became a dim memory. Only with the wars in Algeria and Vietnam were the workers of the imperialist countries called upon to make great
Demonstration against nuclear missiles in Britain (DR) class struggle to split this organisation by introducing into its platform other issues, such as the war over the Malvinas or the conflict in Central America. This would simply be to seek to destroy a powerful instrument in the class struggle in the broad sense. The task of revolutionaries is, while maintaining the unity of this mass movement, to build simultaneously struggles against wars such as the one in the Malvinas. These will, of course, draw on the large pool of forces in the
The correctness of such a policy was demonstrated vividly in the Malvinas war. The CND has no position in its platform on the Malvinas question. Nevertheless, during the war itself the CND made a major contribution to building the actions against British imperialism's ag-
The organisation as such, without altering its platform, built demonstations against the war and participated in
Revolutionaries, the left wing of the Labour Party, and the Communist Party also participated in building the Ad-Hoc Committee Against the Falklands War. Amid raging war hysteria, with support for the Tory Party leaping 20 per cent in the opinion polls in mobilisations of 15,000 people against the Malvinas war. This development provides an example of how actions against Central America and other parts the colonial world should be organised and related to the anti-missile movement.
### JOBS NOT BOMBS
The anti-missiles movement cannot be a movement against austerity either. It would be wrong to attempt to add to the platform of the anti-nuclear struggles demands such as for the 35-hour week, the fight against unemployment, ete. But revolutionaries have to attempt to point up the relations between the two struggles constantly.
Above all in Europe today this may be summed up in the slogan Jobs not bombs'. Many classical demands of the workers movement - for example, for a programme of social expenditures not expenditure - take on a new importance. This is a central question that revolutionaries must take up in their propaganda and explanation.
IN CONCLUSION
The years 1975-80 were not good ones for the workers movement in general in the imperialist countries. The austerity policies of the imployers, the politics of detente, the manoeuvres of the reformist leadership inflicted a whole series of important defeats on the workers movement. Under the impact of the Vietnam War and a mounting economic crisis, the working people in the United States and other imperialist states, making their power felt both directly and indirectly, dealt a reverse to the world capitalist system in the early 1970s. effect, combined with the workers and oppressed in the semi-colonial states, opening the way for major advances of the colonial revolution.
However, following this, the working class of the imperialist countries, faced with the strongest bourgeoisie in the world, themselves suffered serious setbacks and defeats. The victorious struggles in the world in 1975-79 came, in the colonial countries, there was a string of defeats in the imimperialism to launch violent new military attacks against the colonial countries - the bloody results of which can be seen in El Salvador, Lebanon, the Malvinas, and all too many other countries.
The anti-missiles movement is the first great stirring that shows that imperialism only gained an initiative. It could not turn the clock back to before 1968. The sacrifices for their masters in an im-
The bloodletting of the American working class in Vietnam led to one of the profoundest political crises in that country in this century.
However, the development of the nuclear-weapons race give the workers in the imperialist countries an inkling that one day their masters may inflict the same fate on them that they have for decades on the workers of the colonial countries. The working class and oppressed of the imperialist countries lost fifty million dead in the first and second world wars and their aftermath. A nuclear war in Europe and the United States would make even the destruction visited on Vietnam seem nothing in comparison. From a historical perspective, the spasm in European society that gave rise to the anti-missiles movement from 1980 onwards represented the beginning of the realization in the imperialist coun tries that the threat of war had not been eliminated even for them, but only temporatily suspended. Capitalism has not, and cannot, eliminate this threat.
It might be nice to think that masses of workers could undertake great strug gles simply for the interest of others. But such a naive notion would have nothing to do with Marxism. The working class will wage mighty struggles, and finally make revolutions because it fights for its interests. The self-interest of social classes must, at specific historical moments, correspond to the interests of all which is what defines the historically progressive role of classes.
From 1960, and even more from 1975 onwards, the workers in the imperialist countries found they had to fight harder and harder to defend their jobs, their wages, their health services, and their democratic rights. Now some also believe for the first time in many years that they may have to fight as well to defend their right, and that of their children, to life. •That combination is going to produce major political struggles in Western Europe in 1983.
15
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
NUCLEAR
Some splinter groups in the opposition, however, decided to organize a student peace march. This proposal was discussed in the student parlia openly ment at the end of
October.
Finally,