Marxism-Leninism on War and Army - The role of Popular Masses
 |
| Paris Commune |
THE ROLE OF THE POPULAR MASSES IN WARS IN THE MODERN EPOCH
Fyodorov
The content of modern wars reveals the operation, in a specific field, of the general sociological law about the growing role of the popular masses in the historical process. This was illustrated by the First and to an even greater extent by the Second World War, and in the postwar years also by the national liberation, civil and other wars.
The participation of the popular masses in wars and their influence on their outcome depend on many circumstances. Decisive, however, is the character of these wars, the social and state system under which the masses live and fight, and also the level of the working people’s consciousness and organisation.
In considering the masses the main force in deciding the outcome of wars, it must be remembered that anti-popular forces—the reactionary classes—participate actively in wars as well, and exert a considerable influence on them. The latter are fully responsible for the outbreak of all sorts of wars, including civil and national liberation wars. In exploiter states the representatives of the propertied, reactionary classes play the leading role in the armed forces, in the war departments and other state bodies that are responsible for the preparation and conduct of wars and for carrying out all kinds of aggression.
In our time the imperialist states alone bear the responsibility for aggression, and the masses grow increasingly aware that any aggression unleashed by the imperialists can easily spread to other countries, including neutral ones. This insistently demands that joint, well-organised and diverse methods be worked out for the struggle of the masses against warmongers.
The decisive role of the masses in modern wars is determined by the action of social laws, by the whole content of social processes and, finally, by the complexity and inconsistency of the wars themselves.
Main facts Determining the Growing Role of the Masses in Wars
The growth of the role of the masses in modern wars is a general tendency, reflecting processes of historical development. This is linked first and foremost, with the qualitative change of the masses themselves, of their place in material production and in the social structure, their increased political maturity and organisation. In the past the power of the masses could not assert itself fully and did not correspond to their numbers by far. In every exploiter society the initiative and creative talents of the masses are fettered, they are suppressed by the power of the ruling classes. Definite economic and social conditions, the domination of reactionary ideology, chauvinism and nationalism disunite the working people and this has a particularly pernicious effect during wars.
Only the emergence of the working class and the spread of Marxism changed this state of affairs substantially. As regards its position in production and society, the working class is the most revolutionary of all classes and the only one able to implement the great historic mission of destroying the exploiter system of all forms of class and national oppression. Therefore, the struggle of the working class has an essentially international, profoundly humanistic and antimilitaristic character.
The class interests of the workers fully coincide with the vital interests of all working people, and the proletariat therefore heads every revolutionary, genuinely popular liberation movement. This strengthens the power of the people headed by the working class and its party and the role of the masses in all spheres of social life, including war.
A powerful factor promoting an increase in the role of the masses in wars was the triumph of the socialist revolution in Russia and the successes in the development of the world socialist system, which radically changed the character of the epoch. Under the influence of the world socialist system and owing to its comprehensive assistance, the activity and role of the masses grew in the weakly developed countries, where no working class has as yet formed and where there are no Marxist-Leninist Parties.
The emergence of socialist states and their economic, cultural and military successes not only redouble the moral strength of the working people waging just wars, but are also instrumental in opening the eyes of the peoples drawn into annexationist wars. Furthermore, the masses now have the opportunity to rely on modern industry, advanced science, perfect weapons and powerful armed forces. The establishment of socialist states and the growth of their military might have led to the emergence and development for the first time in history of a material force able to paralyse and crush imperialist aggression. This fact in itself is of enormous international importance. Under the impact of the socialist revolution, the victories won by the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War, and the rapid consolidation of the world socialist system, enormous activity has been developed by the peoples of the Asian, African and Latin American countries, where the national liberation movement is growing and consolidating. The upsurge of the national liberation movement and the establishment of dozens of new peace-loving states in their turn show that a new serious factor has emerged for raising the role of the masses in the struggle against imperialist aggression.
Many of the features of modern wars make for the everincreasing participation of the masses. Their political content, military-technical character, scale, and the course of military operations all presuppose the participation of great numbers of people. Essentially, every war, no matter what country it involves or how long it lasts, makes all its citizens participants and it is they who have to shoulder the burden of that war. Modern wars carry off many victims, they put to test the spirit of the entire nation, the whole social and state system. These trials will be even grimmer if the imperialists succeed in unleashing a world nuclear war. The threat of nuclear war affects the vital interests of every workman and of the people as a whole.
The increased role of the masses in the wars of our epoch manifests itself in various spheres—in the military, economic, socio-political and ideological fields.
The type of war determines the intensity of the efforts exerted by the masses and the character of their activity. Let us look into this question as applying to the concrete types of modern wars.
The Masses in Just Wars
The aim of all just wars is to emancipate the peoples from oppression (national or class oppression, sometimes of both) or to ward off the danger to the country’s sovereignty and independence. This expresses the vital interests of the masses and determines their activity in such wars. This activity is very diverse. It is generally expressed in the support given by the masses to all measures of the government and of the ruling party directed at routing the enemy, in their patriotic, conscientious attitude towards their work and their civic duties, which they regard as their concrete contribution to the victory over the invaders. During just wars the class struggle assumes new forms in antagonistic societies.
In just wars the mass heroism of people on the fields of battle and the guerrilla war are of special importance.
Guerrilla war played a major role already in the past, for example, in Russia’s war against Napoleon’s invading armies in 1812, in the civil war in the USA in 1861–1865, in the Anglo-Boer war in 1899–1902. The guerilla movement developed on a mass scale during the Civil War and the foreign intervention against the young Soviet state in 1918–1920, during the Second World War on the territory of the Soviet Union occupied by the nazi invaders, and also in the Balkan countries, in France, Poland and Italy. Guerilla operations created a second and very dangerous front in the enemy’s rear, a front against which he had to apply dozens of crack divisions. But it was not only a question of the number of troops that the guerillas diverted from the main front. They gave an impetus to the growth of the political consciousness among the masses and to the spread among them of the idea of proletarian internationalism. This was expressed not only in the organisation of direct assistance to the fighting people—the supply of arms, food and volunteers —but also in the opening of new fronts against the common enemy in different countries. Thus, the movement of national Resistance in France and the guerilla war in the Balkans took on particularly sharp forms when nazi Germany attacked the USSR, while the successes of the Soviet Army and the guerillas, in their turn, promoted the intensification 134of the struggle against the common enemy in all other countries subjugated by the nazis.
In our time working people the world over give comprehensive support to the peoples of Indochina fighting for their freedom and national independence.
The forms of the mass struggle, as well as its scale and depth, vary in different just wars. They depend notably on the specific features of the war and, of course, on the alignment of forces in the world and the strength of the working people’s international links, on the actions of their allies in (he struggle, on the extent to which the combatants are supplied with arms, and on the maturity of the military political leadership.
In civil wars the warring sides are demarcated according to the class principle: the revolutionary masses fight on one side, their political enemies, on the other. However, this social demarcation is not identical in different countries and, hence, the cohesion and strength of the revolutionary people also differ. In countries where there is a working class, it is together with the working peasantry the main motive force in civil wars, while the Marxist-Leninist Parties are their faithful leaders. In such wars the revolutionary masses are a mighty force and their struggle, no matter how difficult, is triumphant in the historical perspective.
The composition of the forces of reaction in such countries depends on the internal and external conditions in which the civil war is waged, on the problems it is to resolve, and on the type and kind of the war.
In civil wars in which the people fight the ruling proimperialist clique to attain the democratisation, political and economic independence of their country, the working class and the peasantry are the main strike force. A definite portion of the national bourgeoisie, which is dissatisfied with the dominance of big agrarians and the foreign bourgeoisie, helps them in their struggle. That part of the national bourgeoisie reckons to some extent with the new relation of forces in the world and with the growth of the working people’s political awareness. In such wars the enemies of the people are generally big landowners and the upper echelons of the national bourgeoisie standing at the helm of state, who are closely linked with banking and foreign capital.
In such cases the masses face extremely difficult tasks—to 135defeat the united forces of domestic and foreign reaction, having at their command enormous material, including military, resources and vast experience in armed struggle. The experience of all recent civil wars demonstrates that this task is achieved where the single leadership of the people’s revolutionary struggle relies on the worker-peasant alliance, and on the extension of international links with all progressive forces, and where constant care is taken to educate the masses on the basis of their own political experience.
In national liberation wars the composition of the participants is generally broader and more diversified than in civil wars. The national bourgeoisie is more widely represented in them. Even the upper crust is interested in liberation from foreign capital. The working masses naturally are the most determined forces in these wars. Different layers of the national bourgeoisie act in different ways in national liberation wars. The part linked with foreign finance and monopoly capital, which according to Marx’s apt expression “has no fatherland”, always overtly or covertly betrays the national interests of its country and turns to imperialist interventionists for help. This is characteristic of the upper crust of the national bourgeois elite in a number of Asian, African and South American countries, which are fighting for their independence.
The majority of the national bourgeoisie is dissatisfied with the stagnation of the country’s economy and the domination of foreigners in it and therefore participates actively in national liberation wars and plays a progressive role in them. It strives to remove the most active puppets and lackeys of imperialism, to limit the sphere of action of foreign capital, to form its own government and to guide the country along the road of independent national development.
The active armed struggle of the masses for national independence is energetically supported by all the progressive forces throughout the world, especially by the countries of the socialist community. Only decisive support by the USSR and other socialist countries has enabled the Arab Republic of Egypt, Algeria and some other countries to win national independence and to embark on the new road of social development. The successful heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people against the US aggressors would have been impossible but for the enormous assistance given to them 136by the socialist countries and all progressive people in the world. The union of the forces of socialism and of the national liberation movement is a decisive prerequisite to success in the struggle against imperialism, for freedom, national independence and social progress.
National liberation wars release the revolutionary energy of the people. The events in Indochina and the Middle East have shown that imperialist aggression hastens the maturity of the peoples falling victim to it as well as that of peoples in other countries, shows them who is their friend and who their foe, and tempers them in the struggle against imperialism. The masses learn from their own experience, they consolidate their ranks and their political consciousness grows. This is what the foreign imperialists and the national bourgeoisie fear most of all. Therefore, in leading national liberation wars, certain national bourgeois circles attempt to resolve three tasks simultaneously: first, to free themselves of the dominance of foreign imperialists, without making a clean break with them; second, to prevent the complete democratisation of the country, which gives rise to antagonisms between them and the revolutionary masses; third, to split the revolutionary forces.
The participation of various layers of the national bourgeoisie in the national liberation wars obliges the true leaders of the revolutionary struggle to pursue a flexible policy with respect to the national bourgeoisie in order to spearhead it against the domestic reactionaries and foreign imperialists.
The experience of just wars demonstrates that armed struggle alone is not enough to vanquish the enemy. The masses and their leadership must use all means and methods of political, economic and ideological action against the enemy. The broader the participation of the masses in the war, the more certain is victory. Mass participation, for example, explains the victory of the Cuban people over dictator Batista, the creature of the US imperialists. The bloody tyranny was overthrown because action was taken by the entire people, who fought it in all fields and used all possible forms: armed struggle, strikes, a general strike, the patriotic movement, action by the worker and peasant masses, propaganda and agitation, the boycott of mock elections and the struggle against the agents of the tyranny in various organisations.
The support of just wars by all progressive people in the world, not to mention the working people in the socialist countries, is a major factor in their successful outcome.
The Masses in Unjust Wars
Unjust, annexationist wars are anti–popular wars. The interests of the masses and those of the aggressors are always at odds with each other. The masses are a creative force. All social wealth has been created and multiplied by their labour. Aggression destroys the wealth and ruins the working people. Yet, these wars too are waged by the people. In the past when annexationist wars were unleashed, the working people generally exhibited little activity because they were for various reasons politically immature. For example, on the eve of the First and Second World Wars the masses in the imperialist countries gave in to chauvinistic propaganda, were deceived by the bourgeois politicians and did not heed the appeal of the Communist Parties to form a single front against aggression.
The aggressors always strove to conceal from the working people the true aims of predatory wars, unleashed by them under some seemingly noble slogan, such as “defence of the fatherland”, “faith”, “allied duty”, the conquest of Lebensraum, etc. Because the masses were not conscious of their interests and their strength, the imperialists were often able to carry out their selfish plans comparatively easily. As a result some unjust wars ended in the victory of the forces of reaction (the seizure by the Japanese samurais of Manchuria and North China in 1931, the conquest of Abyssinia by Italy in 1935–1936, the seizure of power in Spain by General Franco’s fascist clique with the support of the German and Italian imperialists in 1936–1939, etc.).
During wars, especially world wars, the people’s political consciousness developed comparatively quickly under the action of various social and military-political factors, under the impact of huge losses and heavy suffering. The masses learned from their experience that the war had an annexationist character on one or on both sides and anti-war movements emerged. During the Second World War this happened in many countries.
When the fascist aggressors had fully revealed their intentions, their aggressive plans, the broad masses of the European countries were faced with the task of defending 138their national interests, the independence of their states and the very existence of entire peoples. This meant that the war against the axis states had to be waged most energetically. But the reactionary ruling circles in Britain, France and the USA kept deferring decisive actions against the fascist armies, did nothing to liberate the occupied countries, and waited for nazi Germany and her allies to clash with the Soviet Union. The masses were the main force in the resolution of this contradiction.
There were also some other new elements in the actions of the masses at that time. They rallied round the Communist Parties, and the people’s Resistance movement developed under their leadership. This movement unfolded to some degree or other in all countries occupied by the fascist troops, and acquired the largest scale in France, Yugoslavia and Albania.
For example, the Manifesto of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party clearly efined the historical role of the people in the struggle against the nazi invaders. It said: “Beaten generals, imposters, politicians with a soiled reputation will never be able to revive France. It is the people on whom we lay our hope for national and social liberation. And it is only around the working class, fiery and magnanimous, full of faith and daring, that the front of freedom, independence and the rebirth of France can be created. [138•1 "
The broad national Resistance front set up in France by the Communist Party consisted of progressive workers and peasants, petty urban bourgeois and progressive intellectuals. It had the support of the entire French nation. By its heroic struggle the participants of the Resistance, the guerillas and insurgents everywhere pinned down considerable enemy forces and dealt them powerful blows, greatly contributing to the victory over the nazis.
The masses played the decisive role in making the bourgeois governments of the anti-Hitler coalition intensify their military operations against the common enemy. The masses exerted also an enormous influence on changing the very character of the war. The decisive struggle of the masses under the leadership of the Communist Parties against the nazi invaders changed the character of the war on France’s 139part. The English people understood the threat of nazi occupation long before the British Government. They demanded of the government that it pursue an active anti-fascist liberation war.
The Italian people had to fight against annexationist wars in different conditions. Between 1922 and July 1943 Italy was ruled by a fascist regime. It smashed all democratic organisations. The Communist Party had to work underground.
The Italian fascists, headed by Mussolini, almost continuously waged aggressive wars in Africa, Spain, Greece and Albania, and later attacked the USSR together with the Hitlerites. The Italian people hated these wars. The defeats of the Italian troops at the front intensified the dissatisfaction of the masses with the aggressive policy of the fascist clique. The struggle of the Italian people intensified under the impact of the victories scored by the Soviet Army at Orel and Kursk, and the successes of the Allies.
This led to the overthrow of the Mussolini regime and the disbanding of the fascist party. Italy capitulated early in September 1943 and declared war on fascist Germany. Thus, the character of the war waged by Italy also changed.
In unjust wars, as distinct from just ones, the class contradictions within the warring countries invariably aggravate. As a result of the growth of the working people’s political awareness the weapons issued to them are often turned against the external and internal class enemies in the interests of a revolutionary transformation of society. This happened in Russia where the working class in alliance with the working peasantry, under the leadership of the Communist Party, for the first time in history succeeded in stopping an imperialist war waged by bourgeois-landowner Russia, and in taking the power into its own hands. This new role of the popular masses was manifested during the First World War also in Hungary and Germany. As a result of the defeat in the war and the influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution the revolutionary movement of the masses gained considerable ground in those countries. Revolution broke out in October 1918 in Hungary and in November of the same year in Germany.
The revolutionary energy of the working masses found full release also during the Second World War. The peoples 140of Rumania and Hungary who had been plunged by their corrupt governments into the criminal war on the side of nazi Germany, rose at the end of the war against those who forced them to support the nazis for the sake of interests alien to them. The peoples of Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, North Korea, China, Albania and North Vietnam used their political experience and the favourable situation arising from the rout of the aggressors in the West and in the East, to take the power into their own hands.
Thus, the role of the masses in unjust wars has not only grown, but has also acquired new quality. Under definite conditions the masses can, first, demand the resignation of the government or refuse to give a vote of confidence to the party pursuing an aggressive policy; second, they can change the character of the war (being an unjust one on both sides) and transform it into a just one, directed against reactionary forces; third, the revolutionary situation shaping during the war can be used by them to carry out a socialist revolution.
Role of the Masses in the Face of the Threat of a New World War
The threat of a new world war assigns historically new tasks to the masses. The unleashing of such a war by the imperialists being a real prospect, the masses must take action in peacetime to cut short all aggression and to prevent it from growing into a new world war. The Communists call upon the masses, upon all forces of peace, to join the struggle actively and concertedly, to exert a greater influence on the policies of the capitalist countries, and to take the issue of war and peace into their own hands.
As a result of the decisive action of the masses, the main makers of history, and owing to the existence of the world socialist system, the imperialists encounter serious obstacles in their attempts to unleash and wage aggressive wars.
First, in modern conditions the leading social system is the socialist, and not the capitalist. Now the majority of the working masses follow the lead of the socialist system and the international working class.
Second, the disintegration of the colonial system has become a fait accompli. Sovereign states develop where once there were colonies. The former colonial peoples are no longer blind tools of imperialist politics. True, the imperialists still have their puppets in some newly-free countries, but their 141position is very shaky. Even there the aggressors cannot count on receiving resources during a war, as they did in the past. The people who have won national independence, not to mention those who have embarked or are embarking on noncapitalist development, are displaying fiery energy. Naturally, they need outside help, but they increasingly turn for it to the peace-loving countries and not to the forces of reaction and war.
The governments of most of these states act in accordance with the will of their peoples and oppose militarism. In 1964, the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries condemned the use of their territories and territorial waters for military purposes. Many African states are fighting to make their continent an atom-free zone. The Asian countries have come out against the entry of vessels carrying nuclear weapons into the Indian Ocean. Almost all Asian and African states on the territories of which there are military bases of the aggressive blocs demand that the latter be dismantled.
Thirdly, in the existing conditions the political awareness of the population of the capitalist countries is steadily growing (even though that growth differs from country to country). Internal and external events make the working masses take a greater interest in questions of domestic and foreign policy. Political problems (including that of war) have stopped being the business of an elect group. This can be seen from the antiwar struggle of the masses in a number of European and Asian countries, and also in the USA. Besides, in most capitalist countries there are strong Communist Parties, wellorganised peace movements, and the broad masses have already considerable experience in the struggle against imperialist aggression. There can be no doubt that should a new world war break out all the peace forces will grow even more active.
The rapid growth of massive political consciousness in a number of countries creates conditions making it possible to carry out a fundamental transformation of society, one blighting the roots of aggression. The heroic struggle of the peoples of many countries who have overthrown imperialist rule proves Lenin’s sagacious foresight. He said that “...in the impending decisive battles in the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the population of the globe, initially directed towards national liberation, will turn 142against capitalism and imperialism and will, perhaps, play a more revolutionary part than we expect". [142•1
The scale of the struggle against imperialist aggression has extended to the whole globe and involves millions of people, including the people in the socialist countries and those in the countries who have won national independence or are still fighting for it. In the capitalist countries, too, the struggle for peace and against military adventures and aggression is growing in scale. The alliance of the forces of socialism, the national liberation movement and other progressive forces is an essential prerequisite for the success of the struggle against imperialism, for social progress.
Should a world nuclear war be unleashed against the will of the masses, the latter will have to decide a task of historic importance and to use different means for its implementation. This task will be the destruction of the entire system of capitalism, which cannot exist without wars, just as it cannot exist without class and national oppression. The fact that the above-mentioned regularities will act with even greater force in the event of a nuclear war postulates as a certainty that the working people will refuse to put up any further with a system breeding wars. For this purpose the Marxist-Leninist Parties take constant care to strengthen the unity of all the forces of peace for the struggle against aggression and imperialism. The Main Document of the International Meeting of the Communist and Workers’ Parties says: “The present situation demands greater militant solidarity of the peoples of socialist countries, of all contingents of the international working-class movement and national liberation in the struggle against imperialism.”
The military might of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and their ability to deliver crushing blows to the aggressor will play a crucial role in routing the imperialist aggressors. The activity of all the peoples in the world in resolving the main task of frustrating aggression and abolishing the whole system of imperialism, will also largely depend on the military successes of the socialist camp.
Notes
[138•1] Maurice Thorez, Fils du Peuple, Paris, 1949, p. 179.
[142•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 482.
.jpg)
