which knows no peace!
War is horrible. It always has been and always will be. Only too many people have forgotten what war means since they were told fairy tales by the war propaganda of their own governments. Stories of “peacekeeping”, military interventions in “weak regions”, strikes against supposed terrorists, technological wars without “civilian victims” – the good guys against the bad, without blood and misery. Since the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army on 24 February 2022, one is reminded of what war actually means: dead, injured, fleeing people fleeing. Panic in the eyes of adults, who wonder what tomorrow will bring, and children who don’t understand the situation, but still sit on the packed suitcases.
The existent only knows a hypocritical peace. It is the peace of the graveyard where all the corpses produced by the system lie!
One could begin to explain the ongoing war in geopolitical and political terms. Whether Russia is taking an offensive “escape” with the war because the Western powers (USA, EU, NATO) are trying to push them away from the Black Sea; the Russian state wants to establish itself as a global player on the global market and therefore accepts hundreds of thousands of victims; whether Putin is unscrupulously endangering the “peace” between the global powers by offensively challenging the US hegemony that has been crumbling for decades; or, whether the Ukraine conflict is an outcome of the restructuring of the world order and provokes a world war? All these and other explanations for the reasons for the war in Ukraine cannot hide the fact that the essence of the war lies in the state and the capitalist system itself. They only know social peace and the peace of the market – which is a hypocritical peace. It is the peace of the graveyard where all the corpses produced by the system lie!
The Ukraine war is the expression of competing capital interests. It is about nation-state position in the global market. It is about gaining economic advantages through the expansion of markets, infrastructure, direct access to and control of resources. One can therefore ask about the interests of Russia, the USA, European states, as well as supra-state organizations. No matter how aggressively Russia leads the offensive, no global power is willing to risk its economic position for the sake of peace (in Ukraine). Not China, Europe least of all, and the USA probably somewhat more, so due to the collapse of its former hegemonic position and its geographical distance from the war. All state powers (including, for example, India and Turkey) are concerned about “collateral damage” without putting their own economic position at risk. Europe hesitated with military aid to Ukraine and yet this aid is meticulously weighed. And at the same time, every state uses the “opportunity” to justify more military spending. The “biggest” thing they can do is to sanction Russia. However, the Ukraine war (and actually since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014) shows that the global economy is so interconnected that sanctions against Russia always hit their own economy and so the sanctions can only be described as hypocritical. This is especially true when one considers the EU’s energy dependence on Russia. To this day, “Putin’s war” earns 750 million per day from the EU for oil and gas. It is Russia itself that is threatening to stop exports, which would lead to an energy crisis. Russia is additionally the second largest producer of aluminum and gas and the third largest producer of nickel and oil. So, who benefited most from the price increases of these resources in recent weeks? Already in 2014, after the sanctioning of Russia due to the Crimean annexation, Russia concluded a historic contract with China for a 30-year gas supply of 400 billion.
War doesn’t take place outside capitalist conditions, but right in the middle. So business continues while people die in Ukraine
An embargo by the Western states can only remain lip service. Even the chief economist of the Commerzbank says: “Western governments were and are not prepared to risk an energy crisis”. The importance of the economy in war can also be seen in the fact that while homes are bombed, chemical laboratories become military targets and civilians cannot safely flee cities surrounded by the Russian military, the gas pipelines (leading from Russia via Ukraine to Europe) deliberately remain untouched by the war. Even the radical-sounding exclusion of Russia from SWIFT remain empty words and can only remain empty words. The suspension lists several Russian banks, but not central Russian banks such as Sberbank and Gazprombank. It is therefore still relatively easy to do business with Russian gas and oil. Capital is international and knows no borders. This also applies to the arms industry, which, according to the laws of the market, also supplies weapons, drones, tanks and military technological equipment to the future enemy. The current state sanctions are weighed only according to the fact that they create a humanitarian and liberal image of the West and do not endanger its own economic interests. Even if the Russian bourgeoisie is sanctioned, this remains within a framework that is weighed up. The much-mentioned oligarchs have good international relations and are important players in global industry and the market. The sanctions target the properties of Russian oligarchs, but not their capital, as their capital (that of Russia’s ruling class) is linked to global enterprises. War does not take place outside capitalist conditions, but right in the middle, and so business continues while people die in Ukraine.
Why is there war? Why can states agree on conventions on what is forbidden in war, but not on forbidding war? It just sounds cynical that the atomic bomb should prevent wars or another world war. Economic factors can explain war, but only to a point. Certainly, the market itself always produces casualties or situations where an investment is aimed merely at eliminating direct competition. Capitalism (constant accumulation) itself always produces crises that can become wars. Nevertheless, all the economic or even historical-materialist arguments ignore the role of the state (and especially its historical role of the will to power). In short: war cannot be explained exclusively by economic factors.
The state is the organization of power over people. The product of the state is the citizen, a will-less subject
The essence of the state is its “will to power”. The modern state as we know it today has its origins in war and this has always remained essential to it, regardless of whether it is dictatorial or calls itself democratic. It is the state that is responsible for the most terrible massacres and mass murder in history. This is not due to the greed of individuals, but to the structural urge of the state to dominate. The history of the state is one of submission, domination and war. The state is the organization of power over people. The product of the state is the citizen, a will-less subject. In this perspective, war is truly a continuation of politics. The greatest victims of war between states are always the people, as now in the Ukraine, the people who lived or live there. In no other situation than in war does one become more aware that one is only a subject (in peacetime one is probably less aware of this). One is a victim of politics, a victim of negotiations for capitalist and state interests. In Russia, Western sanctions hit the population at random, whether in Russia itself or abroad (because they can no longer withdraw money abroad, Russian athletes are banned from competitions, and so on). Because, as I said, as citizens they are will-less objects and are treated as such by other states. Even on the battlefield, when people fled Ukraine, people were checked and blocked at the border, according to racist criteria. As already mentioned, war does not take place outside capitalist and state structures.
War is also always domestic politics. Historically, war almost always guarantees the power of the head of state. When Putin’s approval ratings were lower at the end of 2013 than they had been for a decade, they rose rapidly in February and March 2014 with the annexation of the Crimea. By early 2022, Putin’s ratings were very low again (almost at the same level as 2013) and, as far as can be judged now, seem to be rising (though less than in 2014). Military attack on the outside goes hand in hand with the ” domestic ” offensive for unification – and repression against everything and everyone who disturbs the national tenor. This is why the state, and here Putin as the most important state actor, has an elementary role in the war and not merely a role as a statist in the spectacle. Putin’s acting is the expression of the state’s will to power. Power is the actual problem and must be destroyed (instead of being taken over). All states are in constant competition for power. Therefore, governments arm themselves in times of peace. Every state institutionalizes (military) violence and always carries the threat of war. Diplomacy only serves to mask the fact that states are constantly ready for war.
If one thinks of peace only in terms of what exists, it confuses the term. Peace simply becomes the situation where there is no war. But isn’t war planned in peacetime? Is every state not only always ready to make war, but also in a permanent state of ‘war’ against its own population? Is there not a permanent social war, so that the people submit to hegemonic constraints, labor and domination? Do we accept peace only as a social peace, in which the conditions of exploitation and property are not attacked? Is it not simply peace of the ruling class?
War is on the one hand a capitalist and interstate conflict; on the other hand it is a manifestation of the will to maintain power. One cannot understand the war in Ukraine without looking back to 2013/2014. At that time, people took to the streets of various Ukrainian cities to protest against the authorities. The European states tried to sell the images of Kiev in such a way that the people there demanded more democracy and proximity to the EU. Their argument was that the Maidan protests had started because the Ukrainian government had so far refused to sign up to a rapprochement with the EU. At the same time, people seeking independence from Kiev took the streets in cities in southern and eastern Ukraine. Russia took advantage of this at the time and still does today to strengthen its influence in this (resource-rich) regions. The reasons for the failure of the uprisings remain to be discussed elsewhere. In Kiev, militant Nazi cadres fought to lead the protests, a growing nationalism pacified the social revolt by denying the opposing class interests (those of the exploiters and the exploited). In the Donbass, “their revolution” was taken over by the Russian bourgeoisie, while only the political character of the self-proclaimed people’s republics changed, the old conditions of exploitation remained in place. The Russian invasion of 24 February finally drowned the uprisings in blood.
And now what if one does not want to take sides in a war between states? If one is against war, but also against a false pretense of peace? The weakness of an anti-militarist position is too often found in the fact that one is finally swayed to one side. The peace movement has never succeeded in attacking war as a whole and has become, at worst, a plaything between powers. Where were the protests when Russian armies (by CSTO troops) crushed social revolts in Kazakhstan in January this year? Peace is only ever the peace of the market, social peace, the peace of the authorities. If one is against war, one should oppose the conditions that are based on exploitation and oppression. The struggle against the Russian attack on Ukraine should not only be symbolic, but it can try to clearly name and attack those who benefit from it (including and especially those in their own country). According to the old slogan, which is still relevant today, “war starts here”, so we might as well attack it here.
Bombs, destruction and misery are the outcome of what exists. But silence does not mean peace, because the wheels of exploitation and oppression keep turning.
No peace with the existing conditions.
Against war, against social peace.
For social revolution.