THE NEW PEACE MOVEMENT
Iwo million Europeans demonstrated this fall against the increased danger of war brought about by the resumption of the arms race. In Bonn,
In Berlin in September, Alexander
Haig launched a vicious attack against| the antiwar movement, accusing it of being manipulated by Moscow. In
For example, in 1938-39 the masses supported the Munich
"peace, " which was based on a double capitulation by their leader-
Rome, Oslo, London, Brussels, Paris, the wake of the gigantic demonstraAthens, Madrid, and Bern--to say nothing of all the places where smaller demonstrations were held-- an unprecedented mass movement for disarmament took off.
A poll done in mid-November revealed how profound an impact these mobilizations had had on public opinion (1). Some 50% of the French, 59% of the West Germans, 52% of the British, and 79% of the Dutch said that "they agreed with the peace demonstrators entirely or tended to."
Millions of young people and workers are ready to take up the fight against the aggressive foreign policy of U.S. imperialism, which is relayed by its allies in capitalist Europe. This is a development of the greatest importance. The ruling circles in Washington have had to recognize this.
tions of October 24 and 25, Haig's cohort, C. Weinberger had to take a more respectful tone in talking about a pacifist "menace"' that was getting such broad support. He said that it was something that would have to be taken into consideration.
Now is a good time to review the essential features of this new antiwar movement, which will certainly undergo a new rise in the spring.
AN ANTICAPITALIST MASS
MOVEMENT INDEPENDENT OF
THE BUREAUCRACY
The movement's main feature is its anticapitalist character, regardless of the various levels of understanding that are inevitable in such a broad mass movement (2). This is an essential difference from the 'previous responses to war threats.
ships to fascism and to the bourgeois regimes of the Western "de.mocracies." This led Trotsky to write:
"The political awakening of the proletariat is proceeding at a slower rate than the preparations for a new war (3). " He explained: "The toiling masses of the entire world are weighed down by the terrible burden of the defeats they have suffered in Italy; in Poland; in Germany; in Austria; in Spain; and partially, 1. Conducted by Le nouvel observateur and published in its November 21, 1981, issue. 2. Neutralist currents of the classical type exist in several countries but nowhere are they dominant. 3. "If a New World War Breaks Out, " Yale Review, July, 1938.
decisions of December 1979 to station in France, as well as in a series of smaller countries (4)."
Today, the situation is quite different. Contrary to what happened in 1939, the "new peace movement' is arising in a context of sharpening class struggles against the background of a combined crisis of capitalism and of the bureaucratic dictatorship in the East. While in a still confused way, in mobilizing for disarmament against their own bourgeoisie, the masses are relearning the old communist lesson, "the enemy is in our own country."
The attempts of Washington and the European capitalist governments to put over the idea that the rise of the peace movement is simply the result of the Kremlin's propaganda have fallen flat. This is not becarse there is some uncritical sympathy in Europe for Brezhnev's policy. The solidarity with the Polish masses proves the contrary. Rather the attacks on the antiwar movement have missed their mark because it is independent both of bourgeois forces and of forces linked to the Stalinist bureaucracy. This is an essential difference from the peace movement of the 1950s, which to a large extent was directed by the
Stalinist parties.
The main force in the peace demonstrations today are the youth who have not experienced the dark days of the Cold War, when the U.S. officially preached the line of "better dead than red. " They have known only the interminable palaver of detente on the theme of peaceful coexistence as well as the show conferences (5), which far from curbing the arms race, have systematized it, relaunching it at insane levels, to the greater benefit of Washington. While being free of the control of the Stalinist bureaucracies, the new peace movement is objectively fighting for nuclear disarmament of the imperialist bourgeoisies. And the dominant current of opinion within it is for unilateral disarmament. Therefore, it offers considerable possibilities for advancing the socialist revolution internationally. Of course, whether or not these are realized depends to a large extent on what revolutionists do in the movement.
CRUCIAL STAKES Washington's resumption of the arms race in 1978-79 and the new aggressive and openly "interventionist' course of American policy since
Reagan's election, particularly in
Central America, are compelling reasons for international mobilizations. In fighting against the NATO
572 new American nuclear weapons
| in Europe--second-generation
8
Pershing missiles and Cruise missiles--the peoples of capitalist Europe are also mobilizing against war threats elsewhere in the world, in the Middle East, and especially in Central America. The struggle against the expansion of NATO in Spain and Greece, at a time when the Turkish generals are brutally repressing the workers movement in a NATO country, also combines with the new antiwar movement. The same is true of the protests against Reagan's decision to begin production of the neutron bomb.
The development of the ability to focus nuclear destruction to a certain extent on limited targets means the creation of a potential new weapon against "subversion, " Even if there is no likelihood that the conditions for its use will appear in the near future in Europe, it could be used tomorrow in Africa or elsewhere against advances in the colonial revolution.
Furthermore, at a time when millions of workers are being thrown out of work, when social programs are being cut to the bone, the constant growth of military appropriations becomes an intolerable outrage in the eyes of the broad masses.
All these factors make up the ingredients for an immense internationalist mass mobilization. A fight has begun that is vital for all humanity and for its socialist future, since the only guarantee of peace is disarming the imperialists in their main bastions. By carrying forward the struggle that started against the imperialist war makers, the peoples of Europe can greatly aid both the peoples fighting imperialism in other parts of the globe and the American young people and workers, on whom the imperialists will have to inflict a decisive defeat before undertaking any nuclear adventure.
The emergence and growth of such a vast movement against the imperialist rearmament program has already produced effects important for both the bourgeoisie and the workers movement in the individual countries and internationally. It is still too early to make a thorough assessment, but the main lines are clear. 1. The thrust of American policy has been deflected to a certain extent by the need to take account of the hesitations of the European bourgeois governments, which are under the pressure of their own antiwar movements. This is what brought Reagan to the negotiating table in Geneva to launch a propaganda campaign around an "Option
Zero" cooked up in Washington. Of course, this is a fraud, and nothing is going to come out of these rigged bilateral negotiations. But Reagan was forced to go back on his determination not to open up negotiations until he regained the "margin of security" that he wants for American imperialism over the USSR.
2. Following the same pattern, several European governments have had to retreat from their initial intentions. After approving the NATO decisions in December 1979, the Norwegian and Danish governments have reversed engines, saying that they were not directly involved. The Belgian and Dutch governments have not given any definitive answer. The leaders of other countries directly involved have been showing a certain hesitation since the fall. They have started explicitly linking the question of basing Pershing and Cruise missiles in their countries to the outcome of the Geneva negotiations.
Only Thatcher and Mitterrand have expressed complete approval of the Reagan and NATO plans. On the other hand, Mitterrand has differentiated himself very clearly from the U.S. policy in Central
America (e. g., the Franco-Mexican statement on supplying "defensive" weapons to Nicaragua). The result of all this been a definite accentuation of the interimperialist contradictions that threaten the cohe-' siveness of NATO, and of the entire counterrevolutionary North Atlantic alliance.
3. In the workers movement, we are seeing not only the beginning of a massive antimilitarist youth radicalization but also a process of differentiation developing around these questions in the traditional workers parties, both Stalinist and Social
Democratic. The latter in particular have been pushed into taking contradic.
tory positions. Most importantly they have seen currents develop in their organizations that have challenged the official orientations and not hesitated to join in demonstrations against the orders of the leadership.
It is absolutely clear that, combined with the repercussions of the bureaucratic counterrevolution in
Poland, the developing antiwar mobilizations will play a role in changing the political landscape in Europe.
This should be demonstrated still more forcefully by a new growth of struggles for peace and socialism in the spring and fall of 1982. •
4. Idem.
5. The Strategic Arms Limitations
Talks (SALT) and the Mutual and
Balanced Reduction of Forces
(MBRF) talks.