[D66] A new constituency for imperialism

[Antid Oto]

A new constituency for imperialism
3 September 2011

“General enthusiasm over the prospects of imperialism, furious defence of it and
painting it in the brightest colours—such are the signs of the times.” These
words were written 95 years ago, but in today’s political environment are more
apt than ever. A better description of the reaction of liberal journalists,
left-wing intellectuals and former radicals to the war in Libya could not be found.

The quote is from Lenin’s “Imperialism,” in which the future leader of the
October Revolution analyzed the causes of the First World War. Lenin did not
limit himself to the study of the economic background, but also dealt with the
social and political changes that preceded the greatest ever massacre in the
history of mankind.

Concentrated in a few hands, the domination of finance capital over all sectors
of the economy and the growing conflicts between the great powers as they sought
to divide the world had “... caused the propertied classes to go over entirely
to the side of imperialism.”

In Germany’s petty bourgeoisie it was then considered good form to support
imperialist goals. Founded in 1898, the German Navy League, which lobbied for
the construction of a German navy equal to the British, counted over one million
members in 1908. All this led to the war fever that in 1914 also swept over the
Social Democratic Party (SPD) and unleashed a continuing global disaster that
only reached a temporary hiatus thirty years later with the end of World War II.

The hysteria and enthusiasm with which today’s European and American media and
politicians respond to the rape of Libya evokes the period before the First
World War. Many journalists and intellectuals who had maintained a cool head
over the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have lost any critical discernment. Those who
were previously moved by the drums of war have now lost all inhibitions.

The belligerent powers have done little to conceal their predatory aims. The
six-month bombardment of the country by NATO, the dubious composition of the
National Transitional Council, the use of Islamist fighters and foreign elite
troops on the rebels’ side, and the massacre of Gaddafi supporters and black
Africans (about which the Western press is largely silent) are ill-suited to
substantiating the official propaganda about the “protection of the civilian
population” and a “democratic revolution.”

The international conference on Libya on Thursday in Paris, at which the
assembled great powers openly haggled over the division of the country’s oil
fields and billions in frozen assets, revealed the real war aims: oil, money,
influence and the re-division of the entire Middle East.

But the war propagandists in the media and politics ignore everything that does
not fit the image of the “liberation of Libya,” desperately closing their eyes
to everything that they do not want to see.

In this regard, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the Greens in the European
Parliament, is unsurpassed in his obsequiousness and arrogance. Cohn-Bendit, who
came to prominence in 1968 as a spokesman for the Paris student revolt, praised
the “successful military intervention,” which had “enhanced the reputation of
the West in the Arab world.” He denounced his Green Party friends in Germany as
“clever-dicks” and “wise guys” because they had not fully supported the war
effort from the beginning. He demanded they apologize publicly to NATO.

The French Socialist Party excelled itself in its praise for President Sarkozy.
It was “happy that France has taken this initiative,” said party chair Martine
Aubry, and praised Sarkozy for “acting at the right moment.” Jack Lang, who
previously headed the education and culture ministries and is regarded in the
party as a great intellectual, commented on the case of Tripoli with the words:
“Today, everyone can congratulate the fact that France’s reputation has grown
because it resolutely and successfully engaged in the battle for Libya’s freedom.”

The New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) has also signed up to the war propaganda.
Its weekly Hebdo Tout est à nous! published discussion contributions that
vigorously argued for supporting the NATO intervention. In late March, they
wrote, “Those who today oppose the application of UN Resolution 1973, say
directly to the insurgents in Benghazi and in the east of Libya, ‘We are
sacrificing your life, your freedom and your hope to our anti-imperialism.’ Some
of us will do that, I will not.”

After the fall of Tripoli, the NPA announced in an official press release: “The
overthrow of the dictator Gaddafi is good news for the people. ... For the
Libyan people, a new life is now opened up. Freedom, democratic rights and using
the vast revenues from the commodity reserves to meet the basic needs of the
people are now on the agenda.”

In official parlance, the NPA is usually described as part of the “extreme
left.” “New Right” would be a better name for an organization that openly and
brazenly justifies such an imperialist war.

A similar trend can also be observed in Germany. Whereas hundreds of thousands
took to the streets against the Iraq war, not a single major demonstration has
been called against the war in Libya. The so-called peace movement has gone into
retirement.

Cohn-Bendit’s long-time friend and fellow Green Joschka Fischer, who as foreign
minister in 1999 ensured Germany’s participation in the war against Yugoslavia,
has castigated Berlin’s refusal to join the war in Libya as the “greatest
foreign policy debacle since the founding of the Federal Republic.” The pro-SPD
weekly Die Zeit called it “a German disgrace.” It is almost impossible to find a
single voice in either the media or the establishment political parties
defending Germany’s abstention from the NATO intervention.

In the US, prominent opponents of the wars of the Bush era enthusiastically
support the war in Libya. A typical example is the historian Juan Cole of the
University of Michigan, who made a name as a critic of the Iraq war, and now
vehemently supports the war in Libya. The WSWS has subjected his evolution to
critical analysis in several articles.

The transition of former liberals and pacifists into the imperialist war camp is
so widespread that one cannot treat it as an individual phenomenon. Great social
struggles often announce themselves through such political transformations.
Political parties are preparing for the role they will play in future class
struggles.

The development is not new. During the Yugoslavia War twelve years ago, many
elements from among the pacifists and the Greens supported the bombing of a
defenceless country by NATO. But with the war in Libya, this development has
reached a new stage.

It is mainly the representatives of well-off layers of the middle class who are
bidding adieu to their former pacifist, liberal or “leftist” views. These layers
are strongly represented in the milieu of the Greens, the Social Democrats,
trade unions and the petty-bourgeois left à la NPA. They are responding to a
sharp class polarization, which has deepened since the outbreak of the
international financial and economic crisis three years ago. The support that
racist demagogues like Geert Wilders or Thilo Sarrazin find in these layers is
another side of the same political phenomenon.

The working class must prepare for the coming class struggles. With their
support for the rape of Libya, the Greens, Social Democrats and groups like the
NPA make perfectly clear where they will stand—on the side of the ruling class.

The Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (Socialist Equality Party) and the
International Committee of the Fourth International is today the only political
movement in the world which consistently advocates a socialist perspective and
defends the interests of the international working class. The building of this
party is the burning task of the hour.

Peter Schwarz

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pers-s03.shtml