Whenever the U.S. (or any other country) engages in war, most of the citizens rally in defense of the soldiers, declaring them heroes, honorable men making an immense sacrifice for the benefit of "their country." In other words, it is said that the soldiers and the regular members of the working class have something to gain from their military engaging in warfare, being killed and maimed, and doing the same to other members of the working class who serve the interests of a different class-divided nation. Usually the corporate controlled media claims that notions of "freedom" and "democracy" are at stake in another nation, hence the assembling of the troops. We even have a capitalist holiday set aside, Veteran's Day, to honor the "heroic" actions of "our" soldiers who died or were horribly injured serving the capitalist state. Are soldiers heroes due to the terrible sacrifices they are forced to make on behalf of the capitalist class of their respective country, or should another word be ascribed to them, such as "victim"? This is the purpose of this section...to give a working class analysis of the meaning of war under capitalism, the real reason why they are fought, the role of the soldier and why wars would never occur in a socialist world, but are peculiar to capitalism and a world divided into seperate class-divided nations.
First of all, contrary to what we are constantly told by U.S. propaganda in support of war, wars are never fought over moralistic ideology or in support of an abstract desire for 'justice' of some sort. Wars in our capitalist-controlled world are always fought for control over monetary resources and territory between two or more separate sets of national ruling classes. The desire for the political 'freedom' of oppressed peoples never enters into the equation as far as the politicians are concerned. That is why the U.S. ignores the murderous exploits of many nations (such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka) when it does not concern the profit interests of the U.S. capitalists. However, when these interests are threatened, such as when Saddam Hussien seized control of Kuwait and its profitable supply of oil, thereby endangering the smooth flow of this valuable resource into the pockets of U.S. business interests, then President George Bush the elder, who had much of his own personal finances invested in Kuwaiti oil, immediately shouted "Send in the troops!" without evern bothering to consult Congress on the matter (thus, the Persian Gulf War, like Vietnam and Korea before it, and the later wars in Kosovo and Iraq, is technically unconstitutional).
It should be noted that no type of democracy, political or economic, ever existed in Kuwait; the Iraqi invasion merely subsituted one dicatatorial ruling class for another as far as the Kuwaiti working class were concerned. The prime concern of the U.S. and other Allied ruling classes was the continuation of affordable oil prices. "Friendly" dictators like the obscenely wealthy Kuwaiti ruling class, guilty of numerous violations of human rights, including the misogynistic treatment of women, failed to upset the U.S. ruling class since they were good for business. However, in order to gain the support of the U.S. citizens, the political state propagandized Hussien as being more "evil" then the Kuwaiti ruling class, and falsely implied that the U.S. government was carrying out an unselfish, humanitarian mission based on purely moralistic interests. As for the Kuwaiti working class, they would be damned to brutal poverty and oppression of equal magnitude under the rule of either the Iraqi or Kuwaiti ruling class, and the U.S. working class' economic situation wouldn't be altered either in the positive or the negative if Iraq gained control over Kuwaiti capitalist's oil. Hence, the working classes of every nation had no stake in fighting the Persian Gulf War; instead, their interests would best be served by opposing the very concept of class-divided societies, be it U.S. capitalism or phony Soviet "communism" (i.e., Stalinism or Leninism). Then, selfish dictators like Saddam Hussien and George Bush wouldn't gain economic and political control over any society on Earth, and we wouldn't be forced to fight and kill each other over the capitalists' profit interests.
Other wars stand as prime examples of the above. The Vietnam War was fought solely over the fact that the Vietnamese working class chose to overthrow the brutal French capitalist dictatorship controlling the country to set up a Leninist system that the U.S. ruling class feared would bring them under the economic sphere of the Soviet ruling class. Thus, the U.S. politicians, led by the corrupt President Lyndon B. Johnson, sent thousands of U.S. working class citizens to shoot down Vietnamese working class folks whom they had no quarrel with, and solely for the benefit of U.S. capitalist interests. Many of the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam (many of whom were conscripted into military service against their will and personal conscience) were ordered to do indescribable things to innocent women and children, were sprayed with Agent Orange chemicals by their own government and often subjected to horrific experiences that left them so traumatized that these men won't enjoy a peaceful sleep for the rest of their lives. Many are also now living among capitalist society's huge number of homeless and mentally ill citizens. Of course, many other soldiers were simply killed or permanently disabled, and all for what reason? The profits of the rich, and for the purpose of scoring a Cold War victory for world capitalism over its rival class-divided system, Soviet "state capitalism", which was incorrectly being hailed as "communism" or "socialism", despite the Soviet Union's system being the exact antithesis of genuine Marxian socialism. Should it even be mentioned of the horrible conditiions of many of the U.S. soldiers who fought in the more recent Persian Gulf War for U.S. capitalist interests, many of whom are suffering from hideous and debilitating physical illness due to the non-FDA approved experimental anti-chemical warfare treatments they were subjected to by the capitalist government without their knowledge or consent? Or the soldiers who are presently (as of this writing) suffering under the war against "terrorism" in Iraq?
These men aren't heroes, but victims of a horrid class-divided system who uses them for cannon fodder at will, callously ruining and even ending their lives by forcing them to take up arms against their working class brothers in other nations who are being similarly misled by their own ruling classes.
War proponents or capitalist apologists often attempt to justify war by using the old adage "What about Hitler?" This loaded question totally leaves aside the fact that Hitler never would have risen to power in the first place if not for the decline of capitalism in Germany and the working class of that nation allowing a politician like Adolph Hitler to entice them with his pro-war propaganda. The U.S. capitalist class and their political puppets ignored Hitler's early attacks on the Jews, Czechs, homosexuals and other groups since this inhuman treatment didn't initially threaten U.S. business interests. As always, humanitarian interests took a back seat to business interests, which is par for the course in a world harshly seperated by class divisions. However, as soon as Hitler and his allies Tojo and Mussolini directly threatened U.S. economic global domination, then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was suddenly "shocked" by the Nazi atrocities and yelled the famous phrase "Send in the troops!" We also shouldn't forget the U.S. government's own "holocaust" perpetrated against the Native Americans in the 19th century, which was happily carried out by soldiers who were "just following orders." Are they to be praised for committing these atrocities by "serving their country", and were they acting as "heroes" or "fighting for what they believed in?" These are common defenses of soldiers' motives in serving capitalist interests; since they "believed" they were doing the right thing, then that excuses the immorality of their actions. Does this mean that a serial killer who's warped mind believes that he is benefitting women by killing them excuses his actions? Or how about that of a terrorist who also kills innocents in the pursuit of his beliefs? Or the maniacal racist who believes he is serving the interests of his ethnic group or country by murdering members of a specific race? Should their actions be considered heroic because they are fighting for what they believe to be righteous? This, of course, ignores the fact that most soldiers aren't fighting for what they believe in, but are merely employees of the state, and often forced into military service due to the putrid conditions of unemployment engendered by capitalism. Further, before one can argue that the U.S. government during WWII was morally superior to the Nazi government, let's not forget how our often beloved President Roosevelt herded countless numbers of nisei (Japanese-Americans) into makeshift concentration camps converted out of filthy horse stables, totally ignoring the fact that most of these people were loyal to the U.S. capitalist class. Many children and senior citizens died there from the disgusting, disease-ridden conditions, and many of the women complained of sexual abuse by their American captors. Who personally escorted these people, which included large numbers of women, children and senior citizens, none of whom were soldiers themselves? U.S. soldiers, of course, who were "just following orders." Since they believed they were doing the right thing due to their propaganda induced hatred of all Japanese, does this make their actions heroic? Remarkably, this horrid move by the U.S. government was mostly supported by the apathetic U.S. working class, who were successfully conned by government propaganda into believing that all Japanese people were their enemies, proving they had all the same failings as the German working class, who were similarly conned into believing that all Jews were the enemy.
Further, do not forget that the U.S. government allied itself with Josef Stalin during WWII, who murdered more working class people than Hitler. Of course, immeditately after WWII, the U.S. began the profitable but bogus "Cold War" with Russia over which ruling class would dominate the world. Workers in both countries were completely sucked into the "us vs. them" mentality engendered by the resulting propaganda, despite the fact that there are only minor differences between the two inhumane economic systems.
Support of "evil empires" such as Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union and even the United States by their respective working classes are robust examples of the power of propaganda and the willingness of the people to be suckered into unthinking compliance by their "leaders." What's worse, TV shows such as G.I. Joe glamorize war and portray the soldiers as heroic warriors battling against clearly defined bad guys whose motives are never economically realistic, are clearly morally "evil", and we never see a single innocent victim, or a single soldier having nightmares over seeing his friends getting their heads blown off in front of him/her (in fact, the producers of this animated series weren't even allowed to portray the death of a single character!).
A casual discussion with many veterans who have seen combat will reveal no tendencies to defend warfare or to compliment the nation ordering the combat. In fact, we should be seriously worried about the sanity of any former soldier who does speak positively about war after having personally experienced it. Working class citizens should not honor soldiers, but instead should mourn them for the terrible experiences they will face, and should protest every single war that rears its head.
In a socialist world economy, we would not be divided into seperate nations, each controlled by a ruling class competing with all the others for control over global resources, and determined to have as much power as its individual military might will allow. Instead, the material wealth of the world shall be generously shared by all. No person or group will possess the economic power to force a war or to send another person into combat on their behalf. The capitalist motivation for fighting wars, conflict over control of economic resources, will be excised. Peaceful cooperation, and not ruthless competition, will be the norm of the world. Violence will be considered abhorrent and no one will be regaled as a hero for initiating it, or attempting to solve a dispute with it. Instead, all decisions made will be done democratically, with no need for violence or war.
Thus, wars aren't fought because humankind is naturally "evil" and violent towards each other, or intellectually or psychologically incapable of solving problems without violence. The causes of war are material, not metaphysical, genetic, psychological or ideological. Once we finally achieve a socialist indusrial democracy, at long last will humankind be spared the ravages of war and the material motivations for doing so.
