Skip to content

Between Militarism and Solidarity

You never know what’s behind the mask by graffit artist Hijack. Shows a child in Ukrainian colours taking a micky mouse mask off a Russian soldier.
As global tensions intensify and militarism gains momentum, how do we maintain principled opposition to war while effectively confronting authoritarian threats? Reflecting on recent debates, I explore the urgent need for genuine internationalist solidarity.

Earlier this week, in grappling with ‘The Defence Question‘, I explored the complexity (well I struggled) of developing a coherent Marxist and internationalist response to militarism and war. My central dilemma was clear: how do we uphold an uncompromising anti-war position while simultaneously recognising the genuine threat posed to the working class by reactionary forces, typified today by Putinism and Trumpism?

Since then, my reading of statements and articles from French comrades, particularly the NPA’s critique of Macron’s neoliberal militarism and Revolution Permanente’s analysis of the deepening transatlantic crisis, has sharpened these contradictions further. These interventions illustrate clearly the dangers of militarism in all its forms, even when justified in terms of democracy, liberalism, or national defence.

Macron’s recent push to boost military spending, claiming to defend European sovereignty against Putin and Trump, is exactly the type of neoliberal militarism we must resist. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has also committed to increasing military spending, reinforcing this troubling neoliberal trend. It’s understandable why some on the left might see these stances as lesser evils, offering protection from openly reactionary alternatives. Yet, as Revolution Permanente argues, militarisation does not truly protect the working class; instead, it fuels nationalist tensions, legitimises reactionary narratives, and ultimately strengthens the authoritarian tendencies it purports to oppose.

This presents us with a profound dilemma. On one side, a consistent anti-war stance remains crucial, imperialist wars inevitably harm working-class interests. On the other, Putinism and Trumpism pose real threats, not only ideologically but materially, to the lives and democratic rights of millions.

Addressing this contradiction requires more than slogans. It demands reaffirming independent working-class politics and genuine internationalism. Opposition to war, militarism, and nationalism must remain universal and consistent, never selectively applied. The neoliberal militarism represented by Macron’s France, Trump’s America, or Starmer’s Britain should be opposed as vigorously as authoritarian nationalism.

The pressing practical question remains: how do we concretely support and defend the Ukrainian people and left-wing comrades currently under direct attack by Putin’s imperialist aggression, facing missiles, drone strikes, and military invasion? Solidarity cannot merely be symbolic. It demands concrete internationalist efforts, political, material, and humanitarian, that assist the Ukrainian working class without endorsing NATO or capitalist military agendas. At the same time, it is essential to challenge the problematic campist perspective prevalent in parts of the left, which criticises Western imperialism and NATO without equally critiquing authoritarian powers like Moscow and Beijing. Such selective anti-imperialism undermines genuine international solidarity, inadvertently strengthening reactionary regimes by failing to confront their oppressive and militaristic practices.

French comrades emphasise that genuine defence of working-class interests cannot be achieved through alliances with capitalist states or military blocs like NATO. Instead, real defence lies in transnational solidarity, anti-imperialist mobilisation, and the independent organisation of working-class movements. Only through genuine internationalism can the working class effectively resist militarism and the authoritarian forces it inevitably empowers.

While the challenges posed by ‘The Defence Question’ remain deeply complex, the answers from revolutionary internationalists—such as those articulated by the French left—point toward a principled yet nuanced position. Rejecting all capitalist militarism, neoliberal or nationalist, and reaffirming internationalist working-class solidarity emerges not just as a matter of principle but as the only viable response to the twin dangers of Putinism and Trumpism.

It goes to say: never Washington or Moscow, and come to think of it, neither London nor Paris.


Artificial Intelligence (9) Book Review (78) Books (82) Britain (35) Capitalism (9) Conservative Government (35) Creeping Fascism (12) diary (11) Donald J Trump (45) Elon Musk (9) Europe (11) Film (11) France (14) History (9) Imperialism (16) Iran (10) Israel (14) Keir Starmer (10) Labour Government (25) Labour Party (9) Marxist Theory (10) Migrants (13) Nigel Farage (13) Palestine (9) Protest (14) Reform UK (21) Russia (12) Suella Braverman (8) Television (9) Trade Unionism (8) Ukraine (9) United States of America (85) War (19) Work (9) Working Class (9)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share the Post:

Latest Posts

A vintage revolver mounted on a plain beige wooden wall, evoking the concept of Chekhov’s gun. The weapon is displayed in profile with a dark blued metal frame and a worn wooden grip, lit softly to highlight its aged, utilitarian design.
Alexander Dugin

The Gospel of World War Three: Alexander Dugin and the Death Cult of Civilisation

Alexander Dugin’s latest polemic is not political analysis but fascist sermon—an apocalyptic blueprint in which nuclear war is both inevitable and desirable. Cloaked in the language of sovereignty and tradition, it is a call to arms for a new ideology of holy Russian power. What begins with Fordow ends with the end of humanity. And for that reason alone, it demands scrutiny—not celebration. You listening, tech bros?

Read More »
A square-cropped image featuring the bold black text "THE SAMSON OPTION" in all capital letters on a cream background. The second "O" in "OPTION" is stylised with the upper half containing the Israeli flag and the lower half the American flag, symbolising the book’s geopolitical focus
Iran

The Bomb in the Basement, the Bomb in the Mountains: Israel, Iran, and the Nuclear Hypocrisy of the West

The next state to cross the nuclear threshold won’t be doing anything new. It’ll be following the path Israel already took—building the bomb in secret, shielded by silence and strategic utility. The real precedent was set decades ago in the Negev. That’s the hypocrisy at the heart of the so-called international order: one bomb is a threat to civilisation, the other a pillar of it. This isn’t about non-proliferation. It’s about who gets to own the apocalypse.

Read More »
A stylised, screen-printed poster shows the Spanish PM in a suit walking past large NATO emblems on bold, flat panels. The image is rendered in a 1968 protest aesthetic with a grainy texture and a limited palette of red, navy blue, and beige. The composition evokes vintage political posters, with stark contrast and minimal detail emphasising the symbolism of militarism and conformity.
Donald J Trump

Only Spain Has Got It Right

At The Hague summit, NATO committed to spending 5% of GDP on defence and security by 2035—a figure with no strategic rationale and every sign of submission to Donald Trump. Only Spain said no. Pedro Sánchez broke ranks, arguing that gutting public services to fund rearmament was neither economically justifiable nor politically defensible. In doing so, he exposed what the rest of Europe won’t admit: this isn’t about defence. It’s about deference. And someone had to refuse.

Read More »