In an era marked by escalating global tensions, the issue (a fact evident from even a brief glance at social media) of defence and militarism presents profound challenges for socialists. Capitalist powers frequently cloak their actions in rhetoric about peace and security, yet their military interventions often devastate communities and serve elite economic interests. Marxists recognise militarism not as protection for ordinary people but as a mechanism securing capitalist dominance and exploitation. Under capitalism, military spending rarely benefits ordinary citizens. Vast public resources flow into military-industrial complexes, securing global markets, controlling resources, and suppressing domestic dissent. Trotsky persuasively argued that militarism is intrinsically linked to capitalism’s relentless drive for expansion and domination, an insight vital for working-class awareness.
How should workers respond to militarism? While it may seem straightforward to reject all military preparedness, viewing it as complicity in capitalist violence, Trotsky warned against relying on bourgeois governments for genuine protection. At the same time, he stressed workers should never leave themselves vulnerable. Today, especially in Britain, the practicality of worker-led defence strategies attracts scepticism, dismissed as outdated or unrealistic. Yet ignoring the potential for working-class self-defence overlooks critical realities. Britain faces rising authoritarianism, far-right extremism, and expanded state power amid persistent economic instability. Rather than replicating historical militias, modern self-defence initiatives might take shape as organised community networks, trade union alliances, and democratic coalitions focused on protecting workers’ rights and freedoms. These would prioritise accountability and community control, distinct from past militarised methods.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine vividly demonstrates the necessity of self-defence and national self-determination. Vladimir Putin’s invasion is imperialism in its clearest form, driven by territorial and economic ambitions. Complicating this scenario, Donald Trump’s administration adopts openly transactional policies, offering unconditional support to Israel’s aggressive policies while cynically withholding critical military aid from Ukraine unless Kyiv agrees to surrender valuable mineral resources without security guarantees. Recent reports confirm this stark transactional approach, underscoring how imperialist interests manipulate genuine defensive needs. Some on the left argue their reluctance to support Ukraine stems from the absence of meaningful negotiations. Yet negotiating with Vladimir Putin, whose track record proves him untrustworthy, poses significant challenges. Russian state media regularly showcases an increasingly unhinged worldview, openly threatening nations such as Britain with nuclear attacks, often citing their hypersonic Zircon missiles. Such rhetoric highlights the complexities and potential futility of diplomacy with an aggressive regime that frequently resorts to intimidation and violent threats.
From a Marxist perspective, Ukraine’s military resistance is entirely justified. Arming Ukraine under democratic control embodies genuine international solidarity, separate from imperialist ambitions represented by NATO. Crucially, this resistance must remain independent, democratically controlled by Ukrainian workers, not subordinated to external capitalist/imperialist interests.
Trump’s presidency profoundly complicates Britain’s geopolitical position. Traditionally considered a reliable ally, the U.S. under Trump has become notoriously transactional and unpredictable. In response, Britain’s dominant class plans substantial military spending increases, up to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, while simultaneously imposing welfare cuts. Such policies expose whose interests the government truly prioritises, exacerbating economic inequality and hardship for working-class communities. NATO’s legitimacy also faces growing scrutiny under Trump’s leadership. Established as a defensive alliance during the Cold War, NATO increasingly participates in aggressive interventions, undermining global peace. Trump’s unpredictable and transactional stance deepens NATO’s contradictions, raising fundamental questions about whether the alliance promotes genuine security or merely facilitates imperialist agendas.
Negotiations with aggressive capitalist states are similarly problematic. History consistently shows capitalist states rarely negotiate genuinely for lasting peace; diplomacy often masks strategic manoeuvring driven by economic interests. Authentic peace talks must involve democratic oversight by working-class organisations to ensure they genuinely pursue international solidarity and peace, not capitalist rivalry.
Confronting militarism means abandoning futile arms races and imperialist conflicts. The only battle worth fighting is against the catastrophic threat of climate change. Genuine security emerges from international working-class solidarity and collective struggle against capitalism. Only through socialist transformation, replacing militarised competition with global cooperation and equality, can we achieve lasting peace.
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)
One Response