Civilians, the nature of war and some corrections (was Re: [Marxism] It's the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden)

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I must say that Carrol pointed out an unexpected error in my message. When I
said "average person" I should have said "average member of the military".

But her comments also point out another interesting area. In Europe, during
WWII, complacency, even ignorance with the war was a material impossibility,
unlike the lives of civilians in the USA, such as herself.

I argue that civilians, understood in the narrow sense of non-combatants,
and non-combatants understood in the wider sense of those not involved
directly or indirectly with the war effort, were nearly non-existent in
Europe during WWII.

On one side, you had huge resistance movements, many of them revolutionary
in content, and who were for the most part composed of "civilians" in the
wider sense of not being formally under formal military control, but were
indeed combatants. Indeed, after Dunkirk and until D-Day, the whole ground
war in western europe against the Nazis was fought by people you could
classify as civilians (with some exceptions that ened up proving the rule).
In eastern europe, things were a bit different, with Tito creating a true
army, that even went as far as including conscription in areas under its
control, and Partisans for the most part being part of wider military effort
of the red army. There are indeed exceptions, such as the Czechslovak
resistance, but like those of western europe, they end up proving the rule.

On the other side, the NSDAP was voted into power by a huge percentage of
the German population, and built a Party-State apparatus based upon a huge
paramilitary organization of society. From the Hitler Youth, to the Motor
Clubs, no aspect of German "civilian" society was divorced

All said, Dresden in the abstract is an atrocity, in the concrete it was
just one more bombing run in war that had seen 1000s.

In my opinion, on historical perspective, Dresden was indeed the first shot
of the Cold War, as much as a show of force as an exercise of payback upon
the Nazis. But this appreciation is based not upon the inmorality of the
action, which in the circumstances, I find even moraly justifiable (even the
fact that it was almost in the end of the war works in this direction, after
almost 5 years of war, there was indeed a lot of hatred going around). It is
based on perspective, on being 60 years away from the event.

Those who express outrage at the bureaucratic talk of the preparations for
the bombing run, should compare it to any historical example of

As to Fallujah, Abu Garib etc, well, for propaganda purposes, of course one
most single that out. Opposing the war of occupation must be done by any
means neccesary.

But I would expect marxist discourse in examining reality for what it is,
not for what we wish to transform it to, wouldn't be so shallow in its
observations.

We must never forget that those are not one-sided affairs. The resistance as
a matter of routine beheads "civilian" prisioners, and they killed 100s of
US troops during both battles of Fallujah. That they didn't more speaks not
of their moral restraint in waging war, but of their military inferiority
when compared to highly trained, highly equipped, professional army.

Atrocities, destruction, and death was dealt and taken by both sides. The
form of the sturggle is the same, morally censurable, bloodbath. Yet, in
content, the violence and bloodbath of the resistance is one that is
politically much more justifiable. Yet if we morally censure the actions of
the US troops and not censure those of the resistance we appear of
hypocrites. Some people wallow in that hypocrisy or deny it is an hypocrisy,
others abandon the struggle for the comfort of the plague to both their
houses, and others yet buy in into the ruling class.

But I believe the correct thing would be to completely bypass the moral
equivalency arguments. By declaring all war inmoral, we taint ourselves with
inmorality, that is true, but we accept, in a courageous manner that our
struggle is not for a good or bad morality but for lack of a better word, a
post-morality, a world in which inmorality of the sort war creates is not
only inexistent, but materially impossible.

I believe that we must cocentrate on the political, not the moral, in terms
of analizing events, because in war there is no morality. Of course, that is
if you are a marxists and believe in revolution.

If you are a Quaker, well, your perspective is much more coherent, if still
supersticious.

A note to Brian:

I perphaps was not clear enough, because you certainly didn't understand my
argument. I am not attacking the revolutionary struggles, of which of course
I am fond of, and part of (or like to think of myself as part of).

In particular, I fully agree, and even said as much is one of my previous
posts, with this:

"War is hell, we all agree. However, unless you are a pacifist or
perhaps a pacifist anarchist, we have to play the hand that we are
dealt."

What I seek to express is that I belive that the moral argument is a
political dead-end for revolutionaries in terms of analysis. Because we are
guilty, by necesitty and objective reality, of more or less the same, in
form but not in content.

I think this part of yout post illustrates this misunderstanding, which I
will admit must be my fault:

"If I read Carlos correctly, he seems to be saying that all war is bad,
however WWII atrocities are acceptable because our side was killing
fascists, who were in fact neo-feudalists.

He also suggests that "atrocities" committed by revolutionists, i.e.,
our side in socialist revolutions or wars of national liberation, are
paybacks that morally are even worse than the acts of imperialism. He
seems to argue that these acts are more questionable than the
firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I include
Hiroshima, but perhaps Carlos does not. Like others, he may consider
that act beyond the pale."

Let me reply by parts:

"If I read Carlos correctly, he seems to be saying that all war is bad,
however WWII atrocities are acceptable because our side was killing
fascists, who were in fact neo-feudalists."

More or less correct. To put it abstaractly, I believe form and content,
while related, don't predetermine each other. It is related to "the ends
justify the means", but much more closer to the quote by trotsky I provided.

Ortega y Gasset, the spanish bourgeoise academic, put it this way "I am
myself and my circumstances". I find war and its bloodshed abhorent, but can
endure it and even justify it depending on the circumstances. Yet the
critiques of Dresden I have read so far lack this context, or their context
is incomplete and geared towards self-fulfillment of their theses and not
connection with material reality.

"He also suggests that "atrocities" committed by revolutionists, i.e.,
our side in socialist revolutions or wars of national liberation, are
paybacks that morally are even worse than the acts of imperialism."

Nothing can be further from the truth. My point is that morality is
irrelevant when it comes to war. War is amoral. And when you drive into
moral territory, the only way to escape being in contradition is to either
become a pacifist (And hence divorce yourself from revolution) or an
hypocrite (thus leaving you wide open for attack from your political
rivals).

And it gets personal: my dad is to this day the prime suspect of having
killed a police agent (in 1986) who was responsible for the ambush-murder of
2 left-wing students in 1978. My dad obviously didn't, but even the biggest
critics of his tendency (ironically, most are from my tendency in the PRican
left) hold him in high esteem just for being a suspect. If I can be proud of
my dad for being a suspect in a cold blodded murder, as payback for 2
others, I have a vested interest in being coherent about it. Not that my dad
is a perfect human being, but that the state belives him capable of killing
in the name of revolution speaks highly of him, imho.

"He seems to argue that these acts are more questionable than the
firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima."

Not more. But from a coherent morality that sees atrocities in the same
light, *equally* questionable.

I, on the other hand, hold war to be amoral. Hiroshima suited the US ruling
class for its purposes. Had it been a revolutionary attack, I would have
probably supported it.


"I include
Hiroshima, but perhaps Carlos does not. Like others, he may consider
that act beyond the pale"

The point is I don't consider anything done in war beyond pale.

sks

tomorrow I will respond to rubinelli, on the original thread, as I already
have gone over the limit of posts...


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism