OBSERVER – New orientation in the War Resisters’ International (Bevrijding 193501 pp 9-12)

(Press Service IAK)

The War Resisters’ International (WRI) is one of the most vibrant anti-war organizations, and demonstrates admirable ability to adapt again and again to new conditions without ever degenerating into vulgar occasion politics. We could even rather say that it increasingly evolves in a socialist and revolutionary direction. This was demonstrated again at the International Conference of the WRI in 1934 in Welwyn (Hertsforshire, England).

It doesn’t seem necessary to give a full account of this Congress here. That can be found in the September issue of the War Resister, available from the Secretariat of the WRI, 11 Abbey Road, Enfield, Middlesex, England; an abridged version has also been published in German and French. On top of that a speech by Bart de Ligt on the systematic and immediate mobilization against every war and war preparation along with the accompanying Battle Plan against War and War Preparation that was the main focus of this Conference, will soon be published in its entirety in English, French, Dutch and probably other languated.

Here, we will try to analyze the evolution in the anti-war ideas of the WRI and of its functioning. As one knows the WRI is established in the same year as the International Anti-Militarist Bureau (IAMB) in 1921. While the IAMB was from its conception strictly revolutionary, and mainly kept in touch with the far left labour movement, the WRI was at the start mainly an organization of men and women who -each with their own motives of moral or religious nature- refused to take any part in the war. One can even say that the WRI was at first more of an individual and pacifist nature while the IAMB took a striclty anti-militarist and revolutionary position. That does not mean that there were no left-socialists or even anarchists in the WRI. From its start the Tolstoyans in the WRI have been an important tendency within it, just like multiple freethinkers who were simultaneously members of the IAMB as they resisted war on individual (moral or religious) as well social and revolutionary grounds. But generally and especially during the first years the WRI found its basis in pacifist individualism while an important part of its members, especially in England, were simultaneously part of the 2^nd Socialist International. Besides a large number of war resisters came from petit bourgeois and bourgeois background. That does not imply that these war resisters didn’t fight war bravely. On the contrary! Even during the world war several of them had demonstrated an exemplary bravery and brought heavy sacrifices; even now several douzens of members of the organization are imprisoned around the world with often severe sentences.

We could say that in general the attitude of the WRI wasn’t anti-political but rather a-political, even if several of its members had some faith in the traditional parliamentarian and political methods for some years, and even in the effectiveness of the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference.

Although the WRI were composed of so diverse elements, the internal relations were examplary; based on mutual trust in the honesty of motives of the others. In the meetings and conferences, reunions and congresses of the WRI each from the opening of the session had the right to express themselves freely and to criticize the political, economical and moral conceptions of all other members. We can’t admire enough the tact and policy of the International Council and especially secretary Runham Brown who made it possible to keep an equilibrium in the organization and to support the ideas and development of the WRI carefully and energetically.

Without doubt the impression was given that especially in the British chapters of the WRI the attachment to traditional politics and parliamentarian methods was strong. Multiple members of the British No More War Movement were active in the electoral races. This was even the reason why this movement, that had been part of the IAMB from the beginning, to withdraw from the organization in 1923 because the IAMB, that is firmly anti-parliamentarian and anti-state, rose up against the fact that the English pacifists did not actively enough turn against prime Minister MacDonald, although the government maintained the national defense, reinforced and modernized the British fleet and army, and regularly suppressed in the most brutal way the coloured peoples in the British colonies. From their side several British comrades deeply distrusted the anarchist tendencies of the IAMB while they were concerned about the fact that part of its members -although they were staunch anti-militarists- didn’t absolutely rejected the use of all violence in the service of the revolution.

This was the most critical moment in the relations between the WRI and the IAMB. The fact that, when the No More War Movement chivalrously left the IAMB, and that the WRI and the IAMB mutually respected eachothers development according to their own traditions, could only be favorable for a good understanding between those two international organizations.¹

The experiences with the two MacDonald cabinets that went from bad to worse, the increasingly stronger degeneration of the so-called democratic politics of the 2^nd International, and the impotence of it to resist fascism ideologically and practically – all that pushed the socialist wing of the WRI in a more radical direction. Which came down to giving the the WRI’s struggle against war an increasingly revolutionary character. Moreover the danger of wars and even a world war grew every day. It was no longer enough to be an absolute pacifist individually. What was above all necessary to fight effectively against the biggest social evil of modern times -the ‘scientific war’ and it social and economic causes- was establishing strongly organized national and international resistance movements. In this regard a favorable wind blew from the first president of the WRI, A. Fenner Brockway, one of the most important leaders of the English Independent Labour Party.² The WRI showed more and more that it not only sided with strong personalities who completely broke with all forms of war, but that they also recognized the necessity of a struggle for a new social order. This essentially revolutionary character was mainly highlighted since the publication of a writing of secretary H. Runham-Brown titled Cutting Ice in 1930.

On the other hand in the circles of the WRI as well as those of the IAMB felt a growing need to form a united front of all those who -in spite of all kinds of differences- strive to indeed make all war illegal against the united front of all those who -despite all kinds of religious, political and cultural differences- prepare wars everywhere. Hans Kohn has presented this important point in an unforgettable speech (at the International Conference of Sonntagsberg in 1928). On this occasion Albert de Jong and Bart de Ligt, who represented the IAMB at this Conference, explained that they had mainly come to see in how far a collaboration in that sense was possible between the two international organizations.

The result of this was the establishing of the Joint Advisory Council in which collaborated: the IAMB, the International Committee of Quakers, the International League for Reconciliation, the International Cooperative Women Guild, the International of Relgious Anti-militarist, the International Women’s League for Peace and Freedom and the WRI.

This Federation mounted a big worldwide campaign against the military service and the military education of the youth.

But it became clear theat this federative collaboration of the organizations involved asked so much financial and other sacrifices that this attempt was not practically worth the effort. Therefore the WRI has been trying to find more effective means for international collaboration. There was mainly an attempt to create an International Council of the WRI whose members would at the same time be representative members of the other internationals, so that, instead of an official contact, and officious contact would be created between a maximum number of anti-war internationals. The result of all this in Welwyn was the election of a new International Council in which not only the representatives of the different tendencies within the WRI, but at the same time indirectly and through personal contacts, the most important Internationals that fought all forms of war. In this regard it is possibly regrettable that Henri Roser, one of the leaders of the International of Anti-militarist Preachers and of the Reconciliation League who was also proposed for the International Council, was not elected. We can now find representatives there from the Tolstoyan movement (P. Peter, Tchechoslovakia), the individualist anarchist movement (Eugène Lagot, France), the IAMB (Bart de Ligt, Netherlands), the IDP (Fenner Brockway, England), the Women’s League for Peace and Freedom (Olga Misar, Austria), the catholic Anti-militarist Youth (F. Rona), the religious socialists (Devere Allen, U.S.), etc.

At the same time Lord Ponsonby, who has succeeded Fenner Brockway as president of the WRI since a few years has strongly insisted (in response to Einstein’s defeatism) on the necessity maintaining an irreconcilable fight against war and war preparation for rational, moral and social reasons.

Followers of different religions, anarchists and socialists collaborate in the WRI even more than ever powerful and harmoniously together while it is clear that the organization generally increasingly moves to the left and that a brave and dauntless youth proves to be prepared to furhter go this route. The only thing that could be objected against the composition of the WRI is that there are no representatives of the coloured races. Even though it already has close connections with Japan, China and India, the International Council of the WRI is more the International of the white race. Wouldn’t it be better to expand the International Council in such way that the war resisters from other races also have their representatives in it? It is an issue that rises already in the circles of the WRI and that gives us high hopes that a solution will be found soon.

At the Welwyn Conference three very important speeches were given. First of all Reginald A. Reynolds spoke about ‘Pitfalls for Pacifists’. He firmly spoke out against any faith in the usefulness of any war for the defense of ‘democracy’, ‘the rights of small nations’, ‘the international justice’, ‘the League of Nations’, etc because this would only lead to a new August 1914.

He demonstrated the uselessness of the new differentiation between attacking and defending states, because under capitalism all states are in the end attackers. Reynolds also brought forward that the defense of the existing society has nothing to do with the defense of peace because this whole society is based on and maintained by war. It is the duty of the WRI to make the workers masses of the whole word aware of the fact that the only peace that is worthwile is peace by justice. That is to say that we must abandon to force onto others what one considers good for them, but that what is important is to create those conditions in which the masses themselves are able to realize their own destination.

In our times, Reynolds continued, all kinds of imperialisms swarm the whole world, with which war resisters cannot cooperate nor compromise. As long as the great mass of people is ruled by a minority the crime of imperialism will continue to exist. On top of that governments that don’t believe that the masses are capable of governing themselves, only look for allies amongst the ruling and exploiting classes.

Reynolds kept resisting the proposal to the delegates of the National Peace Congress in England that Bisshop Barnes had done to give Germany back its former colonies that are at the moment under British control, as that wouldsimply mean that the coloured peoples would be taken from under the yoke of British imperialism in order to put them under the yoke of the nazis. We demand, he continued, not just justice and freedom for ourselves but for all the other peoples of the world as well.

That means that we must break with all the traditional politics and old social validations. According to Reynolds the so-called Realpolitik is neiter practical nor realistic: and its consequences are nothing but war and misery. So a whole new meaning must be attributed to the ideas of Peace and Democracy, because in reality at the moment neither exists. They can only be maintained from the moment that they are real. That is why there is nothing to expect from Geneva, where diplomats try to maintain a society that is really based on war. At the same time the foreign policy of Soviet Russia must be condemned as it has become just as dangerous als that of the capitalist states.

The striving for cooperation and treaties on collective security as well as trying to define the ‘attacker’ has nothing to do with marxism. Reynolds condemns all measures that are meant to control armament internationally, as armament must be completely abolished. So he resists the formation of any police army of whatever kind in the service of the League of Nations. True war resisters have no faith at all in the traditional politics and diplomacy. –

The fact that this speech was very favorably met proves what we have already established above on the development of the WRI.

The second important speech was the one of A. Fenner Brockway on pacifism and class struggle. He as well observed how the current society is under the spell of violence and that -even in peace time- violence is its essence. Capitalism = war. Imperialism = domination and exploitation of classes and races. The class and race war is a necessary condition for the liberation of the oppressed. Capitalism finds itself in crisis today, and tries to maintain itself by fascist methods. According to Fenner Brockway is would be possible to vanquish fascism non-violently,

1. if the workers everywhere and in all professions were organized to control industry, and if they had prepared themselves methodically towards this end,

2. if they were capable to use the general strike effectively in order to break the fascist power,

3. if the armed power of the state refused to be weaponized against the people.

Everyone knows, Fenner Brockway continued, that we are still far from the realization of all that, that is to say that the opposition against capitalism, imperialism and fascism can not yet succeed without violence; and that the same is true for the mass opposition against a possible mobilization or war. Even Gandhi hasn’t succeeded to avoid every form of violence. The duty of all who reist violence and war is to participate with all their strength in the struggle for social justice in order to minimize violence, bloodshed and hatred. To achieve this, Brockway concluded, we must:

1. educate the masses in such way that they are increasingly capable to control and direct the economic life,

2. prepare a mindset in the world of the workers that creates the necessary unity and solidarity that is needed for the general strike,

3. attempt to win over the armed forces of the governments so that they cannot be relied upon.

There is one sad thing about this Welwyn Conference, although as a whole it went extremely well: that so much time was lost on discussing matters of secundary importance: two whole days were lost on reading out loud and translating reports on the 27 national chapters of the WRI (even though those are interesting enough) so that almost no time was left to discuss the so very important questions that the speeches of Reynolds and Fenner Brockway had raised. The remarks of Valentin Boelgakof, Albert de Jong and Bart de Ligt suggested what the discussion could have been like if only there had been more time left.

From an anti-militarist point of view it was a pity that the discussion on the social revolution and its methods of struggle could not be continued. The impression was raised that even the extreme left circles of the British war resisters are not aware of the most important evolutions in the revolutionary worldwide movement.

Although the British left wing of the WRI generally condemns every reformist tactic of the 2^nd International and the opportunistic politics of Moscou, it seems like it goes back and forth between the 2^nd and 3^rd International rather than defending its own pure revolutionary position. At best the ideas of Trotski are thought to be of interest, who in fact brings nothing new. In England they know almost nothing about the history of anarchism and syndicalism of the Spanish and Latin-Americans nor about the theories that have been elaborated by the international communists in Germany and Holland or those like who have been spread in France in the circles of ‘Ordre Nouveau’. Instead of taking the workers’ councils as building blocks of their action, which is essentially in accord with the ideas of self-government and self-development that are so characteristic of the English socialist mentality, and instead of breaking openly with the parliamentarian methods a large portion of our British comrades still advocate different forms of nationalization of economic life that can only result in state socialism. Without doubt even in bourgeois British circles there isn’t the centralist statism that is so typical of France nor the metaphysical worship of the state that is so typical of the German mind.

But if the socialist movement -instead of the workers themselves conquering the professions and companies- is intent on handing everything over into the hands of political rulers, the best that can be achieved is a bureaucratic system and a party dictatorship like the one in Russia today. In the social revolution it’s not about statism or nationalization but about socialization, which must be the work of the workers themselves in every aspect of human labour.

Of special interest at the Welwyn Conference was the clear striving for the establishing of a practical system for the whole anti-militarist struggle, especially amongst the youth that comprised more than half of the participants. That became especially clear after the speech by Bart de Ligt on the Battle Plan against War and War Preparation that was met with great enthousiasm. Wilfred Wellock immediately did all he could to ensure that this m-plan didn’t just remain a personal proposal but that it was in principle accepted by the organization. Indeed it was decided that the Plan should be given in study to the members of the International Council and the different chapters of the WRI to serve as a basis for a final Battle Plan of the WRI.

Eugène Lagot (France) also proposed to send the Plan to all the heads of all the pacifist and anti-militarist organizations of the world, and to officially bestow it upon the national and international chapters of the 2^nd and 3^rd International as well as to those of the IVV and of the red labour movement (Moscou).

In several countries preparations have started with the Battle Plan, like it was proposed in Welwyn: to spread it along with the comments on it – a prelimenary measure that was deemed necessary given the increasing danger of war and while awaiting the final Battle Plan.

In order to give the reader the opportunity to learn about the character and scope of the Battle Plan the IAP will publish it in whole.

The Welwyn Conference is a milestone in the history of the WRI.

OBSERVATOR