Here in the following my interview with Prof. Rudolph Bauer, social scientist from Bremen. I have just translated and published his essay “War Economy and Military State” into English. War is linked to capitalism and to its maxim that eternal growth is necessary to keep capitalism alive. And when a crisis occurs, war and war preparations are used to save or revive the system. Thus, as Bauer confirms in his interview, Marx is not dead, but lives on with his reflections on the subject of economics and war. How to take the step towards peace is clear: the interaction between war and the capitalist economy must be made conscious and interrupted philosophically and politically.
By Milena Rampoldi, ProMosaik.
ProMosaik: How relevant is Marx today when it comes to the interaction between economy and war?
Rudolph Bauer: Marx is dead. Since 1883. His method of analysis, however, is worth keeping alive and also being applied in the present. There are many reservations about this. On the one hand, because most of those who refer to Marx have misused his writings as a quarry for their dogmatic beliefs. And on the other hand, because Marxist analysis dissects and exposes the capitalist economic system and the role of the ruling power elite. As far as the relationship between economics, i.e. capitalist economics, and wars, i.e. imperialist wars, is concerned, the analysis developed by Marx and applicable to current conditions makes a number of important findings possible. First, we recognize that the capitalist system of profit economy regularly fails and results in dramatic crises. Secondly, the economic crises trigger political and social upheavals. Thirdly, wars are the way out of the capitalist crisis dilemma. This is shown by Marx’s historical-materialist analysis. No other theoretical approach can more aptly explain the wars of the present and their occurrence.
What do you think are the main steps towards today’s Germany as a country of warmongering?
“Today’s Germany” has a militaristic history, starting in the Prussian military state. After the First and Second World Wars, this tradition continued with the rearmament of the West German Federal Republic in the 1950s. This was followed by integration into the North Atlantic Pact and NATO. Further stages of militarization were after the 1989 annexation of the former GDR: the first foreign deployment of the Bundeswehr in Kosovo in 1999 and the German “defence on the Hindu Kush” in 2002. The current program of military aggression is based on the readiness for war and is directed against the Russian Federation.
Why are wars no longer ideologically conditioned? Or have they never been in history?
A distinction must be made between economic conditions and ideological reasons for wars. Wars are not ideological, but economic. During the 20th century, they were – and still are – a kind of way out and rescue attempt of the capitalist system from the crisis dilemma. However, wars need an ideological justification to camouflage their real motives. The political rulers and their propaganda agencies, not least the media, but also the ideology producers – schools, universities, churches, foundations, etc. – fuel the war delusion. They numb the population by frightening them. They bluster about “Western freedom”, which must be defended against “terror” or “the autocrats”. They use the ideological keyboard as an accompaniment to militarisation and war preparation.
What do you mean by the “crisis-induced turn to the war economy”?
Solved from the argumentative context, the formulation of the “crisis-induced turn to the war economy” sounds banal and trivial. Basically, we don’t find the right words. Because there can be no question of a simple “turn”. As a result of the economic contradictions, the political-economic system and its administrators are faced with the choice of going under or stimulating the declining industry in terms of the war economy. This, in turn, requires the establishment of a police and military state oppression regime, so that the rebellion is nipped in the bud if the population resists. The rulers see no other way out of the threat of mass unemployment and mass impoverishment due to the crisis than to force the youth into military service and to burn them at the front, to celebrate the “heroic death” of the “fallen” and to reduce the population through murderous war effects, hunger and diseases. They must destroy to rebuild the country and its infrastructure. That is, to exploit the working people again in a profit-maximizing manner during reconstruction. The alternative to war would be a non-capitalist economic order. But that would mean the end of exploitation and repression, the end of the super-wealth of the few and an end to the lie-based state power.
What is typically German about warmongering today and what stems from US imperialism?
In short, US imperialism is the driving force behind the hegemonically motivated madness of war and destruction. As a driving force, US imperialism determines both the preparations for war and the brutal events of war worldwide. US imperialism was also decisive in the rearmament of West Germany and in the Cold War. It is currently the driving force in the wars against the Russian Federation, against the populations of Palestine, the countries of West Asia, not least Iran. The US is politically and economically leading in NATO, in the EU and thus also in Germany – regardless of the ostensible differences between the Europeans and the current US president. “Typically German” is the reprint of the arrogant incitement against the “Russian subhuman” in the warmongering in this country. As in the Second World War, a hateful and blind megalomania proliferates in a disgusting way. The German pseudo-elite celebrates arms-loading armament (sales) fairs, approves arms deliveries all over the world. She arrogantly denies and forgets the history of the 27 million World War II deaths on Russian soil, as emaciated prisoners and foreign workers. All of this seems to have been forgotten. Or are we now witnessing the late revenge of the Germans after the surrender of 1945?
How much does Germany’s position on Israel influence Germany’s lack of peace policy today?
Germany’s policy towards Israel today is, on the one hand, characterised by Merkel’s misguided and disingenuous ‘reason of state’. Similarly, as the national community of the Nazi state was riveted together by Gestapo violence and Aryan anti-Semitism, the society of the Federal Republic draws its collective identity from the guilt complex of the criminal Nazi thugs and the mendacity of Zionist philosemitism. On the other hand, the lack of criticism of the fascist military and occupation policy of the State of Israel in a non-conscious, repressed way benefits the self-purification of the successor governments of Nazi Germany from any war and crime guilt. Israel provides the supposed proof that military operations and occupation are “normal” as proof of state power. Against this background, it can be explained that peace policy is not a concern of German politics. Anyone who positions themselves on the side of a state of expulsion and genocide, occupation and fascist electorate, how should they engage peacefully where an army allegedly defends itself in mere self-defense?
How can Germany find its path to peace?
I am convinced that the German government and the German state in their current militaristic-totalitarian state are not ready and able to take the path to peace. Walking this rocky path is a great challenge for people in Germany and in neighbouring European countries. They must resist. Only when the Germans and the other Europeans become aware of their situation and are willing to change the circumstances can an end to militarization and war delusions be imagined. Whether this is possible by means of reason and knowledge, against the incitement to war and the propaganda of the image of the enemy, remains to be doubted. But does it really have to be a military defeat again? Or is it the complete destruction of the countries and the destruction of the people of Germany and Europe in a nuclear war?