Laurie Aarons
Anti-war Perspectives
—A Communist View
P E R S P E C T IV E S for the anti-w ar m ovem ent have to be considered
against the background of the perspectives of continuing war and
preparations for w ar by the A ustralian ruling class and the im per­
ialist system of which it is part. Since the second world war,
A ustralian arm ed forces have taken p art in wars in K orea, M alaya,
V ietnam and Indo-C hina. M ore or less continuously, A ustralia
has been involved in m ilitary operations for 20 years. These
have all been im perialist in character and of a specific type —
wars fought in Asia, wars fought to m aintain colonialism, even
if in new forms.
Why is colonialism so im portant to im perialism ? The answer
to this question is vital in estim ating the future perspectives for
the anti-w ar m ovem ent. If colonialism is not decisive for im per­
ialism, then those people may be correct who say “The V ietnam
w ar was an error of judgm ent, a m istaken policy, by US adm inis­
trations” . It would be possible for m ore enlightened adm inistra­
tions to avoid sim ilar m istakes in the future. Indeed, this is
official A L P mythology, in which M r. W hitlam casts himself as
the best A ustralian friend of the U nited States, a counsellor to
the sane, h um anitarian p art of the US E stablishm ent, which
accidentally and with the best of m otives somehow slid into the
V ietnam morass.
This article’s thesis is that colonialism is essential to im perialism,
a condition of the latter’s existence. Since A ustralia is p a rt of
this system * we confront a continuing future of involvem ent in
I.au rie A arons is N ational Secretary of th e C om m unist P arty of A ustralia.
T h is article is based oil a p a p er su b m itted to th e N ational A nti-W ar C onfer­
ence h eld in Sydney F ebruary 17-21, 1971.
20
A U S T R A L IA N
LEFT R EV IEW — M A R C H , 1971
colonial wars and counter-insurgencies. T hese can be both
“o th er’s” wars and “o u r ow n” — a possible w ar against the devel­
oping national liberation m ovem ent in New G uinea.
Sukarno once described D utch im perialism as a giant snake
whose head devoured the resources of Indonesia, digesting and
shitting them out as gold in H olland. This is a valid description
of the world im perialist system which devours an increasing share
of the w orld’s natural and hum an resources. T he U nited States
alone consum es nearly half of the non-socialist w orld’s raw
m aterials — its oil, its m etals, even its food. Jap an , W est
G erm any, B ritain and a few o th er capitalist pow ers together consum e
most of the rest.
Excretion from this consum ption produces pollution, destruc­
tion of the environm ent in the consum ing countries. T his is
punishm ent for depletion and destruction of the environm ent in
the neo-colonial areas from which resources are extracted m erci­
lessly and with ever-increasing technological skill (as ConzincR io T into is doing so efficiently in Bougainville). A s though
this were not enough, the im perialist pow ers develop new tech­
niques of w ar which destroy the environm ent, as in the defoliation,
burning and m ass bom bing of V ietnam .
Im perialism and exploited countries, as the dialectical opposites
w tihin the unity — the capitalist w orld — have, of course, far m ore
com plex relationships. T hese include export of capital; partial
industrialisation of the colonies; political, cultural and ideological
relationships. B ut their sum total, their essence, is an unequal
relations hip, in which one dom inates, the o th er is oppressed; one
p r o f it lhe other is exploited. T his relationship is vital to one
side, to im perialism .
Because colonialism is so decisive for im perialism , new forms
of colonialism , dependence and exploitation have developed over
the past quarter-century. B ut underlying all these is the same
open, naked brute force by w hich the im perialist system was
established and m aintained over the last 300 years. A nd this
force is always used, w henever it appears to have a rem ote chance
of success. F orm s of this force m ay vary, from econom ic pressure,
bribery and flattery to coups engineered o r utilised by the C IA
or its equivalents. T he last reso rt is w ar, w hether declared or
not, usually one th a t begins as a civil w ar for liberation of the
country from a pro-im perialist ruling group.
Since 1945, the struggle betw een im perialism and its opponents
has not ceased. I t has b een b itter and bloody; it has n o t ended
and gives no sign of ending. A nalysing its results is n o t just a
21
recital of facile victories for the “progressive forces” . The Chinese
revolution was victorious, the greatest strategic defeat for im per­
ialism; the D em ocratic R epublic of V ietnam was founded; in K orea,
the A m erican arm ed forces suffered the deep traum a of their first
unsuccessful war, foreshadow ing the greater blow they have taken
and are still taking in Indo-C hina. In L atin A m erica, C uba has
decisively broken with im perialism ,; Chile, Bolivia and some other
nations are m oving tow ards confrontation of US dom ination.
As against this, im perialism has also scored successes. Their
biggest was Indonesia — others were, for exam ple, Iran, G uate­
m ala, the Congo, G hana, Brazil, D om inica, and there are others,
too. Besides these successes planned and w on by im perialism , the
anti-im perialist struggle has been affected by the serious differences
betw een the socialist countries, in the international com m unist
m ovem ent, and w ithin other anti-im perialist forces also.
Ju st the same, the world-wide struggle clearly runs against
im perialism . This is most dram atically show n in V ietnam , and
now the w hole of Indo-C hina, where the U nited States’ extension
of the w ar has only w orsened its m ilitary-political strategic
situation. W e have perhaps becom e too fam iliar with the
am azing tru th that all the m ight of US im perialism cannot win
victory in Indo-C hina. Indeed, the opposite is true; US aggression
there has been c o u n te rp ro d u c tiv e, accentuating all the internal
contradictions and antagonism s of A m erican society, including
growing m oral and political disintegration of the US arm ed forces
in V ietnam .
The astounding fact of the US failure in Indo-C hina is one
of the great realities of w orld politics today. It is striking proof
th at the world-wide national liberation revolutions are an irrevers­
ible historical feature of our times, affecting the whole course of
world developm ent. It is also tru e th a t the V ietnam ese and
Indo-C hina national revolutionary wars are succeeding only against
great odds. Im perialist barbarism , b o th technologically refined
and also directly m ediated by a total w ar policy which differs
little from N azi or Japanese “kill all, b urn all” strategy, is inflicting
a dreadful cost upon the people. T here is no m oral difference
between Lidice and M y Lai; even the inhum an theory of racist
superiority is no less strongly operative.
T he heroic achievem ents of the V ietnam ese people, their
strategic and m oral superiority, m ust not cause any relaxation
of action against the w ar and support for their struggle. It is
precisely the im perialist character of the US and its w ar which
leads to the stubborn search for new US strategies and tactics,
the latest being the so-called “V ietnam isation” . T his is an effort
22
A U S T R A L IA N LEFT R EV IEW — M A R C H , 1971
to rcduce US casualties while still searching for victory; it is the
latest in a chain of strategies which have had to be discarded.
This one, too, will lead to failure; but only given continued and
rising world-wide action against the war, in co-ordination with
the V ietnam ese people’s fight.
Stubborn persistence w ith aggression in V ietnam cannot be
explained only by efforts to “save face” , w hether by Eisenhow er,
Kennedy, Johnson or N ixon, except insofar as face-saving is
understood as essential to m aintaining im perialist dom ination.
F rom this flows the fu rth er conclusion th a t even ultim ate defeat
in Indo-C hina will not end the policies th a t led to the w ar there.
F o r these, too, are the product of the nature of im perialism , its
inner laws of developm ent and its dependence upon world power
and capacity to exploit beyond the boundaries of the im perialist
powers.
Continuing US reverses in Indo-C hina have forced an agonising
reappraisal of im perialist policy; and not only in the U nited States.
Japan, B ritain, A ustralia and other im perialist countries are also
forced to develop new policies. In these, every im perialist power
pushes its own interests as well as joining against the threat of
revolution. T he shape of these policies is alread y forming.
Japanese m onopoly capitalism , already em barking upon an econo­
mic im perialist expansion, is fast re-m ilitarising. U rged on by
the U nited States, it is searching, for political ways of dividing
and smashing popular opposition to all-out m ilitarisation, to force
through necessary changes in the C onstitution.
A new im perialist strategic concept is emerging, — the USJapanese alliance to dom inate the Pacific and m aintain im perialist
influence in Asia. U sing Japanese econom ic power and invest­
m ent, along with already-established A m erican econom ic influence
and political pow er, A u stralia is to be integrated econom ically
and m ilitarily in an im perialist “ Pacific T riangle” , Singapore and
M alaya are to rem ain im perialist bases, and m ilitary-fascist Indo­
nesia is to be built up as another p art of the im perialist chain.
The already close econom ic ties betw een B ritain, A ustralia and
South A frica are to be gradually developed into a political-m ilitary
alliance, starting with B ritish use of South A frican naval facilities.
Using as a pretext the alleged Soviet “pen etration” of the Indian
O cean, the real objective is to hold back the national liberation
revolutions in A sia, A frica and the M iddle E ast. T he hope is
to retain w ithin the im perialist system all those countries whose
resources and m arkets are so vital to im perialism .
T he A ustralian ruling class is vitally concerned in these plans,
econom ically and politically as well as ideologically. G orton’s
23
puerile posturings at the Singapore C om m onw ealth Conference are
explicable not just because he is a w hite suprem acist, fearful
of the colonial races. This is certainly true, b u t the causes lie
deeper, in the nature of m onopoly-capitalist A ustralia. A ustralia
is an industrialised capitalist country; it is a colonial pow er and
it also has im perialist econom ic aim s (while at the same tim e it is
dependent u p o n the vastly m ore pow erful Japanese and A m erican
capitalism s) A ustralian capitalism ’s econom ic and political aims
have inevitably developed in the context of O ceania and Asia;
they also have inevitable lim itations of econom ic, political and
m ilitary pow er. These have produced a specific A ustralian ruling
class ideology — racist, at once fearful and arrogant, and always
dependent u p o n a great im perialist pow er.
It is this dependence which has already led A u stralia into wars
and aggression in Asia; it has caused a w asteful and inflationary
m ilitary expenditure which am ounts to som e five thousand million
dollars over the past 20 years. This dependence has resulted in
establishm ent of secret A m erican m ilitary bases directly connected
with aggressive w ar plans. It has reduced A ustralia’s already
very lim ited capacity for independent initiative in foreign policy,
preventing, fo r exam ple, recognition of the People’s R epublic of
China. In 1964, this theory of dependence brought the M enzies
G overnm ent to the decision to intervene in V ietnam , first reintro­
ducing conscription to get th e force needed. T his decision,
announced in 1965, was m ade quite blithely, w ithout any fore­
bodings of its results — because it seem ed absurd to think of
anything b u t an easy victory once th e U n ited States was going
all-out.
F rom th a t fateful decision has com e a purposeful m ove tow ards
m ilitarisation of A ustralian society, tow ards increased authoritar­
ianism and repression of opposition. T h e poin t is th at this m ili­
tarisation and this repression are n o t accidental, b u t the result
both of the general ideology and deliberate policy of the LiberalC ountry P arty G overnm ent. N ot th at the governm ent expected the
opposition they got, to which their au thoritarianism is the classical
response. N or, for th a t m atter, did m ost activists in the anti-w ar
m ovem ent expect as m uch either, when they began the first dem on­
strations and propag an d a activity against the V ietnam w ar and
conscription.
T he anti-w ar m ovem ent has com e a long w ay since 1965; yet it
still has its m ain task ahead. This is true of the V ietnam w ar,
whose im pact transform ed the existing peace m ovem ent into the
m ore m ilitant anti-w ar m ovem ent w hich opposes n o t the general
th re at of w ar and nuclear w eapons, b u t a p articular w ar in
24
A U S T R A L IA N LEFT R EV IEW — M A R C H , 1971
which its own governm ent is accom plice and participant. Y et
the w ar and the killing still go on, and even beyond V ietnam the
pattern of a continuing im perialist strategy is em erging more
clearly. The anti-w ar m ovem ent is a response to this im perialist
strategy, and its b readth and vigour is an encouraging fact of
A ustralian political reality in a country where consciousness about
im perialism is neither high n o r widespread.
The character of this anti-w ar m ovem ent needs sober analysis
and thought, if its im m ediate and future tasks are to be tackled
and fulfilled. It is a coalition of social classes and political
trends. Its m ain mass base is am ong students and youth, but
it also draws im portant forces from industrial and w hite collar
w orkers, from m iddle and even upp er class groupings. Co-existing
within the coalition, co-operating in big actions like the M oratorium
cam paigns, are different political and ideological trends. A long with
C hristian and other pacifism , there are various revolutionary
marxist tendencies, and there is also a strong liberal-bourgeois
influence. L ab o r Party activists, left and centre, are involved in
the movem ent, and so are those of the A ustralia Party. There
are com m unists, m aoists, trotskyites, . anarchists and libertarians.
All of these contribute, in varying degrees, to the organisational
and propaganda w ork of the m ovem ent; all bring their ideas into
the movem ent and seek to influence its actions.
This diversity of ideas and influences give the m ovem ent its
breadth and its strength and its new quality as a vigorous, dem o­
cratic and genuinely non-exclusive m ovement. D iversity also raises
problem s and issues of great im portance for the m ovem ent’s future,
which needs to be exam ined and resolved in the course of action.
The following are views on som e of these questions.
The anti-war movement must be broad and non-exclusive.
In its very nature, which is its strength, the anti-w ar m ovem ent
must be open to all who oppose w ar and its consequences. The
m otivations for this opposition m ay be (and are) varied, ranging
from those who are opposed to all wars in principle (and this
means to national liberation wars, too); to those w ho are opposed
only to im perialist wars; those who think th a t the US w ar in
Vietnam is just a m istake in policy, an aberration inconsistent
with the rest of A m erican foreign policy. /All these views have
a place in the m ovem ent — objectively, since they are actually
there, and also subjectively, since they can play a p a rt in the
struggle against the actual w ar policy of the governm ent. It
should also be added th at people holding different views are also
capable of changing them u n d er' the im pact of experience and
25
action. This has in fact happened; the m ovem ent has reached
new levels of understanding and broad consensus about attitudes
to the N ational L iberation F ro n t and the Provisional R evolutionary
G overnm ent of South Vietnam .
A new question has come to the fore: should the m ovem ent be
confined to those who are consciously and directly anti-im perialist?
This p ap er has argued that the anti-w ar m ovem ent is the result
of im perialism and its policies, and th at the whole logic of its
action is tow ards a conscious anti-im perialist stance. However,
the m ovem ent should not exclude those who have not yet reached
this realisation, for this would reduce its sweep. H ere it is not
prim arily a question of leaders, ‘im portant people” ; it is above
all a m atter of m asses of people, w hose action is decisive and
whose ideas have to develop before they will act.
Still another question is discussed: should not the anti-w ar
m ovem ent be open only to revolutionaries, since the m ain cause
of w ar is im perialism and only revolution can destroy im perialism ?
Only those with a rigidly schem atic view of b o th revolution and of
internationalist responsibility to the V ietnam ese revolution would
advance this proposition. T he anti-w ar m ovem ent is a powerful
force in capitalist societies like A ustralia because it unites people
of widely differing views in form s of action against war, with
objectives that fall short of social revolution. It may be that
experience of the struggle against w ar will lead a m ovem ent to
revolutionary action. One probable approach to an A ustralian
revolutionary situation may well be through future defeats and
calam itous results of the im perialist policies followed by the A us­
tralian ruling class. A great deal of experience and action is
necessary before this can be envisaged as possible.
C oncretely and urgently, the fight to w ithdraw A ustralian troops
and oppose the V ietnam w ar is p art of this experience. R evolu­
tionaries w ho seek to confine the anti-w ar m ovem ent to those who
agree w ith them do no service either to the m ovem ent itself, or
to the A ustralian revolution.
C onnected with this whole area of difference but spreading
across the spectrum of protagonists of various ideas, are differences
about the m ovem ent’s tactics. These are wide and varied, but
they m ay be generalised into the following: advanced o r broad
actions; w ithin the “law ” as interpreted by the authorities, or
confronting the “law ” ; violent o r peaceful; should all action be
directed tow ards changing policy through parliam entary elections,
or are these quite irrelevant? T he m ovem ent’s experience has
throw n light upon and even answ ered some of these questions;
others rem ain. Since the authorities unleash violence w hen facing
26
A U S T R A L IA N LEFT R EV IEW — M A R C H , 1971
mass peaceful confrontation, the theory of “ provoking” violence
is som ew hat irrelevant, though still advanced by some.
T he m ovem ent has reached a general agreem ent that its ch ar­
acter is essentially extra-parliam entary, a m ovem ent of challenge,
seeking, to impose its will upon governm ents from outside, through
dem onstrations, strikes, m ass involvem ent. T here are still varied
attitudes to parliam entary elections, w hether these are seen as
the final answ er (sim plified, “ elect a L abor governm ent to end
A ustralia’s p art in the w ar”), or as an area of anti-w ar propaganda.
T he test for the theory of a L abor governm ent as the way to end
the w ar still lies ahead; this p ap er suggests that extra-parliam entary
action would rem ain decisive. It also suggests th at participation
in elections to m ake the w ar a political issue is necessary for
the anti-w ar m ovem ent, both as an entity and by the political
groupings which are p art of it.
T he argum ent about “advanced” and “bro ad ” actions continues,
with some from either side sticking to the exclusive view of “either
or” . In practice, the m ovem ent has developed both form s more
or less successfully, and practice proves th at advanced actions do
not detract from breadth. Indeed, were it not for advanced actions
the m ovem ent would not have developed, for the first dem on­
strations, five years or m ore ago, were all “ advanced” in the light
of mass opinion then. T hose who argue against advanced actions
“because public opinion is repelled” in fact condem n the m ovem ent
to lag behind m ass consciousness, when its task is above all to
lift m ass consciousness.
The m ain test of advanced actions is w hether they help to
develop broad and pow erful m ass actions. W hile there is room
for debate about w hether this o r th at advanced action helps or
hinders the m ovem ent’s b readth, the principle should be estab­
lished that advanced actions are essential and effective. Seam en’s
Union refusal to w ork Je p a rit and Boonaroo was an advanced
action, at the tim e viewed by some as too far out in front, although
it was a lim ited action. It is now seen as a turning point in
the struggle, an exam ple w hich should be repeated in o ther indus­
tries, adapted to their p articu lar conditions and situations.
Workers’ movement decisive: Stop Work to Stop the War.
A dvances m ade by the anti-w ar m ovem ent are real and even
inspiring, given its starting point. Y et only the com placent and
easily satisfied can be content with w hat has been achieved. This
is true for all areas of the m ovem ent, even for students and youth,
where the best results have been recorded. T he really decisive
area for concentration is the w orkers’ m ovem ent, where the prob-
iems are great and the need is for patient, persistent and studied
w ork to grapple with the obstacles to advance. These obstacles
are ideological, political and also tactical, and come to the h eart
of the tasks which have to be tackled if the m ovem ent is to
m ake a big new step forw ard in a m ass way. Tim e and space
allow only brief com m ents on some m ajor questions.
First, w hat are some of the m ain features in people’s thinking
which allow the country’s rulers to pursue the w ar of aggression
in V ietnam , and its general strategy of m ilitarism and hostility
to the national liberation revolutions in A sia (and in A frica and
L atin A m erica too, though these do not so directly impinge on
A ustralia)?
In m y opinion, the m ain ideological w eapon is racialism , mixed
with anti-com m unism . This is expressed in a m ore or less “ refined
and subtle” m anner in the slogans “Stop C hina’s Southw ard T hrust”
and “Fight them over there instead of fighting them here” . These
are the m ain catchcries of reactionary politicians, w hether they
are L iberal-C ountry Party, D L P, or some in the L ab o r Party.
They are also the stock-in-trade of the Nazis and other extreme
right groupings. W hat has to be understood is th at these slogans
have some appeal to all social strata, including the w orking class,
playing upon the m ost backw ard prejudices and fears, the result
of integration with values which have been inculcated into people’s
consciousness for generations and centuries.
M uch m ore effective ideological w ork and cam paigning, and
particularly m ore consistent effort, is needed to confront and
defeat these ideas. It becom es clear, from the m ouths of politicians
like D ickie and G orton, th at preservation of “W hite A ustralia”
and condem nation of “m ulti-racialism ” is going to be m ore and
m ore the trum p card of the im perialists. The U nited N ations
has designated 1971 as a year of action against racialism and
the anti-w ar m ovem ent and its com ponent parts should be active
in developing activity against the V ietnam war, which is a racist
w ar of genocide against an A sian people by the US and A ustralia
(and its racist character is not hidden by the use of some A sian
puppets as auxiliaries in the war).
It is easily seen how closely connected w ith the anti-w ar m ove­
m ent are other issues about which m ovem ents are developing: support
for the A borigines’ struggle for their rights as a people (they
are indigenous “non-C aucasians” who would be debarred from
im m igrating, but since they are here and exterm ination has failed,
the rulers hopefully w ant them to be “ assim ilated”); the developing
New G u in ea liberation m ovem ent w hich could becom e a central
28
A U S T R A L IA N LEFT REVIEW — M A R C H , 1971
issue for the anti-w ar m ovem ent and for all anti-im perialist A us­
tralians; real support for the anti-apartheid struggle in South
A frica, which is certain to becom e a key issue in A ustralian
political life.
This conference should discuss the actual experience of anti-w ar
activists in factory and w orkplace, analysing it and suggesting
ways to lift its level. S tructure of the unions and realities of
leadership in m any, dem and creative and dem ocratic m ethods
of work, based upon conviction, not relying upon top direction or
form al decisions. T he concept Stop Work to Stop the War will
not be realised unless there is a deeper conviction about two
things: that the w ar is w rong and deeply opposed to w orkers’
interests; that stopping w ork is an effective m eans of protesting and
forcing a change.
E xperience shows that only relatively few unions and w orkplaces
have adopted m ajority decisions to stop w ork in the tw o M o ra­
torium s. But in m any decisions w ere taken to support the right
of w orkers to leave the jobs, and to defend this right. Perhaps
this should be extended further, w orking for a b ro ad united appeal
from union activists for this type of lim ited action, as a step
tow ards full industry stoppages.
T he anti-w ar m ovem ent should aim at building a wide netw ork
of anti-w ar and anti-conscription com m ittees in the w orkplaces.
These should be serviced by specialised publicity directed to issues
of concern to w orkers, linking the anti-w ar struggle with the eco­
nomic, industrial and dem ocratic issues which w orkers face in
their w ork and struggles. These include w ar as one cause of
high prices and inflation; taxation; the effects of war, w ar p rep ara­
tions and m ilitarisation upon all areas of social life, m aterial and
moral. Special publicity should be issued to im m igrant w orkers,
in various languages.
Those industries directly related to the w ar could be selected
for special concentration, all the m ore because these are so often
offshoots of m ulti-national corporations, usually dom inated by US
corporations. W hile actions from outside are useful, the m ain need
is to develop activists within. Persistence and patience are im port­
ant in this, as in the industrial field as a whole. C reation of a
substantial core of anti-w ar activists in industry and the unions
should be first priority of the m ovem ent, if it is serious in m oving
a new stage of m ass involvem ent and challenge to the war
policy.
The m ain responsibility for tackling this task m ust certainly be
shouldered by the anti-w ar activists within the w orkers’ m ove­
29
m ent, and this m eans first the left. The left in the w orkers’
m ovem ent has a proud tradition of fighting for internationalism .
T his trad itio n m ust be updated and developed in the new condi­
tions of a perm anent direct and growing involvem ent of
A ustralia in im perialist wars and strategy. A bolder, m ore fearless
and principled stand has to be tak en by everyone who stands on
the left in the w orkers’ m ovem ent. O therw ise, all the struggles
for im proved conditions and w orkers’ dem ands will be sw am ped
in the m ilitarist offensive.
Specific problem s bringing the w orkers’ m ovem ent directly into
the anti-w ar struggle raise some general issues for the m ovem ent
as a whole. O ne is the need for grass roots activity wherever
people live, w ork, are socially active o r can be reached. C entral
dem onstrations, big or small; m eetings, rallies, speeches, talk-ins,
debates; publicity, posters and new spapers — all are essential
features of the movem ent. E qually im portant are the less spec­
tacular and apparently hum drum actions of talking to people
individually, through canvassing or o th er ways; decentralising the
m ovem ent’s activities and bringing them directly into the lives of
people everywhere.
Two other issues advanced for discussion are: establishm ent of
close relations with the Japanese anti-w ar m ovem ent and develop­
m ent of a m ass cam paign against Pine G ap and other secret US
m ilitary bases in A ustralia. E nough has been said here about
the special significance of Jap an for im perialist strategy and for
A ustralia. The tw o anti-w ar m ovem ents should com e closer to
fight against full-scale revival of Jap an ese m ilitary im perialism .
This is probably m ore im portant for the A ustralian than the
Japanese, b u t the Japanese m ovem ent is also interested in co­
operation and co-ordination, against the V ietnam w ar as against
Japanese m ilitarism . Pine G ap, other existing bases and possible
future installations should be vigorously opposed and cam paigned
against, by public exposure, advanced actions and w orking tow ards
a m ass dem and for their rem oval.
Perspectives for th e anti-w ar m ovem ent, to sum up, are a p ro ­
bably long and certainly b itter struggle against a pow erful and
entrenched enem y, im perialism , which generates and needs war.
T here is n o short or easy p ath to victory in the struggle and all
possible forces m ust be draw n into th e fight and m any-sided
tactics and m ethods of action em ployed. Y et the past few years
have shown th a t the anti-w ar m ovem ent is advancing to the
centre of A ustralian political struggle and can generate mass
enthusiasm and com m itm ent in face of its opponents, despite their
apparen t superiority in control and m aterial power.
30
A U S T R A L IA N LEFT R EV IEW — M A R C H , 1971