A growing percentage of the U.S. population opposes foreign wars and occupations. Of late, some of this sentiment has taken the form of “isolationism,” or the “non-interventionism” espoused by libertarian Ron Paul.
Isolationism is a doctrine that holds that a nation should abstain from involvement in foreign affairs. There are varying degrees of isolationism, from those who advocate for a complete withdrawal from treaties and trade agreements, to those who emphasize the withdrawal of troops from foreign countries and conflicts unrelated to “national security.”
The principle of non-intervention is of course better for the people of the world than imperialist wars—whether waged in their blatant or more “humanitarian” forms. Socialists, too, demand that U.S. military bases be immediately closed and all troops be returned from Afghanistan, and also oppose intervention in Syria or Iran.
But the libertarian foreign policy is very different from that of socialists.
Libertarians oppose intervention not out of solidarity with oppressed peoples around the world, but out of “America First” patriotism. This encourages workers to think of themselves first as “Americans,” who have more in common with the 1 percent than the 99 percent around the globe. For example, Ron Paul advocates for bringing the troops home from Afghanistan—in order to increase troop presence along the U.S.-Mexico border, aiming the guns at workers from Latin America. He supports neoliberal free-trade policies that devastate workers in other countries and only serve Wall Street.
Paul repeats the lie that U.S. foreign policy is “trying to make the world safe for democracy”—he just thinks the country shouldn’t be so generous! The libertarians’ opposition to intervention often comes with a heavy dose of national chauvinism, complaining that Washington wastes money trying to “build” countries that aren’t capable of governing themselves.
A revolutionary alternative
Isolationism under capitalism, particularly in its imperialist phase, is actually impossible. Marx wrote that “the tendency to create the world market is directly given in the concept of capital itself.” [Emphasis in the original.] The U.S. capitalists’ non-stop appetite for resources and markets abroad produces constant war and other forms of aggression against foreign capitalists and governments that get in their way. This tendency toward militarism cannot be stopped by electing a different policymaker—it requires a new system.
Like capital, the working class is a global force and derives its power from its international character. This is what is expressed in the slogan “The workers’ struggle has no borders.” Throughout history, struggles by workers in one country have inspired struggles in others.
The French Revolution helped kick-start the Haitian Revolution, which in turn inspired slave resistance and revolt across the Americas. The Russian Revolution gave assistance to revolutionary Cuba, which in turn aided the struggle against apartheid South Africa in Angola. The revolutions in China and Korea were closely linked with mutual support.
Just last year, in February 2011, when workers and students occupied the capitol building in Madison, Wisc., they were inspired by the Egyptian revolution, as shown by the signs they held in solidarity with protesters in Tahrir Square. As an expression of mutual solidarity, Egyptian protesters ordered pizza for those occupying the capitol building in Wisconsin.
Revolutionary internationalism is the way forward for the working class. For activists and revolutionaries in the United States, that means two things: 1) opposing our own capitalist class’s version of “internationalism,” which consists of imperialist plunder, war and the subjugation of other nations, and 2) recognizing that our true common cause is with the billions of working and oppressed people around the world.
