We only need to bring a clear principle into political judgments. If the threat of war causes the United States to commit the major part of the excess to military manufactures, it will be useless to still speak of a peaceful evolution: In actual fact, war is bound to occur. Mankind will move peacefully toward a a general resolution of its problems only if this threat causes the U.S. to assign a large share of the excess -deliberately and without return -to raising the global standard of living, economic activity thus giving the surplus energy produced an outlet other than war. It is no longer a matter of saying that the lack of disarmament means war; but American policy hesitates between two paths: Either rearm Europe with the help of a new lend-lease, or use, at least partially, the Marshall Plan for equipping it militarily. Disarmament under the present conditions is a propaganda theme; by no means is it a way out. But if the Americans abandon the specific character of the Marshall Plan, the idea of using a large share of the surplus for nonmilitary ends, this surplus will explode exactly where they will have decided it would. At the moment of explosion it will be possible to say that the policy of the Soviets made the disaster inevitable. The consolation will be not only absurd but false as well. It needs to be stated, here and now, that, on the contrary, to leave war as the only outlet for the excess of forces: produced is to accept responsibility for that result. It is true that the USSR is putting America through a difficult trial. But what would this world be like if the USSR were not there to wake it up, test it and force it to "change"?
I have presented the inescapable consequences of a precipitous armament, but this in no way argues for a disarmament, the very idea of which is unreal. A disarmament is so far from being a possibility that one cannot even imagine the effects it would have. To suggest that this world be given a rest is fatuous in the extreme. Rest and sleep could only be, at best, a preliminary to war. Only a dynamic peace answers a crying need for change. It is the only formula that can be opposed to the revolutionary determination of the Soviets. And dynamic peace assumes that their resolute determination will maintain the threat of war; it means the arming of opposite camps.
- Georges Bataille (from the book "The Accursed Share" which is part of a series of books about escaping Capitalism)