Earlier this year, Internationalism received copies of two leaflets distributed by the Toronto based Red and Black Notes at the anti-war demonstrations of last winter. In an effort to develop a constructive process of debate and criticism among the various tendencies in the “proletarian political milieu” (PPM) in North America, we have responded to these two leaflets with the letter that we reproduce below. The ICC has always said that the advancement of revolutionary theory can only occur as a result of open and constructive debate within the PPM. We publish our response in an effort to contribute, however modestly, to this process, a process that is an essential precondition for the eventual construction of a proletarian class party. As readers will see, although we salute the internationalist frame of Red and Black Notes’ leaflets and express our agreement on many fundamental points, we also advance some important criticisms and disagreements. This is different from the behavior of some groups in the milieu, who often seem to “flatter” new and emerging groups in order perhaps to curry their favor, rather than point out honestly and unambiguosly their errors and mistakes. If we are upfront in expressing our disagreements with some of the formulations in Red and Black Notes’ leaflets, this not done out of any desire to be sectarian. Rather, debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of the PPM, its dialectical motivation to advance and develop. Nevertheless, even if we ultimately conclude that there is much more that unites our perspectives than divides them, we still have the responsibility as revolutionaries to see that our differences confront one another openely and clearly so that mistaken ideas may be discarded, correct positions may be reaffirmed and new syntheses produced in the light of criticism. We encourage all other groups in the milieu to embrace this work fully as well. This is in the tradition of all the great revolutionaries of the past and is the necessary condition for our success in the future.
Full copies of Red and Black Note’s leaflets may be obtained by contacting them at:
Red and Black Notes
Po Box 47643
Don Mills, ON
M3C 3S7 Canada
https://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/ [2]
Dear Comrade:
We have discussed the two leaflets you prepared and distributed at the Toronto anti-war demonstrations during the lead-up to the recent war in Iraq (“A Plague on Both Your Houses” and “No War But the Class War”). In the spirit of open debate, we would like to take this opportunity to share with you some comments and criticisms.
First, we want to salute the effort you have made to distribute these leaflets at the recent demonstrations. Your intervention was undoubtedly quite out-of-step with the main themes of these demonstrations, which in our analysis were all situated well within the realm of bourgeois politics. Your defense of proletarian internationalism in the face of both the official bourgeois pacifism of the demonstrations, as well as all the accompanying leftist calls to defend one imperialism against another, clearly demonstrate your desire to defend a working-class perspective on war in this historical period. In particular, your denunciations of the Trotskyists and leftists were to the point. For example, in " A Plague on Both Your Houses" you write, "For others on the left, it's about defending imperialism. This has led some, most notable the Trotskyists, to claim opposition to imperialism in this conflict means support to Iraq in the hopes of bloodying the nose of the 'main' imperialist power (…) While sounding radical, the position is essentially a lesser-evilism. (…) Capitalism is a world system, and the wars it generates are wars between the greater and the lesser imperialist powers for the right to exploit and rule. Yesterday's national liberation movements fighting against imperialism are today's exploiters of labour and tomorrow's allies of larger powers. (…) We will not choose between the greater and the lesser powers.
Moreover, your denunciations of all the belligerent parties of World War II, or as you call it the “second imperialist world war,” shows a stern refusal to fall for the bourgeois ideological justification for this war, that of defending “democracy” against fascism, a call that was repeated throughout the twentieth century not only by the official parties of bourgeois order, but also the Stalinists, Trotskyists and many anarchist currents as well; and which is being deployed in full force by the world bourgeoisie today. For us, and—as it would appear from your leaflet—for you as well, the proletariat had no side to choose in this war either. The following passage from " A Plague on Both Your Houses" demonstrates this internationalist commitment particularly well, "The second imperialist world war between 1939 and 1945 claimed tens of millions of lives. But the 'peace' that followed it also claimed untold millions of lives across the globe, as capital has engaged in low level, and sometimes not so low level wars to preserve the imperialist 'peace.' It is the peace of the grave. The only way to stop war is to uproot the capitalist system."
We believe that whether openly fascist or cloaking itself in democratic verbiage, all factions of the ruling class have been equally reactionary since the entry of capitalism into its decadent phase at some point early last century. The rejection of the defense of “democracy” is for us a key component of any attempt to defend a proletarian perspective today. We thus think that your leaflet might have been made stronger if you expressly argued that the proletariat never has any interest in taking sides between different fractions of the bourgeoisie, that there are no circumstances in which a tactical exception should be made to a “united front” policy, no matter what the ideological justification.
Moreover, despite our agreement with your leaflets’ internationalist framework we do find a number of instances in which our analysis of the Iraq war differs from yours to some degree. For example, you seemed to argue that the main reason behind the war is to be found in the US’s failing economy. By going to war, you seem to say, the American bourgeoisie was seeking some sort of “shot in the arm” for its current economic woes. In a Plague on Both Your Houses" you write, for example, "While few in the Bush administration argue that the war will revitalize the sagging US economy, it is precisely that economy which is pushing the US toward war. Trillions of dollars of debt, a stock market bubble that is about to burst and a plunging US dollar, make a war to secure massive oil reserves, and a commodity which is paid for in dollars an irresistible prize."
These assertions seem to go down the same path as the IBRP's, which argues that by taking over Iraq’s vital oil reserves, the American bourgeoisie is seeking to safeguard the international oil trade in dollars against the encroachment of the Euro. While we agree that oil is an important strategic commodity in the world economy and an important pawn on the inter-imperialist chess board, we do not think that the US decided to go to war to gain control of Iraq’s oil reserves out of any immediate intention to improve its economy, to reap super-profits or to combat the challenge of a currency-war between mounted by the European Union.
In our view, the decision to invade Iraq was the latest in a long series of military interventions that the US has been compelled to make stretching back to the First Gulf War and the collapse of the old Eastern bloc. Essentially, since the collapse of its Cold War rival, the Western bloc has ceased to have a raison d’être. Since this time, what we have witnessed are all the second and third-rate imperialisms that used to follow “bloc discipline” challenging more and more the leadership of the old bloc hegemon, the US. Faced with the collapse of bloc discipline, but still the world’s only superpower, the US has since been forced to engage in direct displays of its military power, as an attempt to keep its erstwhile allies in line. What we witnessed in the lead-up to the war in Iraq only confirms this analysis with France, Germany and Russia—the powers with the most to loose from a US take over of Iraq—protesting the loudest. In this sense, the importance of oil in this war is to be found more on the strategic level—with the US now strengthening its military presence in an area of the world upon which Europe and Japan are depended for oil—rather than for any immediate quest to reinvigorate a struggling economy. You seem to hint in the direction of our analysis, for example in "A Plague on Both Your Houses", "While the US's erstwhile European allies are expressing reluctance, it is only because they see the US's actions as a way to strengthen its position relative to their own through the seizure of Iraqi oil and the establishment of a semi-permanent US base in Iraq;" and again in " No War But the Class War!" "For France has its own reasons for opposing the US, and they have little to do concern for the Iraqi people; rather, they concern the French imperialist state's position vis-à-vis the US." Nevertheless, it does seem as if you never quite get away from the idea, mistaken in our view, that this war was about the US economy itself, or a currency rivalry between the US dollar and the Euro.
In fact, as we have shown in our press, the US intervention in Iraq can only have a negative effect on the latter’s economy forcing it to attack the living and working conditions of the working class even harder. We think that your leaflets' analysis of the origins of the war, with its focus on immediate economic factors, leads you towards some false predictions which underestimate the gravity of imperialist rivalries at this historic juncture as well as the primacy of strategic considerations in the international relations between states: i.e. the idea that the European powers would jump in and participate in the war along with the US. For example, in "A Plague on Both Your Houses," you write, "Nevertheless, the reluctant allies will likely get on board because they fear the US will go ahead and they will be left out in the cold."
For the most part, this wasn’t the case, because for countries like France, Germany and Russia had just too much to loose if the US were to strengthen its grip in the Middle East with a direct military presence in Iraq. In fact, as we wrote in our press, part of the American bourgeoisie's strategy in the lead up to the war in Iraq was precisely to raise the ante in its confrontation with its erstwhile allies by picking a fight with which these countries could not even pretend go along, and thus forcing the confrontation between the US and countries like Germany and France into the open. On the other hand, the idea that there is an emerging confrontation between a US led-bloc and a new bloc based on the European Union—a possible conclusion of seeing the war as the result of a confrontation between the dollar and the Euro—is for us a bit premature. While this may appear to be the case on the surface—and this is often how the bourgeois media on both sides of the Atlantic presents it—for the most part, however, we think the EU is little more than a sad fiction when it comes to exhibiting a united foreign policy. This was also confirmed by the lead up to the Iraq war, with a number of European countries supporting the US policy against German and French opposition.
On another level, we also feel that your leaflets tended to overestimate the current balance of class forces on the global level. As such, your calls for workers to engage in direct action tactics like sit downs and go slows against the war seems to us to be both premature and unrealistic. For example, you write in "No War But The Class War!," "And while only a full-scale break with capitalism can create a new world, resistance can be practiced on multiple levels: absenteeism, informal work to rule actions ("go-slows"), even occupations and creative industrial repairs."
While calls for workers to reject the war are perfectly legitimate in the historic sense and perfectly in line with an internationalist denunciation of imperialist war, we think it is important not to fall into the illusion of thinking the "revolution is right around the corner" today, or that a massive working class struggle against the war is likely on the immediate agenda. What we are seeing today is that much of the global proletariat is still struggling to recover its class identity after the collapse of the Soviet-bloc and all the accompanying calls of the “death of communism” and the "disappearance of the working class”. What we are witnessing now is a process of the "subterranean maturation” of consciousness in the class, where through its daily struggles against capitalist exploitation and the intensification of the austerity measures—which the bourgeoisie is compelled to impose faced with a permanent global economic crisis—the proletariat is slowly coming to recognize the connection between the drive to war and the capitalist system itself.
We think it is through these daily struggles at the point of production, on its own class terrain, where the working-class can recover its class identity and come to possess a revolutionary consciousness of the need to destroy the capitalist state and build a new society. That is why in our intervention we called on workers not to abandon their economic struggles in the face of war, not to allow either war or pacifist propaganda to distract them from the class struggle. We felt there was some tendency in your leaflets to call on the working-class to engage in an immediate “political” struggle against the war. For example, you argue in "No War But the Class War!," "If actions against the war were significant and the battle in Iraq does not go smoothly, it could provoke the kind of break down in authority in the armed forces as was seen in Vietnam: desertions, mutinies and a concern for one's own survival over that of the unit. Were these conditions to take shape, the imperialist war might well begin to resemble a civil war."
Once again, while this is a perfectly legitimate call as part of a general internationalist political line, it is, in our view, important not to fall into the trap of endorsing the idea of a "working-class anti-war movement", in today's context. For us, revolutionary class-consciousness can only rise from a unity of the economic and political aspects of the class struggle, and this is a process that unfolds in an historic and political context on the global level. Today, the conditions are not such that we are likely to see the type of movement you seemed to call for in your leaflets, and as such these calls could end up legitimizing the idea of "working class pacifism." This could possibly end up inadvertently reinforcing the bourgeois anti-war movement. Once again, this does not mean that revolutionaries should cease to call on the class to resist the war simply because it is not, at the moment, a realistic prospect; we only mean to point out that it is crucial to avoid the temptation towards an immediatist euphoria based on some isolated instances of workers appearing to struggle against with the war, such as demoralized troops criticizing their commanders or workers refusing to load trains and ships with war supplies. Many of these actions occurred on the terrain of the capitalist unions, while others were perfectly in line with the policy of certain fractions of the national bourgeoisie. While we would be among the first to salute such actions, were they to take place on the class's own terrain, we think it crucial to always keep the historic context in mind, avoid any temptation towards immediatism and try to analyze such events with a critical eye to situating them in a global context. We do not think there is a difference of principle between Red and Black Notes and ourselves on the internationalist and revolutionary defeatist framework of our intervention towards the class, but we think your leaflets may contain a certain overestimation of the reality of the class struggle at this juncture. While the historic course towards decisive class confrontations remains open, the proletariat still confronts major difficulties in finding its own class terrain in the period ahead.
Despite these differences and criticisms, we nevertheless fully support the internationalist and proletarian basis of your intervention and extend our full solidarity with your effort. We look forward to further correspondence in the future and would welcome any comments or criticisms you may have of the recent issues of Internationalism we have sent you, or correspondence on any other political question.
Communist Greetings,
Internationalism
Six months ago when US imperialism began its invasion of Iraq the ICC predicted that "far from resolving the crisis of American leadership, the current war can only take it to new levels"(Resolution on the International Situation, Point 11, 15th Congress of the ICC, March 2003). We said that the war in Iraq would lead to growing instability in the Middle East - in Iraq and Israel/Palestine in particular, that Iraq would become a quagmire for US imperialism, that far from solving the problems of the challenge to its imperialist hegemony, the US would face increasing difficulties throughout the world, and that the war would aggravate the economic crisis facing the American bourgeoisie at home. Events in Iraq (see Iraq: A Quagmire for US Imperialism, p.4), in Israel/Palestine (see p.5) have amply confirmed these predictions. Because events happen so quickly in the current period, it is critically important to understand the framework in which these events occur. There are perhaps six key elements to keep in mind: the impct of capitalist decomposition on imperialist tensions; the strategic response of US imperialism to the growing challenges to its hegemony; the contradictory impact of this strategy; the irrationality of war in the period of capitalist decadence, particularly in its phase of decomposition; the simultaneous existence of a tendency towards the formation of new blocs and the countervailing tendency of capitalist decomposition hindering the formation of blocs in the current period; and the acceleration of history.
The social impasse in the class struggle caused by the inability of the ruling class to impose its solution to the global economic crisis that emerged in the late 1960s - imperialist world war- and the inability of the proletariat to impose its solution - world revolution-triggered the onset of the decomposition of the capitalist system. One of the central manifestations of this decomposition was the collapse of Russian imperialism at the end of the 1980s.The breakdown of the bloc system in place since the end of World War II, as we have demonstrated often in various texts, ushered in a growing tendency towards chaos on the international level. The cement that had held nations together in the blocs, forcing them to subordinate their own narrow imperialist appetites for the good of the bloc in the confrontation with its rival - to accept the discipline imposed by the bloc leader - crumbled into dust during the 1990s. Each nation, no matter how insignificant its economic, political or military stature, was emboldened to increasingly play its own card on the imperialist terrain, to scheme for expansion at the expense of rivals, in a way that was unheard of for half a century during the cold war.
This tendency of "each for himself" on the imperialist level had drastic consequences for American imperialism, the nominal victor in the cold war, when Russian imperialism imploded in the beginning of the 1990s, because it signaled the emergence of a general tendency towards unprecedented challenges to US domination and hegemony emanating from its erstwhile allies. For half a century, US imperialist policy makers expected and received general obedience from its bloc members, even for decisions that were taken unilaterally in Washington. US imperialism became accustomed to blowing the whistle and everyone would fall in line, but now US imperialism would blow the whistle and its old allies would fall into line reluctantly, petulantly, or increasingly would not even listen. The American triumph in the cold war increasingly seemed to be a hollow victory. one that had opened a period of serious difficulties for American imperialism.
The response to this growing crisis of US leadership led to a readjustment of American imperialist strategy during the 1990s. "Faced with the collapse of the rival Russian bloc at the end of the 80s, and with the rapid unraveling of its own Western bloc, US imperialism formulated a strategic plan which has, in the ensuing decade, revealed itself more and more openly. Confirmed as the only remaining superpower, the USA would do everything in its power to ensure that no new superpower - in reality no new imperialist bloc - could arise to challenge its 'New World Order'.(Resolution on the International Situation, Point 4, 15th Congress of the ICC, March 2003)
The Gulf War of 1991, triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a development which resulted from a cynical US manipulation of Saddam Hussein, in which the American ambassador to Iraq induced Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait by giving an apparent green light to the invasion with an assurance that the US would not intervene in a border conflict "between Arab brothers," was designed by Washington to warn those who would challenge its hegemony in the post-cold war epoch and press-gang other powers into endorsing its military action, shouldering considerable financial burden of the war, and at the same time reminding those powers that the US was the world's only superpower and would call the shots in the "New World Order."
Illustrating another central characteristic of the current period, this successful imperialist offensive by US imperialism proved to be short-lived, provoking increasing resistance from its former allies, as German, French and even British imperialism challenged the US in the Balkans under the umbrella of UN legitimacy. As the Resolution pointed out:
"the more it sought to discipline its former allies, the more it provoked resistance and hostility, and the less able it was to recruit them for militaryoperations which they knew were ultimately aimed against them. Thus the phenomenon of the US being increasingly obliged to 'go it alone' in its adventures, relying less and less on 'legal' international structures such as the UN and NATO, which more and more functioned as obstacles to the US's plans."(International Situation Resolution, Point 5)
In this sense, the imperialist terrain is defined by growing chaos in international relations, deepening challenges to American domination, to which the US feels compelled to respond with the exercise of military power, more and more on its own (except with the support of a badly divided British bourgeoisie), which is always successful because of its massive military superiority, but quickly provokes increased resistance, aggravates the international situation and leads to renewed difficulties and challenges to its imperialist power. Whatever victories US imperialism achieves in this epoch, they are temporary and of increasingly short duration, before the onset of a new aggravated crisis.
Another important aspect of the framework of the current period is the irrationality of war in decadence, particular in its period of decomposition:
"The period of decomposition shows more clearly than ever the irratioinality of war in decadence - the tendency of its destructive dynamic to become autonomous and increasingly at variance with the logic of profit.The wars of decadence, unlike he wars of ascendancy, do not make economic sense. Contrary to the view that war is 'good' for the health of the economy, war today both expresses and aggravates its incurable sickness..
"War is the ruin of capital - both a product of its decline and a factor in its acceleration. The development of a bloated war economy does not offer a solution to the crisis of capitalism, as certain elements of the Italian Fraction thought in the 1930s. The war economy does not exist for itself but because capitalism in decadence is obliged to go through war after war after war, and to increasingly subsume the entire economy to the needs of war. This creates a tremendous drain on the economy because arms expenditure is fundamentally sterile. In this sense the collapse of the Russian bloc gives us a glimpse into the future of capital since the inability to sustain an ever-accelerating arms race was one of the key factors in its demise. And although this was a result deliberately pursued by the US bloc, today the USA itself is moving towards a comparable situation, even if it is at a slower pace. The present war in the Gulf, and more generally the whole 'war against terror' is linked to a vast increase of arms spending designed to totally eclipse the arms budgets of the rest of the world combined. But the damage that this insane project will inflict on the US economy is incalculable." (Point 20)
This understanding arms us against following prey to vulgar materialist errors of looking for crass economic motives in the unleashing of war in this period, a mistake made by various left communist and libertarian groups who see the war in Iraq as undertaken to boost oil profits of American corporations. In this sense the resolution noted:
"US military action there is not carried out on behalf of the oil companies: the oil companies are only allowed to get their pay off provided they fit in with the overall streategic plan, which includes the ability to shut off oil supplies to America's potetial enemies and thus throttle any military challenge before it begins. Germany and Japan in particular are far more dependent on Middle East oil than the USA."(Point 7)
Even in the short span of the past six months the total falsity of this mistaken view is apparent. The costs of the war is currently running $4 billion a month, and increasing sharply in the months ahead, far outweighs any boost in oil profits imaginable. If American imperialism's decision making policy on war were driven strictly by a crass balance sheet calculation, even Pres. Bush would have the decision to refrain from the invasion. The unfolding of events confirms our position that it is the geopolitical imperialist strategy of the US, which sees oil as a strategic commodity and in which the current US offensive in the Middle East and Central Asia strengthens Washington's ability to put pressure on Japan and especially on Europe, that explains why from the American point of view the disastrous economic costs of the war are worth the risks.
Yet another significant element in this framework is the recognition of the constant tension between the tendency towards the constitution of new imperialist blocs and the countervailing tendency for each country to defend its own immediate interest.
"The resistance to US plans by an alliance between France, Germany, Russia and China shows that, faced with the massive superiority of the US, its main rivals have no choice but to band together against it. This confirms that the tendency towards the constitution of new imperialist blocs remains a real factor in the current situation. But it would be a mistake to confuse a tendency with an accomplished fact, above all because in the period of capitalist decomposition, the movement towards the formation of new blocs is being constantly obstructed by the counter-tendency for each country to defend its own immediate national interests above all else-by the tendency towards every man for himself."(Point 9)
Despite the fact that France, Germany, Russia and China could join together with varying degrees of resolve in opposing the US war plan last spring, in no way has this led to any acceleration of the process of bloc formation. With the war a fait accompli, the opponents of US imperialism moderated the venom of the verbal attacks on the US and made themselves open to some form of accommodation. China, for example, cooperated with the US in discussions with North Korea on the question of that country's nuclear program, even if China's position is not identical to the US.
Likewise, while Blair continues to make Britain Washington's strongest ally, the discomfort within the British bourgeoisie and the growing criticism of the Blair administration only confirms the resolution's prediction six months ago that "there is a growing unease with being too closely associated with US adventurism. The quagmire now developing in Iraq can only strengthen this unease." (Point 10)
As capitalism's global crisis has deepened in the past three decades, we have witnessed an acceleration of history, a tendency for events to unfold more quickly, for the intervals between open recessions for example to shorten, or between state attacks on the workers standard of living. In regard to US imperialism's difficulties in protecting its domination, this tendency has meant that the length of time between Washington's successes and the new challenges and difficulties it faces appears to shrink, aggravating the sense of crisis of leadership as perceived by the US, and accelerating still further the process by which world capitalism pushes humanity closer and closer to the abyss of barbarism.--JG
Iraq has indeed become a quagmire for American imperialism, perhaps even worse than might have been expected. The relatively quick military victory achieved by the US military has proven impossible to consolidate. More American troops have been killed after an end to hostilities was triumphantly decreed by Pres. Bush in May than during the open warfare itself. US occupying forces have proved incapable of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure or restoring any semblance of security, or vital services such as water, electricity or petroleum supplies to the population. The occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, which was supposed to be funded by profits from the renewed flow of Iraqi oil under American control, now requires an emergency budget allocation of an additional $87 billion that will send the US budget deficit soaring.
Before the war the American propaganda machine cooked up all sorts of fairy tales about links between Saddam's regime and Bin Laden's al Qaeda but these have been demonstrated to be utterly false. However, in the aftermath of the American "victory" there is considerable evidence that al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have now entered Iraq to engage in attacks against US occupation forces. The invasion that was supposedly designed to eliminate an imaginary al Qaeda terrorist threat in Iraq has on the contrary now served to facilitate the emergence of such a threat in that country where it didn't previously exist.
Despite propagandistic predictions that the Iraqi population would welcome US forces with open arms as liberators and heroes, even those segments of the Iraqi population who were opposed to Saddam's regime want the US to leave. Having "won" the war, American military personnel now face guerrilla attacks from a wide range of disparate elements, including forces still loyal to Saddam (who despite American imperialism's infamous deck of playing cards, is still alive and apparently operating within Iraq), from Sunni militants, from Shi'ite activists, from al Qaeda infiltrators, and from independent fundamentalists from neighboring countries. The American military "victory" has thus led to growing chaos on the ground in Iraq.
The funding for these forces is difficult to pinpoint. Clearly, Iranian imperialism, already identified by Washington as part of the "axis of evil," which faced saber-rattling by the US during the war in Iraq, and which feels the pressure from US forces in Iraq on its west and Afghanistan on its east, has an interest in the US being bogged down in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) for as long as possible. Iran also has considerable influence with some shi-ite leaders. Bin Laden's financing from Saudi sources has been amply demonstrated in the aftermath of 9/11.
Last spring the ICC noted that US efforts to demonstrate its military superiority and the ideological claptrap that it invented to justify its actions were undermining its political authority:
"Although the US continues to demonstrate its crushing military superiority to all the other major powers, the increasingly open character of its imperialist ambitions is tending to weaken its political authority. While in the immediate aftermath of September 11th the US was still able to some extent to present its action in Afghanistan as an act of legitimate self-defense, the justifications for the current war in Iraq have shown themselves to be completely threadbare, while its rivals have come forward as the best defenders of democratic values in the face of US bullying.(International Situation Resolution, Point 11)
Even in the American media the official Bush administration justifications for the invasion of Iraq have been demonstrated to be outright lies. For example, besides the above mentioned false charges of Saddam's link to al Qaeda, there was a list propaganda charges: Iraq was tied to the events of 9/11; Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but was preparing imminent use of such weapons; Iraq had conspired to have weapons grade plutonium smuggled in from Africa; Iraq was on the verge of developing and even using nuclear weapons
All these excuses for the rush to war against Iraq have all been revealed to be pure fabrications.
The fact that in his February speech to the Security Council, Secretary of State Powell used "evidence" reported in a British intelligence document that was largely plagiarized from outdated information published on the world wide web is now used by university professors in the US as an example of the folly of plagiarizing material from the web.
These revelations undermine US political authority not only in foreign countries but even within the US, where Bush's war-related approval ratings in the public opinion polls have declined sharply, as more and more people recognize that the government lied in order to rush off to war. Within the bourgeoisie itself there is growing criticism of the Bush administration's botching of the ideological campaign to justify the war, not because any bourgeois politician has any qualms about lying, but because getting caught in such a clumsy job will make it more difficult in the future to effectively marshal support at home and abroad for the inevitable further US military adventures. The differences currently voiced within the US bourgeoisie do not correspond to the level of divergences in Britain for example, where certain factions within the British ruling class are uncomfortable with Blair's close adherence to Washington's policies, or in other countries where pro-US and pro-Europe factions advocate different strategic policies.
On the contrary, in the US, the debate within the bourgeoisie is more on the level of tactics, over the best approach to take in advancing the shared strategic goal of assuring American dominance and blocking the rise of a rival power or imperialist bloc. Even former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who has emerged as the most vocal and persistent critic of the Bush administration, is not really opposed to war against Iraq. Albright argues that the war could have been justified on human rights grounds more effectively, and that the administration should have worked more patiently and effectively to drag the European powers into providing legitimacy and financial support to the invasion, and should not have been in such a hurry to invade.
The worsening quagmire has forced even Bush administration diehards to retreat for the moment from their ultra-unilateralism of last February, and their non-compromising rejection of any international involvement in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq under UN auspices as no longer tenable. The growing financial and military burden has led the US to propose a new Security Council resolution to authorize UN peacekeeping forces, under US command of course, which is still being debated and disputed at the security council, with France once again leading opposition to US policy. This retreat from extreme unilateralism by the Bush administration should not be interpreted as being the result of some counter-offensive by Europe, led by France and Germany, to undermine the US, but rather as the result of pressures of decomposition and the characteristics of the current period that have produced difficulties for the US.
The apparent retreat from unilateralism should be seen as a pragmatic, temporary and partial phenomenon - an historical stutter - and not as an abandonment of American imperialism's decision to increasingly go it alone to defend its imperialist interests. The resolution remains correct in its assertion that: The US still sees the UN and NATO as dominated by potential rivals and as institutions to be sidestepped as much as possible, as the US feels compelled to increasingly go it alone in defending its imperialist dominance. One need only remember that in June, Bush added the G-8 Summit to the list of international institutions that the US seems to regard increasingly as irrelevant, when Bush left the Summit early in order to hurry off to visit America's new most-closest ally on the European continent: Poland.
The decision to appeal to the UN Security Council, to put pressure on Europe to shoulder part of the military and financial burden in Iraq is consistent with US imperialism's goal of press-ganging its rivals into begrudgingly supporting and endorsing its imperialism adventures that actually have the aim of subordinating those rivals.
In this sense, the devastating attack in August on UN Headquarters in Iraq must be considered in the context of US imperialism's campaign to get the European powers to take up the financial burden of Iraq, and to send occupation troops under US command. If we ask the question, who benefits from the attack, it is clear that it is US imperialism that gains the most from this "attack on the international community." In fact Pres. Bush himself used precisely this argument in his address to the American nation on Sept 7 in calling for the UN to join the occupation of Iraq, both in sending troops and in taking up financial costs.. While the US may not have been behind the attack, as the occupying power, US forces are responsible for security in Iraq in general, and specifically was responsibility for security at the UN compounded, and permitted the same security personnel from the Saddam period to work at the compound. We certainly have grounds for suspicion.
Last spring the ICC stated, "the damage that this insane project (invasion of Iraq) will inflict on the US economy is incalculable," (International Situation Resolution, Point 20) and referred to such economic difficulties as "explicitly rising unemployment, a fall in industrial production, a decline in consumer spending, stock market instability, corporate scandals and bankruptcies, and the return of the Federal budget deficit." The so-called two year-old economic recovery without a jobs recovery continues as an economic nightmare. The unemployment rate has momentarily dropped a few tenths of a percentage point, but only because so many discouraged workers have given up looking for jobs that don't exist and officially are no longer counted as members of the workforce (an example of how the American bourgeoisie takes a bad thing and makes it better). "The return of the Federal budget deficit" mentioned in the resolution now stands at an estimated $455 billion, and is expect to reach $600 billion next year. This means a swing of $729 billion in a period of three years, from a $129 budget surplus inherited from the Clinton administration. The annual cost of the war and occupation of Iraq is now equivalent to 163% of what the US government spends on education. Cutbacks on the social wage are proceeding with a vengeance, leading to still further deterioration in the standard of living of the working class. Such economic costs certainly put the lie to the vulgar economic materialist arguments advanced by some groups on the communist left and in the libertarian milieu that the US invasion of Iraq was motivated by a short term desire to boost oil company profits or to revive the ailing American economy. The only thing that can justify such astronomical costs for the American bourgeoisie is the defense of its imperialist interests on the geopolitical strategic level for the long term. The contradiction that confronts it and which it cannot surpass is that the very defense of its imperialist interests creates the circumstances that only further aggravate the challenges to those interests. - JG
The guerrilla myth continues to be a strong attraction for leftist and petty bourgeois elements in the US. We are publishing here the first installment in a series written by our Mexican comrades exposing the bourgeois role of the Zapatista guerrillas in Mexico.
Ever since the appearance of the guerrilla movement known as the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico in 1994, the ICC has warned of its dangerous meaning for the working class. While the left of capital was thrilled and rushed to shout "We are all Marcos!", revolutionaries clearly defined the National Liberation Zapatista Army (EZLN) as counterrevolutionary, both for its typically petty-bourgeois desperate methods, and its bourgeois rhetoric. This became clear when it: called for an individual use of violence bordering on madness when the EZLN said that an irregular army formed by impoverished peasants armed with sticks could march to Mexico City, when it invoked Article 39 of the Constitution to justify its rebellion, while at the same time proclaiming the "defense of national soveregneity" of the "fatherland" as its principle and motto. It even defined "revolutionary" laws, which, with a radical yet fake pretense to justice, do nothing but validate the exploitation of wage labor.
The EZLN thus represents a structure that is both alien to the essence of the working class, and also totally opposed to it. For this reason, it is impossible to find a common ground between this armed group and the historical combat of the working class.
It's clear that Marcos' speeches and his presence, which are used by the bourgeoisie as a commodity, create a large audience. In the same way, the bourgeois press makes comments about Marcos' silence, or invents news about his health and his love affairs, as it does with any personality in the entertainment industry. This is possible because the EZLN is harmless to capital. In fact, it is in capital's interest that the EZLN spread, because its poisonous ideology confuses the working class' consciousness. Because of this, it is important to re-assimilate and deepen with new elements of reflection the arguments that the ICC has been presenting over the past 9 years in opposition to the lies of the bourgeoisie and its left apparatus. Clearly, the aim is not to start a polemic with "zapatismo." Rather, we want to defend Marxism against the EZLN's constant ideological attack, providing elements for reflection and clarification for the working class; particularly the youth, who, in the wake of the bourgeoisie's campaign against Marxism, and tits promotion of empty myths such as that of Marcos, are trapped in sterile and reactionary ideologies that put a damper on their anger against capitalism, and deliver them into the arms of blind activism, without a perspective for the future all the while trapped in the dream of both the “masked hero” and gradual change.
During the 60's and up until the beginning of the 80's, several guerrilla groups formed which have their roots in the discontent, the desperation, and the romanticism of the petty bourgeoisie, but also in the confusion spread by Stalinist ideology, in its various manifestations from Maoism to guevarism. Some of these groups were even born outside the integral forces of the state apparatuses. Soon, however, they stopped having an autonomous life because they required economic and logistic support by a fraction of the national bourgeoisie, and, of course, by one of the two blocs. In particular, we will refer to the use the ex-USSR and its allies made of guerrilla movements. This, however, does not mean that the USA gave up doing the same, as was clear, for example, with the 'contras' in Nicaragua.
Recent history has shown that the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, the Salvadoran FMLN, or the Guatemalan UNRG received assistance from states that were in the Russian bloc. What resulted from such a practice is nothing the proletariat can claim for itself. Whether these groups succeeded in taking power or were disarmed, their actions were always aimed at strengthening the structures of capitalist rule. On the one hand, we saw the Sandinistas as well as many Castro-backed movements, which, notwithstanding their radical or 'marxist' rhetoric, have done nothing but reinforce the exploitation of wage labor. They have also become more greatly integrated in international conflicts. On the other hand, groups like the Salvadoran FMLN and the Guatemalan UNRG became fused with the state apparatuses which they had said they were fighting against. This grotesque development reached an extreme in El Salvador, where the guerrillas became cops. This is why the tactics, strategy, program, and practice of guerrilla movements are alien to the proletariat and to Marxism. On the contrary, it is a tool which capital needs.
The world configuration has been affected by the disappearance of the Soviet bloc. Nonetheless, the laws governing capital and imperialist confrontations become highlighted. This explains why the disappearance of the Eastern bloc - a product of the capitalist crisis - did not bring in its wake a new, peaceful order, as the bourgeoisie had promised. Instead, it accelerated imperialist rivalries. The Western nations, formerly disciplined by the USA, released all the suppressed ambitions and tensions because of the absence of a common enemy, and proceeded in a dynamic of each for themselves. This fact, unprecedented in the history of capitalism, is a clear sign that capitalism had entered the last phase of decadence, decomposition.
Under these conditions, the guerrillas have not stopped being a tool used to clear the path for its rivals. On the contrary, it refines its actions. At the time of the blocs, a guerrilla movement could surge with its own force, while today it is marked by the action of an imperialist power from its inception. It is clear that the EZLN defines the way by which, in the present period, guerrillas act as a detonator of conflicts, not only against the Mexican government, but above all against the USA. In this context, it is easy to understand the motivation of the European bourgeoisie behind its "preoccupation" with the zapatista cause. To mention just a few aspects that allow us to see who's behind the EZLN, we will remember the closeness of EZLN to Mrs. Mitterrand, John Paul II's suspicious attitude during his second to last visit to Mexico (when he unexpectedly denounced the murders of Acteal), and Eloriaga's and Marcos' posturing about wanting to sit at the European Parliament (1996) to "denounce" the Mexican government.
In this way, the EZLN is used by European imperialist powers to defy the USA. However, because of its military nothingness, it is utilized as a source of political pressure. In this way, even though the Europeans cannot strike directly against the US, they can still generate troubles in the American backyard. Even though the North American and Mexican bourgeoisies have been able to utilize guerrillas for their own interests - for example, by strengthening their campaigns around democracy while allowing their presence at the legislative bodies, by press coverage and by protecting their marches and speeches - guerrilla movements continue to be a weapon that the German, French, and Italian bourgeoisies continuously wield. MA -to be continued-.
Links
[1] mailto:[email protected]
[2] https://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/correspondance-other-groups
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/communist-left-influenced
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/135/internationalism
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/50/united-states
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/186/imperialism
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/war-iraq
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/1848/mexico
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/zapatismo
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/anti-globalisation