Believing what the "IFICC" says in connection with the "Stalinist methods of the ICC" (and having apparently forgotten the sentence of Lenin: "Whoever believes the word of another is an incorrigible idiot"), the PCI continues on this topic: "It is inevitable that the climate which is created in the ICC is reflected on the outside. Thus, one of our comrades who had had the misfortune to criticise such methods in a public meeting of this organisation (while reaffirming that he did not in any way defend the Fraction), saw himself consequently informed of the 'rupture of any political relations' with himself. The significance of this curious declaration appeared a few days later, when he was insulted and jostled during a sale by an ICC militant. We do not want to attach a disproportionate importance to this incident, which is perhaps due to the excitement of local militants. But it must be clear that we do not intend to let the limits of our criticism be dictated to by anyone, and by any measures of intimidation, including physical. 'Learn from what we say, it shall not be repeated!'"(note 1) [1].
Just as the PCI should have obtained better information before blowing the same trumpets as the "Fraction", it would have done better not to believe the word of its Toulouse militant, W, in connection with the incidents which occurred between him and our militants. One thing first of all: we have always and in all places expressed a fraternal attitude towards the militants of the PCI. And this for the good reason that we consider that this organisation, in spite of its Programmatic errors, belongs to the camp of the working class. The reciprocal case was not always true. Thus, in 1979, when the militants of the PCI were involved in supporting the movement of the residents of immigrants' homes, SONACOTRA, and were acting as stewards at street gatherings and demonstrations alongside Maoist militants of the UCFML, they used physical threats to prevent militants of the ICC from speaking and distributing our press. It is true that, at that time, the PCI was dominated, in particular in France, by a leftist and third-worldist current which was going to split a few years later by taking with it the cash box and other material means. The current militants of the PCI criticised this third-worldist tendency, but to our knowledge they never condemned the behaviour of the members of the PCI of the time who had prevented the expression of internationalist positions within a working class struggle, to the great satisfaction of the UCFML Stalinists.
Concerning W, a member of the PCI in Toulouse whom we have known for a long time, we expressed the same fraternal attitude towards him as to other members of the PCI when he returned to this city after several years of absence. We proposed that he should exhibit the press of the PCI in our public meetings and always invited him to speak at them. In the same way, we encouraged the members of a discussion circle in which we participate to also invite the PCI, i.e. W, so that he could present its positions to it. For a whole period, moreover, his own attitude with regard to our militants was also cordial and he was always determined to engage in long discussions with them.
Since the beginning of this year W's attitude has changed completely:
In the same way, we regard as probable that W gave a version of the facts to his organisation different from that which we have just revealed. It is thus the word of our militants (and our sympathisers) against that of the militant of the PCI. However, we are sure of what we put forward and we can prove it because most of W's intrigues which we reported took place in the presence of several people external to the ICC, who will be able to testify. We think that there should be a confrontation in front of the other militants of the PCI, between their militant W and our comrades as well as the people external to the ICC who witnessed incidents that we have described. We are prepared, if necessary, to call for the constitution of a special commission of militants of the communist left charged to shed light on these facts. We are particularly determined that the truth is clarified on this question because our organisation is today the target of a campaign of unprecedented slander by the small group of former militants who constitute the "IFICC", animated by an element whose behaviour is disturbing and dangerous for the groups of the communist left. And most lamentable, in this business, it is that a group such as the PCI is contributing its share to this campaign, in spite of its stated wish "not to take sides", in particular by describing incidents of which it clearly it has an erroneous knowledge. The use of the PCI's article by the "Fraction"
We did not have to wait long for the effects of the PCI's article; immediately after its publication, it was reprinted on the Internet site of the IFICC, accompanied by a statement where we can read: "First of all, we condemn the current attitude of the ICC and make a point of dissociating ourselves completely from its present methods. We solidarise ourselves with the PCI militant who is the victim of this aggression. Independently of the political support that we bring to the PCI comrades, we feel a painful shock vis-�-vis this new episode: it says much indeed, on the state of disarray and disorientation of the members of the ICC; it is significant of the profundity of the sectarian drift which has seized hold of the ICC so quickly � One would be wrong to trivialise this incident or to analyse it as the unhappy provocative remarks of a militant. Indeed, it is only the latest illustration of an opportunist and sectarian dynamic, which openly developed initially within the ICC the day after its 14th congress (May 2001), and after the open explosion of its organisational crisis, then publicly with respect to the members of the ICC who were opposed to this new policy, and today with respect to the whole political milieu which is seen as a class enemies � we welcome this article which denounces the bureaucratic measures and intimidation which were established inside the ICC. These were never the attitude and the practices of Marx, nor of Lenin, nor of any proletarian organisation."
We will not make additional comments on the prose of the IFICC, which is quite in line with its preceding writings. We would like simply to point out the immense hypocrisy of the sentence "we feel a painful shock vis-�-vis this new episode". Actually, the attitude of members of the "IFICC" that we encountered a few days after the publication of the le Prol�taire article speaks for itself: it was not "pain" which one could read on their face, but open jubilation.
If the PCI militants sincerely did not wish "to take sides", it must be said that they singularly failed to achieve their aim.
In our official statement on the exclusion of Jonas, we wrote, as we already stated above: "what we are sure of is that he (Jonas) represents a danger to the proletarian political milieu". This assertion has been fully confirmed by the political manoeuvres that Jonas and his "Fraction" have carried out towards the groups of the communist left. After having refused to defend himself by appealing in front of a jury of honour, Jonas used his "Fraction" to try "to implicate" the IBRP and to push it to take part in the campaign of slanders against the ICC. As we wrote it in WR 255 [6], "publishing the discussion between the IBRP and the 'Fraction' can only have the aim of discrediting the IBRP in the proletarian political milieu. And this is indeed Mr Jonas' aim: to lure the IBRP into a trap and to discredit it while spreading all kinds of suspicion between the groups of the communist left."
Today, it is the turn of the PCI to let itself be enrolled in Mr Jonas' "fraction" war against the ICC. By involving the groups of the communist left in its campaigns against the ICC, Jonas, with the support of his faithful, does nothing but continue the wretched policy outside - a perfectly conscious, deliberate and planned policy - that he carried out inside the ICC when he tried to sow suspicion among militants, to line them up against each other. (note 6) [7] Why does the PCI play the "Fraction's" game?
The questions remains: why the did PCI show such kindness towards the "Fraction"? Why was it in a rush to publish a time-consuming article taking the side of the "fraction" and carrying serious charges against the ICC, without asking us for more details as we proposed to them in our letter of 6 February 2002, which finished as follows: "We are obviously at your disposal to give you more elements on this business if you wish it." Why did it believe the word of its Toulouse militant and report his statements publicly, without even asking us for explanations?
We understand that the "IFICC", as soon as it noted the le Prol�taire article, and without knowing any of what had gone on, rushed like a flock of vultures to "solidarise ourselves with the PCI militant who is the victim of this aggression" and to conclude that this incident was "the latest illustration of an opportunist and sectarian dynamic which openly developed initially within the ICC � and today with respect to the whole political milieu, seen as class enemies". For Jonas and his acolytes, anything that throws mud on the ICC is good. But what happened to the PCI?
Has this organisation been influenced by the seduction campaigns that the "IFICC" launched in the direction of the groups of the communist left in order to "put them in its pocket" against the ICC? Several militants of the PCI can certainly bear witness to the existence of such a campaign, following the readers' meeting held by this organisation on 28 September in Paris. In this meeting devoted to the Palestinian question, a militant of the PCI started by presenting the traditional position of his organisation (which one can find in a long article of le Prol�taire No. 463, "Aux prol�taires Isra�liens, Aux prol�taires Palestiniens, Aux prol�taires d'Europe et d'Am�rique" [To the Israeli proletarians, the Palestinian proletarians, the proletarians of Europe and America"]). The ICC militants present had, in their turn, presented their own position, criticising that of the PCI. And it was precisely during an intervention of one of our comrades, that Sarah, representing the "IFICC", interrupted twice, saying in substance to him "but it's not what the PCI says", to which our comrade answered, twice, that the PCI was big enough to correct itself if it were necessary. On the other hand, it did not at any time say one word to defend the ICC's position on the national and colonial question (which the "IFICC" still claims to defend). It was only at the end of the meeting, and after doffing her cap to the PCI's presentation on the Palestinian question (even if she did pay lip service to the idea that she had some disagreements with it), that Sarah made an intervention, but on a subject that was not directly on the agenda: the situation in Argentina. And this intervention was devoted to vehemently denouncing "the indifference" of the ICC in connection with the movements which had occurred in this country at the end of 2001. It should besides be noted that she did not say a word of criticism on the article published in le Prol�taire No. 460 ("Les cacerolazos ont pu renverser les pr�sidents, Pour combattre le capitalisme, il faut la Lutte Ouvri�re"/"The cacerolazos could overthrow presidents. To fight capitalism, workers' struggle is necessary") - an article which presents an analysis very close to ours (see "Argentine, Une manifestation de la faillite du capitalisme", in R�volution Internationale No. 319). The reference to "the indifference" of the ICC was obviously a bait, since this exactly how the PCI often qualifies our position on the national question. Truly, Sarah's seduction manoeuvres were so crude and demagogic that we can hardly believe that they could have an impact on PCI militants. A serious communist militant is not like a crow in his tree and when someone tries to flatter him - like Reynard the fox in the fable - as did the IFICC's representative, his normal reaction would surely be scepticism and prudence, not to release his cheese to the first parasite that comes along!
For this reason, there surely exist other causes of the benevolence expressed by the PCI towards the "IFICC". One of these causes is perhaps that the militants of the PCI, traumatised by the internal functioning which has existed in the past in the Bordigist organisations where "monolithism" was the official rule, are now tending spontaneously to take the side of those who are presented as "oppressed by the Stalinist methods of the ICC", without seeking to know any more. In fact, their reaction would be a little on the same model as that of the councilists who, because the Communist Parties became the enemies of the proletariat, deduce from this that every party is doomed to betray and that it is thus necessary to reject in principle every proposal to constitute a revolutionary party. But there is probably another reason, more fundamental, for the method of the PCI. This is that, like all the other PCIs (Programma and il Partito) it considers that it is The Party, all the other groups of the current of the communist left being only usurpers. The Bordigist conception, contrary to that of the ICC and the Italian Left of the period of Bilan, considers that only one revolutionary organisation can exist in the world. The logical consequence of this vision is to place the ICC and the "Fraction", which officially defend the same position, on the same level. And this is what the PCI claims to be doing in its article. But if it actually takes the sides of the "Fraction", as we saw, it is because the conception of "the PCI alone in the world" leads to the vision that the only relationship able to exist between two organisations claiming to be of the communist left are relations of competition. This leads to the idea that anything that can discredit the other organisations is positive, since this "makes room" for its own organisation. If the "IFICC" can create problems for the ICC, considered by the PCI as a competitor, and discredit it, it is all to the good. Such is probably the logic, even if it is not completely conscious of it, which explains the spontaneous access of sympathy towards the "IFICC" by PCI militants.
In 1978, when the PCI had been invited to take part in the second conference of the groups of the communist left, it announced its refusal with an article published in Programma Comunista (note 7) [8] under the elegant title of "The fight between fottenti and fottuti" (literally, between "fuckers and fucked"). For the PCI, this conference did not have any another significance than to allow each group to try "to kiss" the others. That's the vision which this organisation had of the relationship between groups of the communist left.
The PCI of today does not use this same language and it has criticised some of its past errors. However, we think that there still remains an effort for it to make, to free itself completely from the logic of "fottenti" and "fottuti" knowing that, until now, it has never made the least criticism of the conception expressed by the not very glorious article of Programma Comunista. In any case, even if the PCI did not intend to be the "fottento" of the ICC, it is certainly going the right way about becoming the "fottuto" of Jonas and his "fraction"!
ICC (21 October 2002).
Notes
1. This is an updated version of a French expression of archaic origin, clearly indicating a threat. [Translator's note]. Back [9]
2. It is necessary to measure the gravity of such a charge against communist militants, especially after the campaigns orchestrated by the bourgeoisie assimilating the communist left, which refused to go into anti-fascism during the second world war, to the "revisionist" schools who call into question the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and feed the propaganda of the extreme right. A few years ago, when the PCI had undergone an attack on this question (owing to the fact that it had published the excellent booklet Auschwitz or the Grand Alibi), we obviously gave it our full solidarity. Back [10]
3. In Toulouse, since the explosion of the AZF last year, it is extremely difficult to find conference rooms.Back [11]
4. Thus, at the time of the Lutte Ouvri�re f�te of Spring 2000, one of our militants, Juan, today an eminent member of the "Fraction", was shown to be very aggressive (and, moreover, publicly in the eyes of the militants of LO who attended the "spectacle"), towards an old comrade who wanted to leave our organisation with the prospect of integrating into the IBRP. We had asked him to calm down and thereafter we criticised his inadmissible behaviour. At the same time, we apologised to the comrade who had been insulted and who assumed that Juan's aggressive behaviour reflected a certain "sectarianism" on our part towards the IBRP. It is also the same Juan who threw himself furiously onto one of our comrades and kicked him when a delegation of the ICC presented itself at the home of a member of the "Fraction", to make an inventory of the documents belonging to the ICC which were stored at his place. This physical aggression towards our militant followed upon a provocation by Jonas. Indeed, although he had no need to take part in this inventory, Jonas was present (to our great surprise!) and openly took notes of the discussion between our comrades and the members of the IFICC. It was after one of our comrades had taken the bit of paper on which he had written from the hands of Jonas (without even touching him) that Juan threw himself violently on our militant. Back [12]
5. In support of this assumption, there is in particular his obsession, without trace of proof, about the alleged "the anti-Semitism" of some of our militants and the crude insults which he addresses to our militants and sympathisers. Back [13]
6. Moreover, as if by chance, it was after the publication of this article of le Prol�taire, that Jonas finally left the shadows, as witness the fact that he that he found the audacity to sign a "contribution" (on the elections in Germany) published on the Internet site of the IFICC (whereas during the three decades that he was in the ICC, he never made the least written contribution to debates). Convinced that he now has "allies" among the groups of the communist left, the �minence grise of the IFICC can from now on give himself respectability by making his first "public" appearance through this article (even if he remains comfortably installed in his slippers and prefers to send his friends of the IFICC to public meetings of the PCI). For our part, we still demand that Jonas call upon a jury of honour. As long as such a jury has not ruled on his case, we consider that this individual does not have any speaking rights in the proletarian political milieu. Back [14]
7. Which was its newspaper in Italy before the split between Il Comunista and Programma. Back [15]
George Bush Senior promised a New World Order. At the start of the 1990s, with the Berlin Wall down, there were no longer two great military blocs facing each other, and we were told that the threat of war had faded. That was a lie. The reality has been a proliferation of military conflicts across the face of the planet.
We have seen the massive destruction in the Gulf War of 1991, and the subsequent bombings of Iraq by the US and Britain that have continued ever since. In Europe the great powers came into conflict in the wars in ex-Yugoslavia. Across the Caucasus big and small powers committed their atrocities, still continuing to this day in Chechnya. In Afghanistan, the terror bombing started by the US at the end of 2001 was just the latest stage of a series of armed conflicts underway since the 1970s. There has been no interruption in the exchange of fatal blows in Israel/Palestine. Throughout Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Sudan to cite only the ten most familiar areas) devastating wars between various factions and states have worsened the desperate situation in debt-ridden countries already scarred by poverty, famine, disease. Between India and Pakistan there is a stand-off between nuclear powers. The New World Order has turned out to be one of growing military confrontations. Justifications for war
With the increasing threat of war on Iraq all sorts of false ideas are being put forward again on what is responsible for the growth of military barbarism. For Bush and Blair there are wars which are justified and necessary. The ruling class in the US, with its 'war against terrorism', says it is mounting a defence of freedom against 'rogue states'. In Britain, the government says it will not shrink from the use of nuclear weapons against countries that don't respect international conventions and illegally manufacture 'weapons of mass destruction.'
On the other hand, there are countries such as France and Germany, which support humanitarian wars or wars for the liberation of oppressed peoples, but not, of course, for oil or for sordid financial profits. Such countries are major imperialist rivals of the US, and it should be expected that they would want to hold Bush and Co responsible for the plunge into war - and to be critical of wars that serve the interests of US imperialism against the major European powers.
In reality wars are neither 'decent' nor 'dirty'. Every country and every war is imperialist, regardless of the hypocritical justifications that the ruling capitalist class can dig up for their military adventures (or to condemn their rivals). Against Iraq, for example, there is an insistence that war will be justified because of Saddam's possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Yet those who condemn Iraq are countries such as Britain and the US, which not only maintain the biggest arsenals of such weaponry, but also spent years helping Iraq acquire the same technology during its 1980s war with Iran. The lies of pacifism
The fact that capitalist states are more and more compelled to use force of arms to defend their interests, as has been so clearly shown over the last ten years or so, is an illustration of a fundamental aspect of the decadence of the capitalist system. As the world economic crisis gets an ever tighter grip, each national capital is driven into more and more irrational military adventures. It's not 'evil' in the hearts of the ruling class that drives them to take up arms in conflict with their rivals; it is the very nature of capitalism. It is not because of a crisis in particular industries, or the appetites of investors in certain sectors. Imperialist wars are bred by the historic crisis of a system that has nothing else left to offer humanity.
Many people are deeply concerned about the drive to war, but the 'anti-war' propaganda they come up against conceals the nature of a society in which war has become endemic. This has always been the way with pacifism, trying as it does to convince us that there can be peace within capitalism, that imperialist war can be avoided or, at least, kept within civilised boundaries.
Typical of the mystifications put forward by pacifism is that it's the US which is the main problem, the most dangerous force on the international scene. It is definitely the greatest military power by far, but that shouldn't for one moment be used to detract from the threat posed by any and every other country and capitalist faction in the world today. Anti-Americanism always has a basis in the nationalism of other powers. The leading rivals of the US are the first to point to the chaos it leaves in its wake, while pursuing their own imperialist interests with every political, diplomatic and military means at their disposal. At a lesser level, there have been a heap of very minor powers fighting over the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but that hasn't lessened the suffering of people there. It is the decadence of capitalism that lies behind imperialist conflicts, not the difference in military capacity between different powers.
A further weapon in the pacifist armoury is the myth of the United Nations. If only the UN could exert its authority, we are told, then wars could be avoided, or at least kept under control. Surely no one needs to be reminded of the many occasions when countries just take unilateral action regardless of the view of the other countries of the UN. But, more importantly, the UN has never been anything more than an arena in which the major imperialist powers continue their conflicts. If the UN ever takes action it's going to be in the interests of one of the big powers. Importance of the working class struggle
What all the pacifist illusions have in common is the idea that somehow the good will of decent people can triumph over increasingly pervasive militarism. The drive to war is inherent in the capitalist system, not just the product of grasping leaders or immoral regimes, and so it can only be stopped by the overthrow of that system. This is the task of the working class, which is the only force in society capable of really opposing the drive to imperialist war.
Even when the working class is not involved in widespread struggles the ruling class cannot afford to forget its potential. This was clearly shown by the international wave of workers' struggles - strikes, demonstrations, mutinies and insurrections, and the revolutions in Russia and Germany - that brought an end to the First World War and put the whole capitalist social order in question. The working class remains the only international class with no national interests to defend. To understand this means resisting all the propaganda of the ruling class. Only the struggles of the working class have the potential to develop into a force that can destroy capitalism!
Against the open militarism that calls for workers to sacrifice themselves in imperialist wars!
Against the pacifist illusions that undermine the capacity of the working class to understand the true nature of capitalism!
Against the humanitarian lies that are used as so many justifications for war ('the war to end war', 'against terror', 'against militarism', 'against weapons of mass destruction')!
Workers have no country!
WR 1.2.03
We offered this text as a contribution to the discussions at an Anti-War Day School organised by Disobedience in January, in which we participated. It is an appeal for a discussion based on the historical experience of the working class, in particular its revolutionary minorities. The issues raised were similar to those at the Zero War conference held in Australia in December.
With dozens of wars taking place across the world and the growing mobilisation by the US and the UK for an attack on Iraq, there is a greater need than ever to be clear about what "revolutionary opposition to war" actually means. In Disobedience's proposal for an Anti-War Day School there is the suggestion that "theory should inform our practice". There is only one way that practice can be informed by theory: by drawing on the lessons of proletarian history. Against pacifism and protest stunts
Revolutionaries have always opposed pacifist ideology. Against sentimental appeals for universal harmony, they insisted on an internationalism that was based on the common struggle of the working class against the ruling class and all its governments.
At the beginning of the 20th century, against attempts to smuggle pacifist conceptions into resolutions of the Second International, revolutionaries such as Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin insisted that the workers' struggle was not just against the outbreak of war but should "profit in any way possible from the economic and political crisis to rouse the people and in this way hasten the collapse of capitalist domination". War was not only to be denounced, but also to be seen as a factor that could provoke proletarian revolution.
Today, there is no mass, permanently organised workers' movement. Instead, revolutionaries are confronted with a 'Labour Movement' which is really the left wing of capitalism. In the face of war, the capitalist left is given the job of organising pacifist fronts like the Stop the War Coalition (STWC). The STWC's main function is to prevent the development of a revolutionary opposition to war:
The problem with many who are critical of the STWC is that too often they still buy the argument that "at least it's doing something" and end up either tailing along in its demonstrations, or trying to devise radical-looking "protest" stunts which substitute themselves for the real development of the proletarian movement.
However unfashionable it may sound, the fact remains that the bourgeoisie's drive towards war can only be blocked and ultimately stopped by the massive struggles of the working class. Working class resistance and the overthrow of capitalism
The experience of the First World War, which was brought to an end by a wave of revolutionary working class struggles, is still profoundly relevant today. The working class went from being divided and mobilised in the massive slaughter between nations to fighting against the governments that had mobilised it. Capitalism everywhere was under threat. In 1919 Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, was moved to write that "The whole existing order in its political social and economic aspects is questioned by the masses of Europe from one end of Europe to the other."
Today the situation is different. The working class in Europe is not enlisted in capitalism's armies, but also there are no widespread workers' struggles. However, it is only on the basis of defensive struggles, resistance against the attacks of the ruling class today, that we can see the possibilities of a struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie tomorrow. The essential role of revolutionary organisations
While it is necessary to reject forms of activity that link up with leftist campaigns such as the STWC and stunts that are just a more "radical" form of pacifism, it is also possible to show the very positive role that revolutionaries can play, even if they are a tiny minority.
In the First World War, for example, the Spartakusbund in Germany insisted that only a world proletarian revolution could put an end to world war, and in Russia the Bolsheviks called for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war. Along with the propaganda and agitation in the working class there were also attempts to bring together the very small numbers defending a revolutionary position.
The conferences of Zimmerwald (1915) and Kienthal (1916) involved very few people and only a small Left minority which defended the positions which would eventually form the bases for the foundation of the Communist International. For the most far-sighted elements what was necessary was the defence of internationalist, class positions against the imperialist war. Above all, revolutionaries tried to ensure that their voice could be distinguished from others, in particular those social democratic, anarchist and trade unionist organisations who now served the war effort. Today, while the situation is different there is a similar need for revolutionaries to ensure that they have a distinct presence.
Revolutionaries, for example, have no part to play on pacifist demonstrations, which have more and more shown themselves to be not anti-war but pro-war rallies. But they do have a responsibility to ensure that a position for class war and against imperialist war is made as loudly as their limited forces allow at such gatherings. Where leftism and pacifism are mobilising for the ruling class, revolutionaries have to put forward the need for workers to defend their own class interests, to discuss among themselves, reflect on what's at stake in their struggles and prepare for the massive movements that will be necessary if capitalism is to be overthrown. Necessity for proletarian debate
The revolutionary opposition to the First World War was led not by loose associations of individuals but by revolutionary political organisations that were formed around a clear communist platform. The same is true for the much smaller minorities who continued to defend internationalism during the second imperialist slaughter. Today it remains the case that revolutionary clarity - on war or on any other issue - requires a revolutionary organisation to defend and develop it. At the same time, in Britain, as elsewhere we are seeing the emergence of a large number of groups and circles which have been seeking to discuss the question of war from a working class position. Such groupings can make an important contribution to the development of revolutionary consciousness but they are also subject to all kinds of dangers:
For any group that wants to discuss the question of war (or, for that matter, anything else that affects the working class) certain points should be taken as fundamental:
Discussion is the life-blood of the working class, and anything that is an obstacle to its development should be condemned. The ruling class is organising for war; the least that revolutionaries can do is organise discussions that can play a part in the development of workers' struggles.
WR, January 2003.
As the US and Britain send massive military forces to the Gulf, police in London have arrested people alleged to have handled the chemical weapon ricin. This is part of the British state’s participation in the ‘war against terrorism’. They whip up fear and anxiety over the existence of previously little known substances, and present the capitalist state as a protector against ‘alien forces’ that have insinuated themselves into British society. Against the scare stories of the media, the following article sets out the marxist framework for understanding what terrorism really is.
Since the end of the 1980s, terrorism has regularly been at the forefront of the international situation; and for the bourgeoisie of the big powers it has become “Public Enemy No.1”. In the name of the fight against the barbarity of terrorism, the two main powers which were at the head of the Western and Eastern blocs, the United States and Russia, have unleashed war in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Generally speaking, classical terrorism could be defined as the violent action of small minorities in revolt against the overwhelming domination of the existing social order and its state. It is not a new phenomenon in history. Thus, at the end of the 19th century, the Russian Populists made terrorism their main instrument in the combat against Tsarism. A little later, in countries like France and Spain for example, it was taken up by certain sectors of anarchism. Throughout the 20th century, terrorism continued to develop and frequently accompanied movements for national independence, as we saw with the IRA, the ETA of the Basque country, the FLN during the war in Algeria, the Palestinian PLO, etc. It was even used following the Second World War by certain sectors of the Zionist movement who were seeking to set up the state of Israel (Menachem Begin, one of the most celebrated Prime Ministers of Israel - and a signatory to the Camp David accords of 1979 - had, in his youth, been one of the founders of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group which shot to fame through its attacks against the British).
Thus terrorism has not only been able to present itself (above all at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries) as a means for the struggle of the oppressed against the domination of the state; it has also been (principally in the 20th century) a favourite instrument of nationalist movements aiming to set up new states. It is clear that there is nothing in common between these latter forms of terrorism and the struggle of the proletariat, since the proletariat, whose very essence is internationalist, has no reason to participate in the creation of the bourgeois entities that are national states.
This said, is it still possible to resort to acts of terrorism in order to carry out the struggle against the bourgeois state? The question is worth posing since, as well as certain anarchist movements which say they are fighting for the emancipation of the working class, some groups laying claim to the communist revolution have taken up terrorism, claiming that it can be an arm of combat of the working class; and as a result they have sometimes drawn groups of sincere workers behind them. This was notably the case during the 1970’s with the Red Brigades in Italy.
In reality this terrain of violent struggle by armed minorities is not that of the working class. It is the terrain of the desperate petty-bourgeoisie, that’s to say a class without a historic future which can never raise itself to mass actions. Such actions are the emanation of individual will and not of the generalised action of a revolutionary class. In this sense, terrorism can only remain on an individualist level. “Its action is not directed against capitalist society and its institutions, but only against individuals [or symbols such as the Twin Towers, a symbol of the economic power of the United States] who represent this society. It inevitably takes on the aspect of a settling of scores, of revenge, of a vendetta, of person against person and not a revolutionary confrontation of class against class. On a general level, terrorism turns its back on the revolution which can only be the work of a definite class, which draws in the broad masses in an open and frontal struggle against the existing order and for the transformation of society” (International Review no.15, “Resolution on Terror, Terrorism and Class Violence”)
Thus, the proletariat can never develop its struggle against capitalism through the conspiratorial and individualist methods of terrorism. As a practice terrorism reflects its content perfectly: when it is not an instrument of certain sectors of the bourgeoisie itself, it is the emanation of layers of the petty bourgeoisie. It is the sterile practice of impotent social layers without a future.
The ruling class has always used terrorism as an instrument of manipulation, as much against the working class as in its own settling of internal accounts.
From the fact that terrorism is an action which is prepared in the shadows of a tight conspiracy, it thus offers “a favourite hunting ground for the underhand activities of agents of the police and the state and for all sorts of manipulations and intrigues” (ibid.). Already last century, the terrorist actions of the anarchists were used by the bourgeoisie to strengthen its state terror against the working class. There is the example of the “Villainy law” voted by the French bourgeoisie following the terrorist attack by the anarchist Auguste Vaillant who, on December 9 1893, threw a bomb into the Chamber of Deputies, wounding forty people. This attack had been manipulated by the state itself. In fact, Vaillant had been contacted by an agent of the Ministry of the Interior who, passing himself off as an anarchist, had lent him money and explained how to make a home-made bomb (with explosives and nails) – one which would be both ear-shattering and not too murderous. [1] [21] Given that the left wing of the bourgeoisie (notably the radicals, spurred on by the Socialist group represented in Parliament by Jaures), inevitably opposed restrictions on the right of association, the most reactionary sectors of the bourgeoisie, acting with an incredible machiavellianism, got around the rules of the democratic parliament in order to get measures adopted against the working class. The attack by Auguste Vaillant thus served as a pretext for the ruling class to immediately vote for exceptional measures against the socialists, repressing the freedom of association and of the press.
Similarly, in the 1970’s, the massive anti-terrorist campaigns orchestrated by the bourgeoisie following the Schleyer affair in Germany and the Aldo Moro affair in Italy served as a pretext for the state to strengthen its apparatus for the control and repression of the working class.
It was subsequently demonstrated that the Baader Gang and the Red Brigades had been infiltrated by, respectively, the secret services of East Germany, the Stasi, and the secret services of the Italian state. These terrorist grouplets were in reality nothing other than the instruments of rivalry between bourgeois cliques.
The kidnapping of Aldo Moro by a raid of military efficiency and his assassination on May 9 1978 (after the Italian government had refused to negotiate his freedom) wasn’t the work of some terrorist fanatics. Behind the action of the Red Brigades, there were political stakes implicating not only the Italian state itself, but also the big powers. In fact, Aldo Moro represented a faction of the Italian bourgeoisie favourable to the entry of the Communist Party into the governmental majority, an option to which the United States was firmly opposed. The Red Brigades shared this opposition to the policy of the “historic compromise” between Christian Democrats and the CP defended by Aldo Moro and thus openly played the game of the American state. Moreover, the fact that the Red Brigades had been directly infiltrated by the Gladio network (a creation of NATO whose mission was to set up networks of resistance should the USSR invade Western Europe) revealed that from the end of the 1970’s, terrorism had begun to become an instrument of manipulation in imperialist conflicts.
During the 1980’s, the multiplication of terrorist attacks (such as those of 1986 in Paris) executed by fanatical grouplets commanded by Iran, brought forward a new phenomenon in history. No longer, as at the beginning of the 20th century, were terrorist actions limited to those led by minority groups, aiming for the constitution or the national independence of a state. Now it was states themselves which took control and used terrorism as an arm of war against other states.
The fact that terrorism has become an instrument of the state for carrying out war marked a qualitative change in the evolution of imperialism.
In the recent period, we can see that it is major powers, in particular the United States and Russia, which have used terrorism as a means of manipulation in order to justify their military interventions. Thus, the media itself has revealed that the bombings in Moscow of summer 1999 were perpetrated with explosives made by the military and that Putin, the boss of the FSB (ex-KGB) at the time, was probably in command of them. These attacks were a pretext to justify the invasion of Chechnya by Russian troops.
Similarly, as we have fully analysed in our press, the September 11 attack against the Twin Towers in New York, served as a pretext for the American bourgeoisie to launch its bombs on Afghanistan in the name of the fight against terrorism and against “rogue states”.
Even if the American state didn’t directly organise this attack, it is inconceivable to imagine that the secret services of the leading world power were taken by surprise, just like any banana republic. It is more than likely that the American state let it happen, sacrificing its Twin Towers and close to 3000 human lives.
This was the price that American imperialism was ready to pay in order to be able to reaffirm its world leadership by unleashing the “Unlimited Justice” operation in Afghanistan. What’s more, this deliberate policy of the American bourgeoisie is not new. It was already used in December 1941 at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor [2] [22] to justify the USA’s entry into the Second World War; and, more recently, at the time of the invasion of Kuwait by the troops of Saddam Hussein in August 1990 [3] [23] in order to unleash the Gulf War under the aegis of Uncle Sam.
But this policy of “non-interference” no longer consists, as in 1941 or in 1990, of letting the enemy attack first according to the classic laws of war between states.
It is no longer the war between rival states, with its own rules, its flags, its preparations, its troops, its battlefields and armaments, which serve as the pretext for the massive intervention of the big powers.
Now it is blind terrorist attacks, with their fanatic, kamikaze commandos directly striking the civil population, which are then utilised by the big powers in order to justify letting loose imperialist barbarity.
The use and the manipulation of terrorism is not only the work of small states such as Libya, Iran or others in the Middle East. By sweeping away the classic rules of war, it has become the common practice of all nations, big and small; and terrorism as a means of war between states has now become one of the most crying manifestations of a capitalist system rotting on its feet.
Today, terrorism is inseparable from imperialism. The form that imperialist war is taking now is the result of the world disorder which capitalism entered with the collapse of the eastern bloc and the dislocation of the western bloc. This event, as we have showed, spectacularly marked the entry of capitalism into the ultimate phase of its decadence, that of decomposition. [4] [24]
Since we developed this analysis in the middle of the 1980’s, [5] [25] this phenomenon has only widened and intensified. It is characterised by the development of terrorism on a scale unprecedented in history.
The fact that this “arm of the poor” is now utilised by the big powers in defence of their imperialist interests on the world chessboard is a particularly significant expression of the decomposition of society.
Up to now the ruling class has succeeded in pushing obvious manifestations of the decadence of its system to the peripheries of capitalism. Thus the most brutal manifestations of the economic crisis of capitalism had first of all affected the countries of the periphery. In the same way that this insoluble crisis has now begun to come back home with force, hitting with full strength the very heart of capitalism, the most barbaric forms of imperialist war now make their appearance in the great metropoles such as New York and Moscow.
Moreover, this new expression of imperialist war reveals the suicidal dynamic of a bourgeois society in full putrefaction. In fact, the use of terrorism as an arm of war is accompanied by the acceptance of sacrifices. Thus it is not only the kamikazes who sacrifice lives in the image of a world which is killing itself, but equally the ruling class of the states struck by terrorist attacks, such as the American bourgeoisie. Doesn’t the broadcasting on all the screens of the world of the images of the Twin Towers collapsing like a house of cards convey to us the vision of a world heading towards the apocalypse? By allowing the September 11 attacks to happen, the first world power deliberately decided to sacrifice the Twin Towers, a symbol of its economic supremacy. It deliberately sacrificed close to 3000 American citizens on its own national soil. In this sense, the dead of New York have not only been massacred by the barbarity of Al Qaida; the deed was also done with the cold and cynical complicity of the American state itself.
Beyond the human lives involved, something that the bourgeoisie has never worried about, it is above all on the economic level that we can measure the sacrifice that the American state was ready to make in order to justify its enormous demonstration of force in Afghanistan. For that, Uncle Sam was ready to pay (and above all to make the working class pay) for the reconstruction of the World Trade Centre and for all the economic and social disorganisation caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers.
The use of terrorism as an arm of imperialist war in the present historic period of the decomposition of capitalism, reveals that all states are “renegade states” led by imperialist gangsters. The sole difference which distinguishes the big gang leaders, such as the American Godfather, and the second-rate gangsters who set off the bombs, lies in the means of destruction they have at their disposal.
In New York, Moscow, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, Bali, it is the civil populations that are today terrorised by the murderous madness of capitalism.
This situation constitutes an appeal to the responsibility of the world proletariat. The latter is the sole force in society capable, through its revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, to put an end to war, massacres, and to capitalist terror in all its forms.
Louise, December 2002.
[1] [26] See Bernard Thomas, Les provocations policieres (chapter IV). Editions Fayard, 1972.
[2] [27] See International Review no. 108, “Pearl Harbor 1941, the Twin Towers 2001: the Machiavellianism of the Bourgeoisie [28]”.
[3] [29] See our pamphlet (in French) on “The Gulf War”.
[4] [30] See our pamphlet (in French) on “The Collapse of Stalinism”.
[5] [31] See International Reviews no. 57 “The Decomposition of Capitalism” and no. 107 “Decomposition, the Final Phase of the Decadence of Capitalism [32]”.
The looming war against Iraq, coming after the wars in ex-Yugoslavia and Afghanistan is causing great concern, particularly in the working class. Young men and women, dragooned into the armed forces by economic conscription, are being sent to the Gulf, while the rest of the working class pays the cost of the war through increased taxes and exploitation. Much of the concern and unease is focused on the aims of the war, particularly the idea that the US is going to war in order to gain control of Iraq's oil supplies. This is an idea encouraged by the Left, particularly in the Daily Mirror, which has consistently linked the war to oil: through TV advertisements, on its front pages etc. Left-wing groups such as the Socialist Workers Party, also say the same thing, in more 'radical' language.
The Daily Mirror (25/1/03) report that Exxon Mobil was to have pole position for control of the Iraq oilfields after the war, and it's report that the British army is to 'take' the oilfields to mask the fact that the US will control them, certainly suggest this. We heard the same arguments during the 1991 Gulf war. That war saw the destruction of the Kuwaiti oil fields, and Iraqi oil production being curtailed by sanctions. This time the US will certainly occupy Iraq and gain control over its oil production, and US oil companies will certainly cream off a nice profit. But this short term profit is overshadowed by the overall cost to US capitalism of the war, its preparation - which includes billions of dollars in 'aid'/bribes to countries in the region to either stay out of the war or support the US - the billions used to reduce Iraq to rubble, and the hundreds of billions that the US spends on armaments each year.
Oil is certainly an important element in this war, but not because of the involvement of US oil companies. Its importance lies in geopolitical strategic significance. Oil is "a strategic material the lack of which is a fatal blow to an economy, or leaves it incapable of waging war" (Why Wars? Jeremy Black, 1996). Whoever controls the world's oil supplies will have a major strategic advantage over its imperialist rivals. US imperialism's occupation of Iraq will not only give it direct control over its oil supplies but will enable it to apply direct military pressure on all the major producers in the region, as well as control the supply of oil to the rest of the world from this region. For example, Japan depends on the Middle East for 95% of its oil, Asia as a whole has a 75% dependency, and Europe though less dependent still gets 25% from there. The US, in contrast, meets 82% of its own energy needs.
This would appear to back up the 'war for oil' arguments, because the US will control oil production, supply and reserves. Iraq has 11% (15 billion tons) of the world oil reserves. This begs the question of why the US didn't capture Iraq in 1991, when it had much more international support than now. In fact oil was only part of the wider strategic game that was being played out in the Gulf. As the ICC said at the time: "By flaunting its military might, the US demonstrates the others' relative weakness. Right from the start, the US sent troops without waiting for its 'allies'' agreement; the latter were forced to rally round under pressure rather than out of conviction. As long as the action against Iraq takes the form of an embargo or diplomatic isolation they can pretend to play minor roles, and so insist on their own minor individual interests. By contrast, a military offensive can only emphasize the enormous superiority of the US, and its allies' impotence" (International Review 64, 1991).
The 1991 war enabled the US to strengthen its military presence in the region under the justification of 'containing' Saddam. This also increased their control over oil supplies, while it imposed a physical barrier to its major rivals. Not only could the US shut off the oil supplies needed for the German, French, British, Russian and Japanese economies (and war machines), but it also exposed their military puniness compared to the US, and severely limited others' access to this vital strategic region (along with its markets).
In the 12 years since, these rivals have not meekly submitted to the Pax Americana but have increasingly opposed the US - in ex-Yugoslavia, Africa, the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world. German, French and Russian imperialisms have all established commercial links with Iraq in defiance of the US. These links include access to Iraqi oil and markets. Faced with this undermining of their global leadership the US has had to resort to increasing use of military power to slap down its rivals: 1999 in Kosovo, 2001/2 in Afghanistan and now the prospect of the occupation of Iraq, followed by who knows where next. Iran?
The Mirror, the SWP and the array of 'intellectuals' such as Gore Vidal and George Monbiot, that put forward the 'war for oil' argument, all hide the depth of the imperialist conflict between the great powers. They all present US policy as being due to Bush and his administration's links to the oil industry. They say that the imperialist policy of the US, the world's superpower, is determined by the needs of one industry. Underlying this argument is the idea that Bush is somehow more of a hawk than Clinton ever was.
The fact that Bush and his team have strong links to the oil industry does give US imperialism's rivals something to attack them with. But the Bush administration's imperialist policy is fundamentally no different from that pursued by the Clinton administration or, indeed that of Bush Senior. In the 1992 Defence Planning Guidance, written by Donald Rumsfeld when he was in the State Department, there is a stark statement of US imperialist strategy. "To prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat of the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union�These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia � the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests � in the non- defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order�we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". The same strategy was defended by the Clinton administration in the 1997 National Military Strategy. "The United States will remain the world's only global power for the near-term, but will operate in a strategic environment characterized by rising regional powers, asymmetric challenges including WMD, transnational dangers, and the likelihood of wild cards that cannot be specifically predicted". This has been continued by the Bush administration "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States" (National Security Strategy, 2002). Bush is thus not defending the oil industry but the continuity of US imperialist strategy.
Strategic role of oil
During World War Two Britain and America fought a bitter diplomatic and commercial struggle over control of the Middle East oil fields. The US plan to control the oilfields deprived British imperialism of an essential part of its war machine. As Churchill complained to Roosevelt (in 1944) "There is apprehension here in some quarters that the United States has a desire to deprive us of our oil assets in the Middle East on which among other things, the whole supply of our navy depends" (quoted in The Politics of War, Gabriel Kolko 1968). Despite the 'special relationship' of the time the US used oil to help reduce British imperialism to a secondary power.
The occupation of Iraq is part of a similar strategy. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, elder statesmen of US imperialism, "A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent" (The Great Chess Board, 1997). Thus, through controlling Iraq the US can tighten the belt that is encircling its major rivals, especially the European powers. It has already established a military presence in the Central Asian republics, in Afghanistan, in the Caucasus, the Far East and the Balkans, in the 1990s through such interventions as the war in ex-Yugoslavia and, more recently, through the 'war on terrorism'. This encirclement by the US is placing great obstacles in the way of the other major powers. It is preventing their exploitation of the oil supplies and other raw materials and markets in many of these regions, as well as hindering the access to oil supplies that are vital to the war machines they are trying to develop in competition with the US. But above all, this encirclement is undermining the capacity of the US's rivals to pursue their overall imperialist ambitions in vital strategic regions of the globe, driving them behind their own frontiers. This is just what the US did to the British Empire and to the USSR.
Confronted with the US's offensive the other major powers will not meekly submit, but will be forced to do all they can to stop or undermine the assertion of US dominance. This resistance can only further destabilise the world. The US bourgeoisie recognises this. The National Defense University's Strategic Assessment 1997 warned that the use of military power to maintain US world leadership "may lead others to believe that their interests are at risk, in which case they may decide they have no choice other than the use of force" (quoted in Foreign Policy in Focus Vol. 4, No. 3, January 1999).
The Left's presentation of the war on Iraq as being for the profits of the US oil industry acts as a smokescreen to hide the real depth of imperialist tensions. This lie is used to push pacifist illusion that capitalism would be peaceful if it was not for the nasty Americans and their oil companies. This lie disarms the working class when it is faced with a worsening spiral into military barbarism.
Phil, 30/01/03.
Sixty years ago, in January 1933, an event of historic importance struck capitalist civilisation: the arrival of Hitler to power and the installation of the Nazi regime in Germany. To listen to the bourgeoisie, fascism was brutally imposed on capitalist society, forced onto its reluctant body. Not for a moment does this lie stand up to the test of historic facts. In reality, Nazism in Germany, as fascism in Italy, is the organic product of capital. The victory of Nazism came about democratically. As to the repugnant racism, the nationalist hysteria or the barbarity which, again, according to the democratic bourgeoisie, characterises the fascist regimes, they are not at all specific to these regimes. They are, on the contrary, the product of capitalism, in particular in its phase of decadence, and the attributes of all factions of the bourgeoisie be they democratic, stalinist or fascist.
The terrible reality of the holocaust is often used, by appealing more to the emotions than to objectivity, in order to back up the idea of a nature of fascism which basically differentiates it from capitalism in general and democracy in particular. The examination of the facts themselves show that barbarity is not exclusive to fascism but that capitalist democracy, so quick to denounce Nazi crimes, is directly responsible for millions of deaths and of equivalent suffering for humanity (the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The height of this criminal cynicism reaches the point of the categorical rejection by the democratic powers, notably Britain and the US, of any proposition aimed at freeing several hundreds of thousands of Jews from Hitler's camps. Moreover, contrary to the official propaganda claiming that the extermination camps weren't known about until the end of the war, the major Allied states were perfectly well aware of their existence from 1942 (see our pamphlet in French "Fascisme et democratie, deux expressions de la dictature du capital").
The victory of Nazism in Germany
The lie that the ruling class didn't know the real plans of the Nazi Party, in other words that they fell into a trap, doesn't for one moment stand up to the evidence of the historic facts. The origin of the Nazi Party has its roots in two factors which were to determine the whole history of the 1930s. On the one hand the crushing of the German revolution opened the door to the triumph of the counter-revolution on a world scale, and, on the other hand, German imperialism was still suffering from its defeat in the First World War. The early Nazi Party's objective was to finish off the crushing of the proletariat in order to reconstitute the military forces of German imperialism - on the basis of the terrible bloodbath inflicted on the working class in Germany by the Social-Democratic Party (SPD) of Noske and Scheidemann. This objective was shared by the whole of the German bourgeoisie, despite real divergences as much on the means to use as on the most opportune moment to implement them. The SA, the militias upon which Hitler depended in his march towards power, were the direct heirs of the Freikorps which had assassinated Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and thousands of other communists and militant workers. The majority of the SA leadership began their careers as killers in this same Freikorps. They were the 'White Guard' used by the SPD in power to crush the revolution in blood, and all with the support of the victorious democratic powers. The latter moreover, while disarming the German army, always took care that these counter-revolutionary militias had enough weaponry to carry out their dirty work. Fascism was only able to develop and prosper on the basis of the physical and ideological defeat inflicted on the proletariat by the left of capital, which alone was in a position to stem and then defeat the revolutionary wave which overwhelmed Germany in 1918-19. This is what the General Staff of the German army understood completely in giving a free hand to the SPD in order to deal a decisive blow to the revolutionary movement which was developing in January 1919. And if Hitler didn't follow up his attempted putsch in Munich, 1923, it's because the most lucid sectors of the ruling class judged it premature to put the Nazis in power. It was necessary, first of all, to complete the defeat of the proletariat by using the card of democratic mystification. This was far from being exhausted and still benefited, through the Weimar Republic (although presided over by the Junker Hindenburg), from a radical gloss, thanks to the regular participation, in successive governments, of ministers coming from the so-called 'socialist' party.
But, as soon as the proletarian threat was definitively exorcised, the ruling class - and we want to emphasise this - in its most classic form, through the flower of German capitalism such as Krupp, Thyssen and AG Farben, swung behind the Nazi Party with all its forces in its victorious march to power. The will of Hitler to bring together all the forces necessary for the restoration of the military power of German imperialism corresponded perfectly to the needs of the national capital. The latter, beaten and plundered by its imperialist rivals following the First World War, could only attempt to reconquer lost ground by engaging in a new war. Far from being the product of a so-called congenital Germanic aggressiveness which found in fascism the means of unleashing itself, this will was only the strict expression of the laws of imperialism in the decadence of the capitalist system as a whole. Faced with a world market which was entirely parcelled up, these laws leave no other solution to the injured imperialist powers in the carving up of the 'imperialist cake' than that of trying, by engaging in a new war, to grab the largest part. The physical defeat of the German proletariat, and Germany's status as a ransacked imperialist power following its defeat in 1918, made fascism - contrary to the victorious countries where the working class hadn't been physically crushed - the most appropriate means for German capitalism to prepare itself for a second world war. Fascism is only a brutal form of state capitalism which was about to strengthen itself everywhere, including the democratic states. It is the instrument of the centralisation and of the concentration of the whole of capital in the hands of the state faced with economic crisis, in order to orient the whole of the economy towards the preparation for war. It was thus with the total endorsement of the German bourgeoisie, that Hitler came to power. In effect, once the proletarian threat was definitively removed, the ruling class no longer had to preoccupy itself with maintaining the whole democratic arsenal, following the process that was already underway in Italy. There is no antagonism between Nazi barbarity and the values of democracy
'Yes, perhaps...' we're told, 'but aren't you making an abstraction of one of the traits which distinguishes fascism from all the other parties and fractions of the bourgeoisie, that is its inherent anti-semitism, when it is exactly this characteristic which provoked the holocaust?' It is this idea which is defended by the Trotskyists in particular. The latter in effect, formally recognises the responsibility of capitalism and of the bourgeoisie in general in the genesis of fascism, only to immediately add that this latter is, despite everything, much worse than the democratic bourgeoisie, as the holocaust shows. For the Trotskyists, confronted with this ideology of genocide, there's no hesitation in choosing the camp of anti-fascism, that of the Allied imperialisms. It is this argument, along with that of the defence of the USSR, which has served to justify their betrayal of proletarian internationalism and their passage into the camp of the bourgeoisie during the Second World War, on the side of the Allies against the Axis powers. It is perfectly logical to find today in France for example, the Trotskyist groups - the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire and its leader Krivine with the discrete but very real support of Lutte Ouvriere - at the head of the anti-fascist and 'anti-negationist' crusade, defending the vision according to which fascism is the 'absolute evil' and, from this assertion, qualitatively different from all other expressions of capitalist barbarity. Faced with this, the working class must be in the vanguard of the combat and defend, even revitalise democracy.
That the extreme right (Nazism in particular) is profoundly racist has never been contested by the Communist Left, nor moreover has the dreadful reality of the death camps. The real question lies elsewhere. It consists of knowing if this racism and the repugnant designation of Jews as scapegoats, responsible for all evil, could only be the particular expression of fascism, the evil product of sick minds, or if it is not rather the sinister product of the capitalist mode of production confronted with the historic crisis of its system, a monstrous but natural offspring of nationalist ideology defended and propagated by all fractions of the ruling class. Racism is not an eternal attribute of human nature. If the entry of capitalism into its decadence exacerbated racism to a hitherto unknown degree in the whole history of humanity, if the 20th century is a century where genocides are no longer the exception but the rule, that is not due to some perversion of human nature. It is the result of the fact that, faced with the now permanent war that each state must prepare for in the framework of a saturated world market, the bourgeoisie, in order to be able to support and justify this permanent war, must, in every country, strengthen nationalism by all means. What is more favourable, in fact, to the spread of racism than this atmosphere, so well described by Rosa Luxemburg at the beginning of her pamphlet denouncing the imperialist carnage of the First World War: "(...) the population of the whole town changes into a mob, ready to denounce anybody, molesting women, shouting: hurrah! and reaching paroxysms of delirium by starting crazy rumours: a climate of ritual crime, an atmosphere of pogrom where the sole representative of human dignity was a policemen on the corner of the street". She continues saying: "Defiled, dishonoured, wading in blood, covered in filth, here's how bourgeois society presents itself, this is what it is..." (The Crisis of Social-Democracy). One could use exactly the same terms to describe the multiple scenes of horror in Germany during the 1930s (looting of Jewish shops, lynchings, children separated from their parents) or evoke, amongst other things, the atmosphere of pogrom which reigned in France in 1945 when the stalinist paper of the PCF was odiously headlined "To each his Boche!" No, racism is not the exclusive prerogative of fascism, no more than its anti-semitic form. The celebrated General Patton of the democratic United States of America, the very person who was supposed to free humanity from 'the vile beast', declared at the time of the liberation of the camps that: "The Jews are worse than animals"; whereas the other great 'liberator', Stalin, himself organised a series of pogroms against the Jews, the Gypsies, the Chechens, etc. Racism is the product of the basic nationalist nature of the bourgeoisie, whatever the form of its domination, 'totalitarian' or 'democratic'. Its nationalism reaches a culminating point with the decadence of its system.
When the proletariat is absent from the scene of history, capitalist barbarity knows no limits
The only force that can oppose this nationalism which oozes from every pore of rotting bourgeois society, i.e., the proletariat, was beaten, physically and ideologically defeated. Arising from this, Nazism, with the consent of the whole of its class, could rely particularly on the latent racism of the petty-bourgeoisie to make this, under its anti-semitic form, the official ideology of the regime. Once again, although the professed anti-semitism put into practice by the Nazi regime was irrational and monstrous, it cannot be explained alone by the madness and perversity - in other respects quite real - of the leading Nazis. As the pamphlet published by the PCI, "Auschwitz or the great alibi" , very correctly underlines, the extermination of the Jews "... took place not at any moment, but in open crisis and imperialist war. It is thus inside this gigantic enterprise of destruction that one must explain it. The problem is found from this clear fact: we no longer have to explain the 'destructive nihilism' of the Nazis, but why the destruction is concentrated in part on the Jews".
In order to explain why the Jewish population, even if it was not alone, was designated first of all for general prosecution, then exterminated en masse by Nazism, it is necessary to take two factors into account: the needs of the German war effort and the role played in this sinister period by the petty-bourgeoisie. The latter was reduced to ruin by the violence of the economic crisis in Germany and sunk massively into a situation of lumpen-proletarianisation. From here, desperate and in the absence of a proletariat which could provide an antidote, free range was given to the most reactionary prejudices characteristic of this class without a future, and, encouraged by the fascist formations, threw itself, like a furious beast, into racism and anti-semitism. The 'Jew' was supposed to represent par excellence the 'stateless person' who 'sucked the blood of the people'; he was designated as responsible for the misery to which the petty-bourgeoisie had been reduced. This is why the first shock troops used by the Nazis came out of the ranks of a petty-bourgeoisie which was about to go under. And this designation of the 'Jew' as the enemy par excellence also had the function of allowing the German state, thanks to the confiscation of Jewish goods, to scrape together funds to contribute to its military rearmament. At the beginning, it had to do it discretely in order not to draw the attention of the victors of the First World War. The deportation camps, initially, had the function of furnishing the bourgeoisie with free labour, entirely dedicated to war preparation.
It is in the name of Nazi barbarity that the democratic Allied forces try to justify their part in a war marked out for its massive butchery and other crimes. Far from avoiding a future of new holocausts, the defence of democratic values by the ruling class can only help perpetuate a capitalist system the survival of which will mean the further accumulation of massacres and genocide.
RI, February 2003.
We are publishing here an item of correspondence received from a comrade who read our article How Australian imperialism benefits from the Bali massacre [40] from World Revolution 259, November 2002. This article is reprinted below and our reader's comments appear in red. Click here [41] to read our reply.
How Australian imperialism benefits from the Bali massacre
When horrific terrorist outrages occur, it's useful to ask who benefits from them. The answer usually sheds light on who could be responsible for these deeds. The Bali bombing on 12 October is no exception to this rule. The accused Indonesian Islamists certainly do not benefit from the Bali bombing. Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of one of the country's principal Islamist organisation, has been arrested and faces a possible death penalty for alleged complicity.
Abu Bakar Bashir was not at the time arrested for complicity in the Bali bombings. At the time he was under arrest for suspected involvement in 3 church bombings in 2000.
New 'anti-terrorist' laws have been announced in Indonesia, after these were demanded by Australia in the wake of the bombing. Some 400 Australian Federal Police and some FBI agents have rushed to Bali and are working in 'partnership' with Indonesian police investigating the bombing.
There were no where near as many as 400 AFP agents deployed in Indonesia.
Australia has also donated A$10 million in 'counter-terrorism aid' - allegedly to assist Indonesia to build an effective 'counter-terrorism' capacity, but really to institutionalise an Australian security presence there and to bring Indonesia closer to Australia's expanding sphere of influence.
What exactly is wrong with providing funds to nearby country that is in desperate need to police its own population?
To ask the question of who benefits is to answer it. The answer is clearly neither the Islamists nor even the Indonesian state, but, most directly, Australia, but also, indirectly, the United States. The bombing provides Australian imperialism with a golden opportunity to impose itself directly on Indonesia in an unprecedented manner.
How exactly?
And back in Australia, the bombing has provided the most warlike fraction in the bourgeoisie with a very big stick to cow and morally blackmail workers not convinced of the need to wage all out war on Iraq in the near future. A relentless media campaign from the bombing onwards keeps the horror of this outrage constantly in public consciousness.
I wouldn’t call it a campaign, as there was barely any coverage on television for the first days after the bombings. Sure it got an extensive workout in local media in the days following, but why wouldn’t it? With, at that time, hundreds of Australians missing, it seems only natural that local media attention would be primarily occupied with the bombings.
Accompanied by injunctions to "get the bastards who did this" (Prime Minister Howard's words) and to enthusiastically prosecute the 'War on Terror'.
John Howard has never said this in relation to the Bali bombings. His response to the bombings was calm and he never made a claim to “get the bastards who did this” (although if he did, please provide me with a link to mainstream news web site that reported this).
Opinion polls taken just before the Bali bombing indicated that a majority of the population did not support a new Gulf war. Although new polls have not been taken since the bombing, it is clear that there has been a certain shift in opinion in favour of war.
As of last Saturday (January 18), only 6 percent of the population of Australia supported a war that was not backed by the UN, hardly a “certain shift in opinion in favour of war”.
A majority of workers probably still do not support the war, but the number who do has probably risen.
So who did carry out the Bali bombing? Given the facts stated above - and the precedents of Pearl Harbor and the US World Trade Center attacks, it is quite possible that this horrendous crime was at least perpetrated with the full knowledge of the Australian and US bourgeoisies, in order to obtain the political results listed above. Was it carried out by Islamists as the bourgeois media alleges? Possibly - but then, the Australian and US bourgeoisies, not to mention the Indonesian bosses, have been manipulating various Indonesian Islamist fractions since at least the 1950s.
“Indonesian bosses” have been in cahoots with fanatical Muslims for years.
In Indonesia's recent history, Islamist fractions have been used to first bring the last Indonesian President, the 'moderate' Islamist Abdurrahman Wahid, to power in October 1999 and then to help throw him unceremoniously out again less than 2 years later.
Furthermore, there is something decidedly fishy about the wealth of information now flooding out of the Australian media - most of it openly acknowledged as being from 'security specialists', if not from actual intelligence agencies. These include extremely detailed accounts of numerous alleged meetings of Islamist terrorist leaders in South-East Asia, to plot various atrocities. According to Australia's most respected current affairs programme (and one of the most unwatched, like the television network it is shown on) Four Corners on 28 October, one such meeting was held in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur in January 2000. According to Four Corners:
"The CIA got wind of it ahead of time and tipped off Malaysian intelligence, which carried out video and photo surveillance. The meeting was attended by some of Osama bin Laden's most trusted operatives, including two of the hijackers who would die in the September 11 attacks on the United States.
"The gathering was hosted by Hambali [who is now accused by Australia of being Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant in South-East Asia], who'd come from Indonesia. Bin Laden's man in Manila, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was there as well. Among the others present were the September 11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who were at the controls of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Also there was another al-Qaida bomber later accused of the attack in Yemen on the warship 'USS Cole'".
The meeting is thought to have been a key planning session for those attacks.
The purpose of these claims by Four Corners was to garner support for Australian imperialism's new imperialist ventures (what ventures?) In Indonesia, as well - in a turnaround from its attitude prior to the Bali bombing - to build support for the US push for war against Iraq. But perhaps Four Corners tells us too much. For, if the CIA had indeed got wind of the Kuala Lumpur meeting ahead of time (and the meeting did actually take place), why did it not intervene to have the terrorists plotting against it arrested and nip these plots in the bud?
There is no way it would have been approved by Malaysian authorities, who are deeply anti-West, although are only too happy to put their hands out for foreign aid mainly of the Australian government.
Of course, it could be that the meeting did not take place at all, and that this is just one more strand in the mendacious web being woven by the pro-US bourgeoisie to transfer real working class hostility to its war plans into enthusiasm for new imperialist war. But if Four Corners is actually telling the truth, it surely lends considerable weight to the argument that the Bali bombings were carried out with the full knowledge of the Australian and US bourgeoisies, in order to benefit from the bombing's political fallout.
Other evidence tends to support this last, chilling conclusion. Despite claims by Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer that warnings were given to Australians intending to travel to Bali before the bombing, cautioning them against the strong possibility of terrorist attacks on that island, this is simply a lie. Downer's department issued travel advice on 20 September, warning of such a danger in Jakarta - but adding in bold type that tourist services in Bali were 'operating normally'. A further statement, issued this time by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta on 3 October, repeated the earlier advice.
I can’t verify that, although it is likely this is the case since Bali is mainly a Hindu populous, and the local population is extremely friendly towards Westerners.
This also fits into a pattern. Just as US governments were warned before both Pearl Harbour and September 11 that massive attacks were imminent, so it appears that the Australian Government knew what was afoot in Bali but sat on its hands, in order to make political gains from the ensuing carnage.
You tell me how the Australian Government could gave responded practically to intelligence that there is a threat to “bars, clubs, hotels, places of worship or any other place where Westerners would gather” (however it goes) in Indonesia?
The upshot of all this is that Australia now has the biggest presence in Indonesia since that country's independence in the 1940s.
If Australia really wanted revenge, wouldn’t it (with the help if it's allies) just launch a military attack on Indonesia?
Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has been able to cobble together a new 'anti-terrorist' alliance with Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.
Any leader with half a brain would do the same no matter what their own political views are. In fact, the US has been helping the Philippines bomb the Philippines to remove Muslim fanatics. I would hardly call any deal done with Malaysia an alliance. The Government of that country has continued with their anti-Western rhetoric, which will lead to only further problems again. What hypocrites the Malaysian Government can’t get enough of Australian funds let alone continues with anti-Australian rhetoric.
The new alliance is officially intended to guarantee the safety of regional trade against terrorist attacks. But there can be no doubt that this scheme will be used to force more active support for the US' war plans. This will be particularly useful against Malaysia (whose fiercely nationalist President has denounced the US war drive against Iraq) and Indonesia (whose current President, Megawati Sukarnoputri, has tried to balance between Islamist forces opposed to the US war plans and pro-US elements in another section of the local bourgeoisie). Howard will visit the Philippines and Vietnam in the New Year, to twist these countries' arms to be more active at the regional level in the 'War on Terror'.
Hardly twisting arms, but any leader of any country that faces the threats that Western nations currently do and does nothing about it is a few tacos short of a combination plate.
The various Asian and Western governments involved and the assorted Islamist fractions are all equally reactionary. Neither 'democracy' (or 'anti-terrorism') nor the US' 'War on Terror' will put an end to the fundamental cause of terrorist atrocities such as the Bali bombing, for the simple reason that it is decomposing capitalism which is producing such massacres across the globe. Just like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the forces most likely to have been behind the Bali atrocity are former clients of the United States. And just as in the cases of Pearl Harbour and September 11, the country whose citizens were the main victims of this particular massacre (Australia) almost certainly conspired to stifle warnings of the impending atrocity from reaching the light of day. In other words, whatever the particular details, innocent people are once again the victims of decomposing capitalism, which is everywhere and in all its forms (Third World, terrorist and democratic) prepared to commit the most horrendous deeds to extend its bloody rule.
I was only pointing out factual inaccuracies within the article, so I’ll just leave this alone.
J, January 03.
In January the ICC participated in an Anti-War Day School organised by Disobedience, which belongs to the same milieu as the No War But The Class War (NWBTCW) group in London. The group states in a broadsheet given out at the February 'Stop the War' demonstration that "To say No War But the Class War! means that we don't take sides between America and Iraq, Iraq and the Kurds, America and France...Rather we make sides, by asserting that the dispossessed, the workers, the poor of all nations have one enemy - the exploiters who dispossess them, who make them work, who make them poor". In the present circumstances, with the progression of wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and soon Iraq, the importance of even a small milieu opposing war on a working class basis should not be underestimated. For this reason we produced a contribution to the discussions at the Day School (see WR 261) emphasising the historical experience of the working class in opposition to war.
The most important point to come out of the experience of this Day School, is that only by drawing on the historic experience of the working class in its struggle against war, defended by the Left Communist groups, can we really put forward the perspective of a class opposition to imperialist war. This is because the intervention of these groups stems from a coherent platform that integrates the historical experience of the working class. Unfortunately there is a tendency in this milieu to cut all contact with the groups of the Communist Left, as shown by the fact that the London NWBTCW group will not give the dates or times or venue of its meetings to either WR or Sheffield No War But the Class War in which the Communist Workers Organisation has a major influence.
The danger of stunts
The intervention posed by the Disobedience group resolves itself largely into a discussion on 'stunts' that do not even take the workers on demonstrations as their point of focus. For instance, one orientation put forward at the day of study was for people to go to the US's British airbases and cut the perimeter wire, in order to go into the airbase and create a nuisance. The important point about this kind of proposal is not just that it will have no conceivable impact on what the bourgeoisie is doing, but that it is not orientated towards an intervention in the working class.
As with the Zero War conference in Australia, which raised many similar issues, there was a preoccupation with such stunts, despite the serious discussion:
"The conference now departed from the mortal world, as the majority of participants appeared to ascend into a sort of magical world in which even the most fanciful and adventurist 'direct action' schemes were portrayed in all seriousness as realistic - not to mention 'revolutionary'. The most nonsensical - and perilous - stunts were proposed." (WR 261).
At first sight these actions may seem to indicate revolutionary zeal, but, as we said in our contribution to the discussion, "The problem with many who are critical of the STWC is that too often they still buy the argument that 'at least it's doing something' and end up either tailing along in its demonstrations, or trying to devise radical-looking 'protest' stunts which substitute themselves for the real development of the proletarian movement."
This desire to 'do something' expressed itself in the Day School in two ways that both lead to a loss of any sense of the slow development of the struggle of the working class, the only force that can really stop war and put an end to the capitalist system. The first presentation given at the day of study was a review of the 'achievements' of previous anti-war movements. This was presented in a quite uncritical way and emphasised the size of the movements rather than making a critique of their class character.
A fundamental problem with this milieu is that it has no real concept of the class struggle - typical of the autonomists, modernists, anarchists and libertarians in such groupings. They see things in terms of their own 'individual' struggle. This was exemplified by one handout at the day of study that explained what the author meant by class struggle. This suggested that people take jobs in the defence sector so that they could engage in sabotage of the war effort. In other words, the class struggle is understood as individual acts of sabotage.
Therefore intervention becomes simply a matter of will. The overall state of the class struggle does not provide the context within which we can understand our intervention. In response to this we pointed out that the working class currently faces enormous difficulties and that while this makes intervention against war on a class basis very hard it is the only basis on which we can go forward.
The open defence of imperialism at the day of study
One of the sessions at the day of study was run by an element called Karvee (we are not sure of the spelling). He has also at times referred to himself as the 'Melancholy Troglodyte'. He advocated supporting certain bourgeois groups in the Middle East - Kurdish Maoist groups. He said that these groups had arrived at a class position because they opposed both Saddam and the US. Since they are Kurdish nationalists no doubt they do 'oppose both sides' in some sense.
His view is that if the 'bourgeoisie is weak' then a renewed assault on Iraq would open the door to the 'formation of soviets' - that is to the Kurdish nationalists. In terms of practical proposals he proposed that the Disobedience group should send a message of solidarity to these groups, and that the group should send people to the Middle East in the aftermath of the conflict. He emphasised that he was not speaking of 'revolutionary tourism', but was not very specific as to what people were supposed to do when they got there (assuming the US did not take them off to Cuba, or the nationalists didn't shoot them).
The ICC pointed out that what was being suggested was to send messages of solidarity to bourgeois imperialist gangs in Iraq and Iran. However, the majority at this session were not convinced of the need to oppose such groups.
It is not as strange as it seems to have bourgeois positions in support for their wars put forward in an anti-war meeting. In fact this is simply a reflection of what is happening at the anti-war demonstrations themselves. And, as we have mentioned above, even in the 'clearest' discussion of all the sessions - the first one - the Disobedience group showed a clear tendency to assimilate itself to the anti-war movement - to become simply its radical wing.
This shows how fragile is the group's grasp of its basic position that only the class war can oppose imperialist war. It also shows just how difficult it is to oppose war on a working class basis, and just how important it is to spend the time in frank and open discussion, and particularly the need to reappropriate the historic experience of the working class, through discussion with the organisations of the Communist Left. It is therefore tragic that this milieu does so much to cut itself off from the ICC and the CWO.
Hardin, 27/2/03.
France's 'pacifist' stand over the impending war in the Gulf has confused many: as in Germany, the 'peace' march in France was very much a march of 'national unity' in support of the government against America's military plans. Placards reading 'Vive la France' were also displayed at the demo in London.
The following article, reproduced from our paper in France, Revolution Internationale, exposes the myth of France's 'anti-war' position by highlighting their involvement in the bloody conflict now ravaging the Ivory Coast. In the epoch of imperialism, there can be no 'peace-loving' capitalist states!
Ivory Coast: France shows its real imperialist face
The might of French imperialism has deployed a large number of heavily armed troops into the West African state of the Ivory Coast in the middle of the 'civil war' raging between the various bourgeois fractions in that country. It has also used its strong diplomatic influence with the various armed fractions disputing power to bring them to Paris to attempt to strong arm them into finding a negotiated settlement.
While, officially, France has intervened to avoid a generalisation of the war in this country, to preserve the unity of the country and to protect its French nationals, no-one is really fooled by this. As a former colony of France, it is clear that France is really engaged in this war for one reason only, to defend its own imperialist interests and to do this, it is prepared to do whatever is necessary.
French imperialism's stake in this region
Since the coup d'etat of 1999/2000 that started the present chaos, France has been losing influence in this country with other imperialist vultures gaining at its expense through the different Ivorian factions. The French bourgeoisie wants to reverse this situation. It has strong commercial interests in the region and is determined to defend them at all costs. The Ivory Coast is a country that has a rich supply of raw materials, like cocoa and coffee (just to mention two) and it is one of the three top producers and exporters of these in the world. France has a lot of commercial interests in these sectors, as in others (they control electricity, railways, petrol, etc) and the capital, Abidjan, is still the financial centre of the West African region, with the French banks still very active there. Because of this, the control of the Ivory Coast, one of the main bases for its continuing domination in this region, is an important strategic stake for French imperialism and for its rival imperialisms too. If the war in the Ivory Coast was to totally spiral out of control, it could affect many of its neighbouring countries, in particular Mali and Burkina Faso.
French imperialism's large deployment of forces on the ground is thus a declaration of war against all its imperialist opponents, large and small. Moreover, the situation has united the different factions of the French bourgeoisie and the French government has received support from its left and right wings, some of whom have called for a more 'muscular' intervention. A dozen leading parliamentarians from amongst the Socialist Party, the Centre UDF and the Gaullists have asked the Chirac government "to give its support to the legitimate government of the Ivory Coast by helping it regain sovereignty over its whole territory, that the permanent presence of 'unruly' military elements is undermining (sic)." (Jeune Afrique of the 5th January 2003).
Clearly these prominent fractions of the French bourgeoisie are prepared to see France fully committed to using brute force in order to defend its interests in the Ivory Coast at the risk of it getting fully embroiled in the fighting between the different Ivorian gangs.
Negotiations can't halt the barbarism
Since the attempted coup on 19 September 2002, the toll of deaths has continued to mount up. France has deployed 2500 heavily armed troops under the pretext of trying to keep the warring parties apart, while itself engaging the other belligerents in battle. Its legionnaires, pretending to be there for 'legitimate defence', have already killed dozens of rebels (between 50 and 100). These encounters between its forces and the rebels, notably the MPIGO and the MJP, the two groups who hold sway in the west of the country, are increasing. Despite the continual announcement of cease-fires, the rebels and the government forces continue their assaults and raids, particularly against the civilian population, leading to further killings. This was confirmed by a recent discovery of mass graves, packed full of hundreds of bodies of ordinary civilians, women and children included. In all this, France pretends to be acting to keep the various Ivorian armies apart, while, it is in fact actively involved in the killings itself. Through its engagement with the other forces on the ground, it is directly contributing to the bloody chaos, as these armed factions fully understand. They have threatened to attack the French forces directly. The major grouping of the MPCI (rebels who have control over the northern region) decided at the beginning of January, to give 'carte blanche' to its forces to march on Abidjan with the clear intention of confronting the French forces if they stand in its way. The other groups of rebels (MPIGO and MJP) have also declared their intention of marching on the Ivorian capital and engaging the French legionnaires. In fact, France is now in the front line faced with having to deal with all the armed factions: the rebels to the north and the west and the government forces in the south.
The negotiations can't pretend to be a solution
Faced with this dangerous situation on the ground, the French bourgeoisie is doubtful that it can impose a military solution. Because of this it brought all the various groups contesting power together in Paris, to try and exert some control over them. But France has few illusions. It knows better than anyone that that the armed militias are something of a law unto themselves. Furthermore France's rival imperialisms are undoubtedly providing them with support. By organising the 'round table' conference back in Paris, the French government hopes that it can avoid the influence of its main imperialist opponents, who have been sabotaging its attempt to find a negotiated settlement since the conflict started. And France is faced with formidable and numerous opponents. African countries like Burkina Faso, Togo, Senegal, Nigeria, Angola, Libya, etc have been providing arms and finance, or have disputed control of the negotiations or the cease-fires for their own interests. Then there are the big powers like the US and Britain, pressing for a stake to satisfy their own interests; and they want at every opportunity to thwart the French plans. France doesn't even seem to be able to count on the heads of state of its former colonies, such as Senegal or Togo. While they were previously in charge of the 'peace negotiations', France sidelined them by transferring the talks to Paris. The French gangster-boss carried out a 'hold-up' right under their noses.
Meanwhile, the real game is taking place on the military terrain, and no-one still has the dominant hand. During the negotiations in Paris, the situation remained explosive with the strong-armed gangs, the mercenaries and the government death squads continuing to terrorise the civilian populations. Innocent people are gunned down. And all these odious crimes are the dirty work of the supporters of those involved in the Paris talks since 15th January. Some sources accuse the government forces particularly. They are responsible for the deaths of more than 600 persons (on top of the official death toll that followed the coup). Most of the victims were Ivorians from the north of the country or immigrants from neighbouring countries. For their part, the rebels subject the civilian population to their racketeering and terror. Many people don't even dare any longer to go to work or go out shopping for food. The French forces have witnessed all of these horrors, without taking any action to stop them. Quite hypocritically, France has, been gathering evidence of the murderous goings-on, in the event that it is called to give this evidence to any enquiry of the UN High Commission. In fact the French state is washing its hands of any responsibility by expressing support for the Ivorian government and its crimes. The French bourgeoisie is haunted by the spectre of Rwanda and remains 'traumatised', undoubtedly, by its complicity with the authors of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Nevertheless, the French state cannot hide from the eyes of the world its cynical complicity with the bloody murderers that terrorise and kill innocent civilians in the Ivory Coast.
RI, February 2003.
Thank-you for your critical comments on the ICC article 'How Australian imperialism benefits from the Bali massacre', from World Revolution 259. This letter responds to your criticisms, point-by-point. Please pardon the length of this letter; the questions you ask actually touch on matters of immense importance to the working class. For this reason, it was necessary to respond in some length - and to therefore take some time responding to you.
We wrote: Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of one of the country's principal Islamist organisations, has been arrested and faces a possible death penalty for alleged complicity.
You objected to this, writing: Abu Bakar Bashir was not at the time arrested for complicity in the Bali bombings. At the time he was under arrest for suspected involvement in 3 church bombings in 2000.
You are, of course, correct. But we were actually very careful not to state at the time that Bashir had been charged with complicity in the Bali bombings - although it was obvious that that was what he would eventually be charged with.
We wrote: New 'anti-terrorist' laws have been announced in Indonesia, after Australia demanded these in the wake of the bombing. Some 400 Australian Federal Police and some FBI agents have rushed to Bali and are working in 'partnership' with Indonesian police investigating the bombing.
You commented: 'There were no where near as many as 400 AFP agents deployed in Indonesia'. You are right about this. ABC Radio National gave out the figure of 400 at the time that Commonwealth Police were initially sent to Bali, after the bombing. The WR article was written at this time. The figure now cited is 200 Commonwealth Police.
We wrote: Australia has also donated A$10 million in 'counter-terrorism aid' - allegedly to assist Indonesia to build an effective 'counter-terrorism' capacity, but really to institutionalise an Australian security presence there and to bring Indonesia closer to Australia's expanding sphere of influence.
You responded: What exactly is wrong with providing funds to nearby country that is desperate need to police its own population?
Our answer to this is based on our assessment of the role of the police everywhere, as well as our knowledge of the Indonesian capitalist regime and what all states (which are all capitalist in our view - including Cuba, North Korea, etc.) must do in order to survive in today's world. Contrary to the lies we are told, the police are not neutral, with just a few 'bad apples'. They play a clear role on behalf of the capitalist class as a whole. They (together with the armed forces) are the chief physical defenders of the capitalists' interests - especially defending capitalist property. Certainly, there are cops who help children cross roads, etc., and there are soldiers who create emergency health clinics in devastated zones. But this is not the main role of any sector of the state apparatus, which is above all the creature of the national bourgeoisie in each country.
The Australian capitalist class is no different from any bourgeoisie on this planet. The severe crisis of the capitalists' economic system (fundamentally a crisis of capitalist over-production) compels every bourgeoisie to compete with each other for control of as much territory as it can get away with grabbing, just in order to survive (though this is not just a matter of "economic" necessity, and usually has more to do with national strategic imperatives: we suggest you look at some of the articles published in our International Review, especially on the questions of imperialist tensions in the Middle East today).
Australian capitalism has created a sick myth of how it has never "imperialised" another country. The truth is starkly different - especially in South-East Asia, but also in the Middle East, where the behaviour of Australian imperialist troops during World War I repelled even the hardened imperial armed forces of Great Britain.
Australia's connection with the territories that came to be absorbed into Indonesia such as East Timor starkly demonstrates that their armed forces were not the philanthropists they pretend to be. The fact is that every time capitalist Australia has any connection with East Timorese and Indonesians, it is workers and poor farmers who die on all sides.
During World War II, Australian imperialism fought part of its war with Japan using the East Timorese as canon fodder.
In 1965, the Indonesian Government of the day was overthrown in a brutal military coup. Java's rivers ran red with the blood of hundreds of thousands - including many workers - for months. Australia warmly supported the new military dictatorship of Suharto and Co.
Australia and the Western Alliance turned a determined blind eye to the Indonesian military's repression of workers and poor farmers over the next 30 years.
In the final analysis, the West had no serious problems with the way the Suharto regime conducted itself. Strikes were brutally crushed, and Indonesian imperialism forcibly extended its scope to West Papua and East Timor. Undaunted, the West - including Australia - continued to provide military aid to Jakarta. The only thing that has changed recently is that Australian has sensed an opportunity to raise its stake in the Indonesian archipelago and has acted accordingly. This is due both to local factors (events in East Timor and in Indonesia generally) as well as factors of a more global nature. Let's look at the global factors first because it's always advisable to start from the biggest possible 'big picture', in order to put smaller, localised, elements into perspective.
The break up of the former USSR and the Eastern bloc in the late 1980s meant the end of the Cold War, but it has hardly ushered in the golden era of international peace and brotherhood that we were promised by capitalism at the time. Indeed, military tensions, genocidal massacres and wars have only multiplied ever since.
Without the threat of Russia, the United States is no longer able to prevent its former allies from competing directly with it and each other for a share of the imperialist pie. Powers both large (France, Germany, etc.) and small (Iraq, Serbia etc.) have clashed with America either directly (the smaller powers) or by proxy, through the training and deployment of local nationalist gangs.
Australian capitalism's admittedly minor, but nonetheless bloody, record on the world stage - and especially with respect to Indonesia and East Timor - demonstrates that it could only bring more bloodshed with its international force of 'peacekeepers'.
The truth is that Australian capital sees the misery of the East Timorese as a burning opportunity for it to at long last strike out for its share of the post-Cold War booty, by leading its own military adventure. The Australian Government even caused a major embarrassment to an over-stretched US on this issue, not to mention severely disturbing Washington's cosy relationship with Jakarta.
Now consider the 'local' elements. In fact, the stakes are big for Australia. Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous country. Australian capital aims to bring it forcibly under its wing - over the bodies of not only East Timorese civilians, but also the soldiers on all sides whom never asked to be there, workers and peasants in uniform. And that is without reckoning on the chilling possibility of an escalating conflict that spreads to other Indonesian territories. As with all wars this century, the major casualties will be civilians.
Once again capitalism thus shows us its real face, time and again: an endless barbarism, good only for death and destruction. 'Bad' or 'weak' world leaders do not cause wars. They are capitalism's only answer to its insurmountable economic crisis.
It is the crisis that is sharpening the rivalries between nations, pushing them to seemingly endless military confrontations. The more the crisis deepens - as we are seeing once again right now - the more capitalism will wallow in blood, and the closer war will come to the developed countries.
The countries who made war against Yugoslavia not that long ago hypocritically claimed that this was urgently necessary to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Kosovars. This lie relied upon 'forgetting' that it was the NATO invasion itself that provided Belgrade with the best excuse - and practical opportunity - to do this.
Similarly, in East Timor, it was much the same powers who helped create the conditions for the massacre that Australia used as its excuse to intervene in 1999. Australia and the United Nations 'assured' the East Timorese that they could deliver 'peace' and independence' to them, if only the East Timorese would vote for it. It was always obvious that Jakarta would never accept losing this territory.
In June 1999, communications intercepted by the Australian Signals Directorate proved that the Indonesian military was meticulously planning the current ethnic cleansing. Undaunted, the Australian Government publicly denied the veracity of these reports. Yet, as PM Howard has since admitted, Australian troops had been preparing since at least early 1999 to play an active interventionist role in East Timor, when Jakarta's violent post-referendum campaign inevitably erupted there.
No other conclusion makes sense: Canberra was banking on Jakarta's present murderous offensive in East Timor, just like Washington was on Belgrade's ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. This also fits quite well into the plans of US imperialism, as we wrote in the November 2002 issue of World Revolution:
In the period leading up to the bombings, there were a number of visits to Indonesia by top US officials, including Colin Powell and the director of the FBI. Moreover, well-known 'hawks' like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, have been demanding an official resumption of US military aid to Indonesia, which was suspended in 1992 following massacres by the Indonesian forces in East Timor. In October the issue was debated in Congress, having received a letter from Indonesian human rights organisations opposing the resumption, given that there was no improvement in the country's human rights record. The letter also argued that the threat of terrorism - which the Bush administration was citing as the main reason for unblocking restrictions on military aid - was "very much exaggerated".
Add to this the fact that there have long been very tight connections between the radical Islamist groups and the Indonesian secret services and military forces, then suspicions can only increase that the bombings are extremely 'timely' for US imperialism, enabling it to strengthen its arguments in favour of military aid, of using Australia as a local gendarme, and of establishing a much more direct presence itself. This would allow the US to impose its version of 'stability' on a political entity which is vital strategically but divided up into a myriad of islands, many of which are agitating for independence from Jakarta; at the same time a direct military presence in the region would allow the US to begin the effective encircling of its principal imperialist rivals in the region, China and Japan. Little wonder that the Bush administration wants to blame the bombings on groups linked to al Qaeda and thus integrate its Indonesian strategy into the global 'war on terrorism'.
You next cite the following passage from our article: To ask the question of who benefits is to answer it. The answer is clearly neither the Islamists nor even the Indonesian state, but, most directly, Australia, but also, indirectly, the United States. The bombing provides Australian imperialism with a golden opportunity to impose itself directly on Indonesia in an unprecedented manner.
You ask: 'How exactly?' In much the same way that it has done in East Timor - by imposing its armed agents. And also, in this case, by compelling the Indonesian Government to dance to the 'War on Terror' tune. This time, of course, it does all this not in partial opposition to the United States, but as US imperialism's local 'deputy sheriff' (to use another phrase of John Howard - this time made a few days after the September 11 massacre, to describe the 'security' role he envisaged for Australia in the Asia-Pacific. Check the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age or The Australian for this period.)
We wrote: And back in Australia, the bombing has provided the most warlike fraction in the bourgeoisie with a very big stick to cow and morally blackmail workers not convinced of the need to wage all out war on Iraq in the near future. A relentless media campaign from the bombing onwards keeps the horror of this outrage constantly in public consciousness�
You respond to this as follows: I wouldn't call it a campaign, as there was barely any coverage on television for the first days after the bombings. Sure it got an extensive workout in local media in the days following, but why wouldn't it? With, at that time, hundreds of Australians missing, it seems only natural that local media attention would be primarily occupied with the bombings.
That is simply not true. Every day in the newspapers, for weeks afterwards, there were literally pages of coverage picking over every point not only of the atrocity, but also of the victims' lives. It was actually quite sick, because the purpose was not to grieve for the victims but to use their horrible deaths to beat the drums of war. The plan was to put out the message that 'these people' (for the moment, Muslims, especially) really had to be put in their place. Of course, the Australian state is very well aware that the Islamic establishment in Australia is quite prepared to support it in any war, as it always does. But that was not the point. The point was to divide the working class on false, sectarian, lines and on that basis (i.e., by thus dragging it onto bourgeois ideological terrain) to build hysteria, with the central aim of breaking down working class opposition to war against Iraq. This was also the purpose of the door-smashing early morning raids by ASIO in the same period. And, to a certain extent, it had the desired effect. In the first couple of weeks after the Bali bombing and consequent media vilification campaign, literally dozens of attacks on Muslims (mostly working class Muslims, too) occurred and the idea of war against Iraq received more support.
We wrote: Accompanied by injunctions to "get the bastards who did this" (Prime Minister Howard's words) and to enthusiastically prosecute the 'War on Terror'.
You claim: John Howard has never said this in relation to the Bali bombings. His response to the bombings was calm and he never made a claim to "get the bastards who did this" (although if he did, please provide me with a link to mainstream news web site that reported this).
Actually, John Howard did say this - it was literally front page news - once again check especially the Sydney Morning Herald, but it was more than likely also reported in The Age or The Australian for this period, as well.
We wrote: Opinion polls taken just before the Bali bombing indicated that a majority of the population did not support a new Gulf war. Although new polls have not been taken since the bombing, it is clear that there has been a certain shift in opinion in favour of war.
You comment: As of last Saturday (January 18), only 6 percent of the population of Australia supported a war that was not backed by the UN, hardly a "certain shift in opinion in favour of war".
Two points here: (1) There has been a clear but small increase in the support for a war; (2) a war backed by the UN will still be a war on Iraq, that can be expected to kill at least 200,000 civilians. The US has tabled plans to carpet-bomb Baghdad in the first 48 hours of the coming war with an equivalent force of bombs as it dropped in the entire Gulf War of 1991. The Australian bourgeoisie's reactionary and highly mendacious post-Bali campaign has been the primary factor in building support for a UN-conducted war.
We wrote: So who did carry out the Bali bombing? Given the facts stated above -and the precedents of Pearl Harbour and the US World Trade Centre attacks, it is quite possible that this horrendous crime was at least perpetrated with the full knowledge of the Australian and US bourgeoisies, in order to obtain the political results listed above. Did Islamists carry it out as the bourgeois media alleges? Possibly - but then, the Australian and US bourgeoisies, not to mention the Indonesian bosses, have been manipulating various Indonesian Islamist fractions since at least the 1950s.
You comment: "Indonesian bosses" have been in cahoots with fanatical Muslims for years.
We essentially agree here - although it would be more accurate to describe the 'fanatical Muslims' as capitalist political leaders who find it useful to manipulate Islam for wholly temporal and modern political purposes. Capitalism employs a range of outmoded images to mask reality. Thus (and similarly), Chief Buthelezi in South Africa is not really the 'tribal leader' he masquerades as, but a capitalist businessman, with his own very material interests to defend and extend. There are very few true tribes in today's world. A tribe is a little world falling back upon itself, a defence organism. It is a traditional and conservative institution, a community or a confederation of communities for the protection of its members against outside aggression and for the maintenance of its outdated racial customs and way of life. The term only has scientific meaning when applied to a 'relatively undifferentiated society, practising a primitive subsistence economy and enjoying local autonomy'. It cannot be applied to societies 'that have been effectively penetrated by European colonialism, which have been effectively drawn into a capitalist money economy and a world market'. (See Archie Mafeje, "The Ideology of 'tribalism'", in Journal of Modern African Studies, Volume 9, No. 2, 1971, p. 258.) Far too often the term 'tribe' is misused, when another term is arguably more appropriate. Entities called 'tribes' still exist, of course, as do supposed 'tribal chiefs', but these are qualitatively different from their pre-capitalist predecessors.
Similarly, none of the Islamist organisations that Western nations have named as terrorist are principally religious. Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam (in Iraqi Kurdistan) Abu Sayyaf (in the Philippines) etc., etc., are all certainly terrorist, but their aims are very political. What's more, they are frequently used by states (such as Iran) for their own strategic purposes.
We wrote: In Indonesia's recent history, Islamist fractions have been used to first bring the last Indonesian President, the 'moderate' Islamist Abdurrahman Wahid, to power in October 1999 and then to help throw him unceremoniously out again less than 2 years later.
Furthermore, there is something decidedly fishy about the wealth of information now flooding out of the Australian media - most of it openly acknowledged as being from 'security specialists', if not from actual intelligence agencies. These include extremely detailed accounts of numerous alleged meetings of Islamist terrorist leaders in south-east Asia, to plot various atrocities. According to Australia's most respected current affairs programme Four Corners on 28 October, one such meeting was held in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur in January 2000.
You object: And one of the most unwatched, like the television network it is shown on.
No offence, but this does not prove that it is wrong. It might, however, indicate that a minority trend in the Australian bourgeoisie wants to sabotage the current war drive, because it considers it not in its own interests.
We quoted further from the Four Corners programme: The CIA got wind of it ahead of time and tipped off Malaysian intelligence, which carried out video and photo surveillance. The meeting was attended by some of Osama bin Laden's most trusted operatives, including two of the hijackers who would die in the September 11 attacks on the United States.
The gathering was hosted by Hambali [who is now accused by Australia of being Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant in south-east Asia], who'd come from Indonesia. Bin Laden's man in Manila, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was there as well. Among the others present were the September 11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who were at the controls of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Also there was another al-Qaeda bomber later accused of the attack in Yemen on the warship 'USS Cole'.
The meeting is thought to have been a key planning session for those attacks.
And we added: The purpose of these claims by Four Corners was to garner support for Australian imperialism's new imperialist ventures [you ask, "what ventures?"] In Indonesia, as well - in a turnaround from its attitude prior to the Bali bombing - to build support for the US push for war against Iraq. But perhaps Four Corners tells us too much. For, if the CIA had indeed got wind of the Kuala Lumpur meeting ahead of time (and the meeting did actually take place), why did it not intervene to have the terrorists plotting against it arrested and nip these plots in the bud?
The point about 'what ventures?' has already been answered above, with regard to East Timor, especially. But you don't accept the broader claims in the passage that you've just cited above, writing:
There is no way it would have been approved by Malaysian authorities, who are deeply anti-West, although are only too happy to put their hands out for foreign aid - mainly of the Australian government.
The Malaysian bourgeoisie, like all bourgeoisies, first and foremost looks after its own interests. This means looking over its shoulder at its neighbours, who are its rivals. Malaysia participated willingly and fully in Western anti-USSR military and trade alliances during the Cold War and benefited tremendously from them. Since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc it sees the opportunity - and the need - to strike out more openly for its own interests, just like every other state on the planet. This translates into an increasingly strident rhetoric against its larger rivals (most of the world!) but especially against Australia, whom Malaysian PM Mahathir denounces as alien to Asia. But in today's world, it is becoming increasingly meaningless to call a country 'anti-Western', given that there is no longer a united, disciplined Western Bloc any more, for the reasons discussed earlier.
We wrote: Of course, it could be that the meeting did not take place at all, and that this is just one more strand in the mendacious web being woven by the pro-US bourgeoisie to transfer real working class hostility to its war plans into enthusiasm for new imperialist war. But if Four Corners is actually telling the truth, it surely lends considerable weight to the argument that the Bali bombings were carried out with the full knowledge of the Australian and US bourgeoisies, in order to benefit from the bombing's political fallout.
Other evidence tends to support this last, chilling conclusion. Despite claims by Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer that warnings were given to Australians intending to travel to Bali before the bombing, cautioning them against the strong possibility of terrorist attacks on that island, this is simply a lie. Downer's department issued travel advice on 20 September, warning of such a danger in Jakarta - but adding in bold type that tourist services in Bali were 'operating normally'. A further statement, issued this time by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta on 3 October, repeated the earlier advice.
You comment: I can't verify that, although it is likely this is the case since Bali is mainly a Hindu populous, and the local population is extremely friendly towards Westerners.
We shall see who is correct on this, ultimately. But consider the mounting evidence of a totally unbelievable number of 'security errors' in the US, warning of the September 11 atrocity, long before it happened. See also the Sydney Morning Herald, especially for October 2002.
We stated: This also fits into a pattern. Just as US governments were warned before both Pearl Harbour and September 11 that massive attacks were imminent, so it appears that the Australian Government knew what was afoot in Bali but sat on its hands, in order to make political gains from the ensuing carnage.
You object strongly to this, writing: You tell me how the Australian Government could gave responded practically to intelligence that there is a threat to "bars, clubs, hotels, places of worship or any other place where Westerners would gather" (however it goes) in Indonesia?
The point here is that there are reports in the Sydney Morning Herald and other Australian media that terrorist attacks against Australian tourists in Bali were imminent and the Australian Government chose deliberately to ignore these. If this is true, surely it had ulterior political and strategic motives for this? For us, the point is that the capitalist class is utterly ruthless, being literally willing to stop at nothing in order to protect its interests. The terrible bloodbath on September 11 and the smaller bloodbath in Bali, were not sudden bolts out of the blue by 'fanatical Muslims'. On the contrary, they were both a new, and qualitatively more serious, link in a long chain of wars, acts of destruction, developing militarism and arms build up.
We wrote: The upshot of all this is that Australia now has the biggest presence in Indonesia since that country's independence in the 1940s.
You comment: If Australia really wanted revenge, wouldn't it (with the help if its allies) just launch a military attack on Indonesia?
Certainly, but given (as we strongly suspect) Australian authorities knew beforehand of the impending bombings, the aim is not revenge but political and strategic, as argued above.
We wrote: Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has been able to cobble together a new 'anti-terrorist' alliance with Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.
You comment: Any leader with half a brain would do the same - no matter what their own political views are. In fact, the US has been helping the Philippines bomb the Philippines to remove Muslim fanatics. I would hardly call any deal done with Malaysia an alliance. The Government of that country has continued with their anti-Western rhetoric, which will lead to only further problems again. What hypocrites - the Malaysian Government can't get enough of Australian funds - let alone continues with anti-Australian rhetoric.
The 'Malaysian Government can't get enough of Australian funds' - and the Australian Government can't get enough US military bases! But both the Australian and Malaysian bourgeoisies, like all the others, are always ruthless in seeking to advance their own interests, as discussed above.
We wrote: The new alliance is officially intended to guarantee the safety of regional trade against terrorist attacks. But there can be no doubt that this scheme will be used to force more active support for the US' war plans. This will be particularly useful against Malaysia (whose fiercely nationalist President has denounced the US war drive against Iraq) and Indonesia (whose current President, Megawati Sukarnoputri, has tried to balance between Islamist forces opposed to the US war plans and pro-US elements in another section of the local bourgeoisie). Howard will visit the Philippines and Vietnam in the New Year, to twist these countries' arms to be more active at the regional level in the 'War on Terror'.
You remark: Hardly twisting arms, but any leader of any country that faces the threats that Western nations currently do and does nothing about it is a few tacos short of a combination plate.
Certainly, every state will seek to defend its territory etc. But this is not the point, which here is twofold: (1) the Australian bourgeoisie is here using the 'War on Terror' franchise it has had bestowed on it by Uncle Sam to simultaneously advance both this war and to look after and if possible expand its own interests and (2) the problem of global terror is one very much created by the capitalist states themselves. On the one hand, terrorism feeds off the crushing poverty and desperation in the underdeveloped countries that has resulted from capitalism in its decadent (or imperialist) phase. On the other hand, terrorism is now used by states (Iran, Syria, the US�) for their own security and political purposes. The only way to eliminate both terrorism and war is to stamp-out the cause - capitalism.
We wrote: The various Asian and Western governments involved and the assorted Islamist fractions are all equally reactionary. Neither 'democracy' (or 'anti-terrorism') nor the US' 'War on Terror' will put an end to the fundamental cause of terrorist atrocities such as the Bali bombing, for the simple reason that it is decomposing capitalism which is producing such massacres across the globe. Just like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the forces most likely to have been behind the Bali atrocity are former clients of the United States. And just as in the cases of Pearl Harbour and September 11, the country whose citizens were the main victims of this particular massacre (Australia) almost certainly conspired to stifle warnings of the impending atrocity from reaching the light of day. In other words, whatever the particular details, innocent people are once again the victims of decomposing capitalism, which is everywhere and in all its forms (Third World, terrorist and democratic) prepared to commit the most horrendous deeds to extend its bloody rule.
You conclude: I was only pointing out factual inaccuracies within the article, so I'll just leave this alone
Actually, it would be interesting to know what you think about this paragraph, which is the most important in the article and complements our last response, above.
We don't know what you'll make of our response to your comments and questions. We hope at least that we've responded adequately to you. In any case, we'd be interested to learn of what you think about our answers.
Thanks again for responding to our article.
Yours fraternally,
JE, for the ICC. (7/2/03)
When the Bank of England takes up Corporal Jones' cry of "Don't panic!" it is clearly time for the working class to take a good hard look at the economy. On 12 February the Bank "attempted to avert a crisis of confidence in the economy as it urged the public not to panic about the country's prospects" (The Times Business 13.2.03). So, what is it we should not be panicking about?
This advice followed the Bank of England's surprise quarter-point cut in interest rates which triggered a near 90 point drop in the FTSE 100 index, and the repeated cut in its predictions for growth this year and next - now down half a percentage point on 3 months ago at between 2 and 2.5%, and a whole point below the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report forecast last November. In addition the pound has fallen against both the Euro and the dollar and the governor of the Bank has told the Treasury Select Committee that he has no idea how low it will fall or how long it will go on.
Behind all this we can see some very disturbing statistics. Corporate debt defaults higher than at any time since the Depression, with 141 companies defaulting £163billion. Investment has fallen £11.7 billion or more than 10% since 2001, the largest fall in Britain since records began 36 years ago. In manufacturing the fall was 17.7% with investment at its lowest since 1984. The trade gap has increased to £34 billion after exports fell to a 3 year low. Business confidence is down, with a CBI survey showing manufacturing confidence down in every region. Bosses are worried about the fact that house prices are not rising so quickly, since the housing market was fuelling consumer spending. They are also concerned about the insolvency of pension funds. And, as always, the loss of business confidence means brutal attacks on the working class, with the CBI survey predicting 42,000 job cuts.
Economic crisis in Britain, part of the crisis of capitalism
The CBI is criticising the Chancellor for hampering business with too much tax and too much red tape, the Engineering Employers' Federation and the T&G union is demanding the government take urgent measures to encourage investment, but the present economic problems are not confined to the UK and are not the result of faulty government policy. The fall of the pound shows that Britain is not doing as well as its competitors, but problems for British business are just expressions of the weakness of capitalism globally. While manufacturing is in recession here, in Germany industrial production fell 2.6% in December. While Britain has a huge balance of payments deficit of 2.1% of GDP, the USA deficit is 4.6% of its much larger GDP. And consumer confidence has also fallen sharply in the USA.
The present economic difficulties are part of a long series of crises since the end of the 1960s. Recently we have seen the dramatic convulsions in Latin American countries, affecting Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Venezuela, following on from the collapse of the 'tiger' economies in 1997-8. Despite all the hype about new technology and globalisation the reality is that the world economy has been slowing steadily. Growth rates in the OECD countries fell from 5% in the 1960s to 3.5% in the '70s, 2.8% in the '80s and 2.6% in the '90s. Even this has been based on increased debt, both public and private, necessary to provide a market to fuel the current very modest growth rates. In the USA, the massive balance of payments deficit and projected record budget deficit of $304 billion (without taking account of any spending on war in Iraq), and the fact that American households are on average in debt to the equivalent of one year of their income, are just some of the most immediate illustrations of this trend.
Attacks on the working class
The best the British ruling class can hope to do in this crisis is to make its industry more competitive on the world market, try and outdo more of its competitors and take a bigger share. That competitiveness is always obtained at the expense of more attacks on the working class.
Despite the projected loss of 42,000 jobs (and the continual announcement of factory closures such as Boots skincare plant in Airdrie which will cost another 1000 jobs), recent government statistics appear to show some hope. The total out of work and claiming benefit fell in January to 928,500. It is claimed to be a 27-year low, but since the way of counting unemployment has changed so much, and the government itself admits to 1.5 million out of work, no-one really believes the figures. At the same time income tax revenues fell 5% on the same month a year ago, which is a government statistic that gives a far more honest idea of the reduction in working class living standards. In effect workers are faced with more low paid and temporary and insecure jobs.
The prospect of war
While the information about the economy in general is largely confined to the business pages, speculation about the effect of a war in Iraq is much more up-front. A short successful war would be a fillip, according to the Bank of England; a long war would be harmful as it could fuel panic buying of oil. The prospect of war is blamed for many ills, particularly reduced consumer confidence in the USA. This is compared to the fall in confidence after September 11, but without ever pointing out that the economic problems of the time and the loss of confidence started way before the fall of the Twin Towers. War is not the cause of the economic crisis, but is a result of the increasingly bitter competition between nations that flow from it. Nor can war against Iraq provide a real stimulus to the economy in 2003, any more than it could in 1991. It will have no more benefit on the economy than war in Afghanistan or the Balkans, whatever may be the momentary ebbs and flows of speculative capital. But if the aftermath of war destabilises the Middle East it has the potential for a distinctly negative effect on the economy as well.
What the crisis and the approach of war really show is that capitalism has nothing to offer humanity but misery and war. It shows the importance of the working class understanding the need to overthrow the system that's based on its exploitation.
Alex 28/2/03.
The parasitic group which calls itself the 'Internal Fraction of the ICC', formed around the individual Jonas who was expelled from the ICC for behaviour unworthy of a communist militant (see our communique in WR 252), is now openly revealing its true nature. The method of informers
On its website, the IFICC has published two texts which tell us a great deal about the destructive activities of this so-called 'Fraction'.
The first text is the letter which the ICC's section in Mexico sent to the four members of the 'Fraction' living in that country. The publication of the content of this letter is not a problem for us. But what is a problem for us (and should be for all the groups of the communist left) is the fact that the IFICC has published in advance the date of an internal meeting of the ICC (the territorial conference of our Mexican section). In this letter, the ICC's section in Mexico gave the members of the 'Fraction' the date of this conference in order to allow them to defend themselves at it and make an appeal to it (which they have refused to do).
By publishing the whole of this letter on its website, the clique around Jonas deliberately put at the disposal of all the world's cops the date on which our conference in Mexico was being held, with the participation of militants from other countries (since as our press has always noted, international delegations always take part in these kind of meetings). This meant that the police organs concerned with such matters could strengthen their surveillance at the airports and borders. This disgraceful action by the IFICC, which facilitates the work of the repressive forces of the bourgeois state against revolutionary militants, is all the more shameful in that the members of the IFICC know perfectly well that certain of our comrades have already, in the past, been direct victims of repression and in some cases have had to flee their country of origin (note 1) [49].
But the police-like methods of this parasitic group don't stop there.
In number 14 of the 'Internal Bulletin' of the IFICC, published on its website, our readers can also find a text entitled 'Une ultime mise au point' which has the pretension (and above all the hypocrisy) to try to defend the PCI (Le Proletaire) against the "incredible attack" supposedly launched against this group by the ICC. In fact, our readers can see for themselves that this text is not at all a defence of the PCI, given the total absence of arguments to refute the elements we have published in our press about this incident (see WRs 260 and 261).
The IFICC's text is really devoted to hurling the worst kind of slanders against two of our comrades (and thus against all the militants of the ICC, who are accused of being in the pocket of "the person who runs the ICC" and his partner, about whom Jonas spread the rumour in the ICC that she was a "cop"). In doing so it exposes the abject methods of the friends of Jonas.
The real "political disagreements" of the friends of Jonas
In this 'Ultime mise au point', the IFICC begins by asserting that "we have always remained on a strictly political terrain". Our readers can make up their own minds about this by examining the IFICC's 'political' arguments aimed at showing its 'fundamental disagreements' with the ICC, disagreements which are supposed to justify the formation of an 'Internal Fraction' in continuity with all the left fractions of the workers' movement from the Spartacus League to the Italian left. Here we will only cite one small extract from these arguments. Readers can judge whether they prove that the IFICC has always remained "on a strictly political terrain":
"This text is written by CG, alias Peter, as can be seen from the style and above all the somewhat fantastical reference to a lamentable operation of recuperation carried out under his direction. This same Peter is the person who runs the ICC and who, after having excluded or pushed out the majority of the founding members of the ICC, claims to be the sole heir of MC. But it should also be known that if Peter is leading this hate-filled cabal against our comrade Jonas, it's for the very simple reason that Louise (alias Avril), the militant about whom Jonas has clearly expressed his doubts, is none other than the partner of the chief" (note 2) [50].
On the fallacious pretext of taking up the defence of the PCI, the Jonas camarilla is exposing the real colour of its money and the "strictly political" disagreements upon which this so-called Fraction has been founded: the ICC is led by a little Stalin ("the chief") manipulated by "the chief's partner" who is a dubious element ( a "cop", to use Jonas' term).
As we have already underlined in an article in WR 252 ('The struggle of revolutionary organisations against provocation and slander'), the workers' movement has always insisted that introducing suspicion into an organisation in order to destroy confidence between militants is precisely the method used by agents provocateurs (notably the GPU in the Trotskyist movement in the 1930s).
Today through this 'Ultime mise au point' the Jonas camarilla is carrying on outside the ICC the dirty work it did inside it, with the aim of sowing suspicion throughout the proletarian political milieu. It is clear that, having failed to convince the militants of the ICC of the necessity to exclude the "chief" and the "chief's partner", this parasitic grouplet is now trying to draw other groups of the communist left behind its slanders in order to erect a cordon sanitaire around the ICC and to discredit it (as can already be seen from reading the press of the PCI).
The method of blackmailers
But the IFICC shows the police-like nature of its activities most clearly by its insistence on the initials of the "chief" ("this text is written by CG, alias Peter"). What "strictly political" interest do Jonas and his friends have in putting the initials of a militant in public? Apart from the fact that this really is worthy of an informer, in the same way as publishing the date of our territorial conference in Mexico, this is also the method of blackmailers, aimed at intimidating militants. By publishing on the internet the real initials of one of our comrades (when will they include the complete name and address?), Jonas and his pals are trying to deliver the following message: whoever dares to support the ICC will be denounced to the police. This is one of the main reasons why the address list of militants and subscribers was stolen from the ICC several months before the formation of the IFICC: apart from the fact that this theft allowed them to inundate our militants and subscribers with its squalid denigrations of the ICC, it also allows the IFICC to permanently intimidate them. How else can we explain the fact that the IFICC, even though its bulletins are now on the internet, continues to send its bulletins by post, including to those who have explicitly asked the IFICC to stop sending them? (note 3) [51].
Furthermore, what political interest does the IFICC have in shouting from the rooftops that "this text is written by CG, alias Peter, as can be seen from its style"? From the proletarian point of view, what interests the serious reader is above all the political content of our articles and not which individual is behind such and such a signature or such and such a "style". On the other hand, it is true that thanks to the analysis of "style", the bourgeois state's repressive forces can indeed try to identify those who write for the revolutionary press (even if, as is the case with the ICC, the articles published in our press are discussed and edited collectively). This enables the bourgeoisie, in periods of repression, to try to paralyse the publication of the revolutionary press by arresting and imprisoning militants whose "style" they have, or believe to have, recognised.
With such methods, worthy of the work of police spies, this 'final' mise au point is in fact a 'final' threat: if the ICC continues to warn the proletarian milieu against the manoeuvres of Jonas and his friends (as we did in our article in reply to the PCI), the IFICC will publish the famous 'documents' which purport to prove that the "chief's partner" is a dubious element, with the aim of convincing the proletarian milieu about this. As the IFICC's article says "Comrade Jonas is by no means the only one to have reasons for doubting this militant: here again numerous documents written by the ICC, which we have in our possession, prove this".
We are only too familiar with this threat. The IFICC is now carrying on outside the ICC the same blackmail which it carried on for a year and a half inside the ICC in order to try to force us to accept its permanent violation of our statutes and the thuggish behaviour of the members of the 'Fraction' (theft of the ICC's documents and money, slanders against militants spread through secret correspondence and meetings, etc).
This method of blackmail and insinuation, of spreading calumnies against two of our comrades, of proclaiming loud and clear that "once again we have the documents which prove what we are saying" is not new from the IFICC. When its members were still in the ICC they behaved in the same way with regard to a document called 'The history of the IS' ((International Secretariat, permanent commission of the ICC's central organ). They circulated this in a selective manner and presented it as the proof of their accusations against certain of our comrades, particularly Louise and Peter. Despite the importance which they attributed to this document (which they described as "historic"), they always refused to place it in the hands of the organisation, including those of the Investigation Commission nominated by the 14th Congress of the ICC to shed light on these problems. Finally, this document was published in no. 10 of the IFICC Bulletin, after its members had deliberately placed themselves outside the organisation. At the express request of the central organ of the ICC, it was read by all our comrades who read the French language. All the sections and all the comrades were nauseated by the avalanche of lies contained in this document, as well as by the repulsive way it made use of comrades' private lives.
This is the kind of document that the IFICC is threatening to make public!
The organisations of the workers' movement have often been confronted by this kind of blackmail: "We have the documents which prove our accusations". Faced with these methods, the attitude of proletarian organisations has always been to demand the publication of these famous documents so that they can be publicly refuted. As for those which the IFICC goes on about, it's clear that the ICC is perfectly capable of refuting them as well. However, these documents deal with the details of the functioning of our organisation and the private life of its militants, and their publication could only be a gift to the police. This said, the ICC is perfectly willing for this document to be made available to a commission made up of trusted militants of the organisations of the communist left and to be discussed in this framework.
The ICC has nothing to fear from the truth because the truth can only
ICC, February 2003.
(1) We often read or hear that the special organs of the bourgeois state have no interest in a small organisation like ours and that today the ruling class is unaware of the role that the communist left is destined to play in a future revolutionary movement. Such ideas express an enormous naivete, as can be seen for example by the 'anti-revisionist' campaigns which aimed to put into the same bag the groups of the left communist current who denounced anti-fascism and the extreme anti-semitic right. The whole history of the workers' movement attests to the fact that the special services of the bourgeois state never underestimate the potential danger represented by revolutionary groups, however small they might be, however little influence they may have in the working class at a given moment. Furthermore, despite the fact that for the moment the 'democratic' state does not generally use open repression against the groups of the communist left, the latter have already suffered from acts of repression (such as the raids on the PCI in the 1970s). The ICC itself has not been spared since certain of our militants, including in the most 'democratic' countries, have been subjected to raids, surveillance aimed at intimidation, prolonged interrogation at the frontier, and commando actions by armed elements probably mixed up with the state. The members of the IFICC know this perfectly well. Back [52]
(2)) MC is our comrade Mark Chirik, who died in 1990. He lived through the revolution of 1917 in his native town of Kishinev in Moldavia. A member of the Communist Party of Palestine at the age of 13, expelled from the PCF in 1928, he carried on the struggle for the defence of revolutionary positions in different organisations of the communist left, notably the Italian Fraction which he joined in 1938 and the Gauche Communiste de France from 1945 onwards. From 1964 in Venezuela and 1968 in France, MC played a decisive role in the formation of the first groups who were to be at the origins of the ICC, giving the political and organisational experience he had acquired in the various communist organisations he had belonged to. You can find out more about the political biography of our comrade in our French-language pamphlet The Communist Left of France and in the articles in International Review 65 and 66, written at the time of his death. As for the ridiculous claim that Peter aims to be the "sole heir of MC" (completed by a note exclaiming "this shows the conception he has of the revolutionary organisation"), the members of the IFICC will have a hard time proving it. This shows the sick imagination and stupid spite of the members of the IFICC, as well as their own warped view of the organisation. Back [53]
(3) In its Bulletin no. 11, the IFICC published a reply to a letter that we sent to each of its members asking them to return the internal documents in their possession. In its reply, the IFICC writes: "As for the copy of the subscribers' list, it is to say the least striking that you are claiming, like a shopkeeper jealous of his clients, a 'property' of people�But perhaps your concern is the security of these documents which could fall into 'indelicate' hands? We can assure you that they are being well looked after, and it will be difficult, not to say impossible, for 'indelicate people' to get their hands on them". After the IFICC's recent informer-like behaviour, we have an idea of how much confidence we can place in them! Back [54]
In order to mount a real opposition to imperialist war, revolutionaries have to be able to look beneath all the false explanations for this or that conflict. The media and the politicians from left to right have certainly provided enough of these in the war in Iraq: it's all down to the evil Saddam, or to the no less evil George Bush and his cronies in the oil business, and so on and so forth. Our article 'What is imperialism?' in this issue shows why imperialist wars are the inevitable product not of this or that state or leader, but of the entire capitalist system at a certain stage of its development. But the revolutionary analysis of war does not only provide a general theoretical understanding of the drive to war. Like Rosa Luxemburg in her Junius Pamphlet, written during the First World War, it is also necessary to examine in depth the particular strategies of the various imperialist powers engaged in a conflict. In the article that follows we are therefore putting forward a broad framework for uncovering the real aims and policies that lie behind the actions and phoney justifications of the competing imperialist powers today.
From Gulf War One to Gulf War Two
Faced with the collapse of the rival Russian bloc at the end of the 1980s, and with the rapid unravelling 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'. The principal methods of this strategy were demonstrated forcefully by the first Gulf war of 1991:
But if the Gulf war's primary aim was to issue an effective warning to all who would challenge US hegemony, it must be judged a failure. Within a year, Germany had provoked the war in the Balkans, with the aim of extending its influence to a key strategic crossroads of Europe and the Middle East. It would take the best part of the decade before the US - through the war in Kosovo - could impose its authority in this region, having been opposed not only by Germany (which gave underhand support to Croatia) but also by France and its supposedly loyal ally Britain, who secretly backed Serbia. The chaos in the Balkans was a clear expression of the contradictions faced by the US: 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 military operations 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 have more and more functioned as obstacles to the US's plans.
After September 11 2001 - almost certainly carried out with the complicity of the US state - the USA's global strategy shifted onto a higher level. The 'war against terrorism' was immediately announced as a permanent and planet-wide military offensive. Faced with an increasing challenge from its principal imperialist rivals (expressed in rows over the Kyoto agreement, the European military force, manoeuvres over the policing of Kosovo, etc), the USA opted for a policy of much more massive and direct military intervention, with the strategic goal of the encirclement of Europe and Russia by gaining control of Central Asia and the Middle East. In the far east, by including North Korea in the 'axis of evil', and by renewing its interest in the 'struggle against terrorism' in Indonesia following the Bali bombing, US imperialism has also declared its intention to intervene directly in the backyard of China and Japan.
The aims of this intervention are by no means limited to the question of oil considered uniquely as a source of capitalist profits. Control of the Middle East and central Asia for geo-strategic reasons was a matter of intense inter-imperialist rivalry long before oil became a vital element in the capitalist economy. And while there is a clear necessity to control the huge oil-producing capacities of the Middle East and the Caucasus, 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 strategic plan, which includes the ability to shut off oil supplies to America's potential 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.
Imperialist rivalries come into the open
The USA's audacious project of building a ring of steel around its main imperialist rivals thus provides the real explanation for the war in Afghanistan, the assault on Iraq, and the declared intention to deal with Iran and North Korea. However, the upping of the stakes by the US has called forth a commensurate response from its main challengers. The resistance to the US plan for a second Gulf war was led by France, which threatened to use its veto on the UN Security Council; but even more significant is the explicit challenge issued by Germany, which hitherto has tended to work in the shadows, allowing France to play the role of declared opponent of US ambitions. Today however, Germany perceives the US adventure in Iraq as a real menace to its interests in an area which has been central to its imperialist ambitions since before the First World War. It has thus issued a far more open challenge to the US than ever before; furthermore, its resolute 'anti-war' stance has emboldened France, which until quite close to the outbreak of war was still hinting that it might change tack and take part in the military action. With the outbreak of the war, these powers are adopting a fairly low profile, but historically a real milestone has been marked. This crisis has pointed to the demise not only of NATO (whose irrelevance was shown over its inability to agree on the 'defence' of Turkey just before the war) but also of the UN. The American bourgeoisie is increasingly regarding this institution as an instrument of its principal rivals, and is openly saying that it will not play any real role in the 'reconstruction' of Iraq. The abandonment of such institutions of 'international law' represents a significant step in the development of chaos in international relations.
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. This is mainly because in the phase of capitalist decomposition, which is marked by growing disorder in international relations, 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. The powerful divisions between the European countries over the war in Iraq has demonstrated that 'Europe' is very far from forming a coherent bloc, as some elements of the revolutionary movement have tended to argue. Furthermore, such arguments are based on a confusion between economic alliances and real imperialist blocs, which are above all military formations oriented towards world war. And here two other important factors come into play: first, the undeniable military dominance of the US, which still makes it impossible for any openly warlike challenge to be mounted against the US by its great power rivals; and secondly, the undefeated nature of the proletariat, which means that it is not yet possible to create the social and ideological conditions for new war blocs. Thus the war against Iraq, however much it has brought imperialist rivalries between the great powers into the open, still takes the same basic form as the other major wars of this phase: a 'deflected' war whose real target is hidden by the selection of a 'scapegoat' constituted by a third or fourth rate power, and in which the major powers take care to fight using only professional armies.
The Iraq war further undermines US authority
Although the USA's attack on Iraq demonstrates its crushing military superiority to all the other major powers, the increasingly open character of its imperialist ambitions is tending to weaken its overall political authority. In both world wars and in the conflict with the Russian bloc, the US was able to pose as the principal rampart of democracy and the rights of nations, the defender of the free world against totalitarianism and military aggression. But since the collapse of the Russian bloc the US has been obliged to itself play the role of aggressor; and while, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, the US was still able to some extent to present its action in Afghanistan as an act of legitimate self-defence, the justifications for the 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.
The first weeks of the military action served mainly to create further difficulties for US political authority. Initially presented as a war that would be both quick and clean, it became clear that the war plan drawn up by the current administration seriously underestimated the degree to which the invasion would provoke a general reaction of hostility to the American invasion, even if this is not accompanied by any great enthusiasm for Saddam's regime. Even the Shiite organisations, who were being counted on to lead an 'uprising' against Saddam, declared that the first duty of all Iraqis was to resist the invader. Equally, the war plan underestimated the capacity of the regime to wage a kind of warfare that would profit from the political difficulties facing the coalition. To win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi population, and convince a more international public opinion that it is waging a humane war, the US coalition needed to make rapid progress and avoid too much civilian suffering. But by luring the invaders onto the terrain of urban sieges and guerrilla warfare, the Iraqi forces have threatened to turn the situation into a real quagmire. The prolongation of the war can only serve to aggravate the misery of the population, whether through the action of Saddam's terror squads aimed at inhibiting any attempts to flee or desert the battle front, through the intensification of coalition bombing which will cause more and more civilian deaths and damage to the infrastructure, or through the multiplication of 'tragic incidents' in which civilians are gunned down by coalition soldiers fearful about terrorist attacks.
At the time of writing (5/4/3), the 'coalition' appears to be gaining ground both militarily and ideologically. Key units of the Republican Guard seem to have been pulverised; Baghdad is being encircled and we are being shown scenes of Iraqi civilians waving at coalition forces as they advance. The Iraqi regime is making itself look more and more ridiculous with its fantasies about military victory, and we are being encouraged to believe that it could collapse without a real fight. The fact remains that it took an unexpectedly long time to take the port of Umm Qasr and that Basra has yet to fall; and the risk remains that the siege and capture of Baghdad could turn into a veritable bloodbath.
The US is thus experiencing considerable difficulty in portraying itself as the 'liberator' of the Iraqi people. And even if Baghdad falls fairly quickly, the Americans' plan to install a puppet regime directly controlled by the US military will tend to increase the bitterness that many Iraqis feel towards the invading force. Moreover, the war is already exacerbating the divisions within Iraqi society, in particular between those who have allied themselves with the USA (as in the Kurdish regions) and those who have fought against the invasion. These divisions can only serve to create disorder and instability in post-Saddam Iraq, further undermining the USA claim that it will be the bearer of peace and prosperity in the region. On the contrary, the war is already stoking up tensions throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The USA's inability to use Turkey as a base for opening its northern front was already a severe blow to its overall strategy; and since the war began Turkey has been threatening to move against the Kurds in northern Iraq, potentially opening up a war within the war; Syria's anti-American rhetoric (and covert aid to Iraq) has provoked Rumsfeld and Powell to make serious threats against Damascus; India and Pakistan have again begun rattling sabres at each other; and the war in Iraq cannot fail to pour oil on the fire in Israel/Palestine.
Thus, far from resolving the crisis of American leadership, the war in Iraq can only take it to new levels - and that means new levels of barbarism for a growing number of populations around the world.
WR, 5/4/03.
We are publishing a leaflet by the Moscow anarcho-syndicalist group KRAS in response to the massacre that took place when Chechen separatists took control of a Moscow theatre last October. We don't agree with all its formulations, especially the classical anarchist ones which seem to imply that the main problem facing the working class is not the capitalist mode of production but the principle of 'Authority', or that the system can be brought down by a general strike alone. But we want to express our solidarity with its basic internationalist spirit, its opposition to a war that is against the class interests of both the Russian and the Chechen workers. We have redrafted the English translation sent to us with the aim of making it more accessible, and hope that we have not altered any of its political content.
No war between the peoples - no peace between the classes!
The nightmare in Moscow, which is a prolongation of the tragedy in the northern Caucasus, is deeply symbolic. Nearly 200 innocent civilians were very calmly put to death by both of the warring sides - Russian imperialism and Chechen nationalism. Once again it is obvious: there is no 'just cause' in the struggle between states or would-be states (such as the 'national liberation' movements). There are only victims and butchers. And the butchers are the rulers and commanders on both sides! For them human life is nothing - only power and profit interest them. Putin (note 1) [56] needs popularity ratings. Russian politicians need a 'united and indivisible' empire. The oil kings need the northern Caucasus oil pipelines. Maskhadov (note 2) [57] needs a republic submissive to him (small, but his own). Basayev (note 3) [58] needs an Islamic republic state and the Islamic fundamentalists need a 'holy war'. But why is any of this in your interests - the interests of those who live in the asphalt jungles of Moscow, the slums of Grozny or the refugee camps of Ingushetia; the interests of the victims of the barbaric bombing and military 'cleansing' in Chechnya or of the fascist act in the Moscow House of Culture?
The workers of Russia and Chechnya have no reason to fight against each other. You have a common enemy: the rulers of Russia and Chechnya, the politicians and the bosses, the generals and the bankers. They are the ones who devised this war. They must answer for it. And we the common people must ask the questions in the name of the living and the dead.
We reject the call for negotiations between the 'legal' authorities of Russia and Chechnya (note 4) [59]. These authorities are criminals. Not only because every authority is criminal, based as it is on commands, fear and obedience, on ignoring human life. But also because they were the ones who stoked this fire. They are guilty! We shouldn't call on them to negotiate, but to disappear!
We say, categorically and unconditionally, NO to the Russian empire, to all prattle about 'united and indivisible' Russia. But we also say that all talk about the 'rights of nations' or 'national self-determination' is dangerous delirium (note 5) [60]. It benefits only the rich castes of the 'oppressed nations' who want to free themselves from the dictates of other bosses and be the undisputed rulers of their 'own' populations. And to this end these potential rulers use their future subjects as cannon fodder, using the pretext of 'national liberation' or the 'national interest'. The upper classes of different nations are responsible for the wars that kill each others' slaves. It is up to the exploited people of all countries and ethnic groups to get rid of all demagogy about 'national liberation', to realise that the enemy is not your neighbour, that the only answer is the struggle for authentic liberation, ie a social liberation.
It is time to stop looking for solutions in the habitual logic of nations and states. It is time to remember that TO ABOLISH WARS, IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH THE DOMINATION OF HUMAN BEINGS OVER OTHER HUMAN BEINGS - TO ABOLISH AUTHORITY! You must stop choosing between the plague and cholera, between the arrogant imperialism of the great powers and the rapacious authoritarianism of petty local chiefs, between the multinational corporations and the grasping 'national' bourgeoisies. There is only one way to stop wars: to subvert its organisers, the leaders and beneficiaries on both sides.
It makes no sense to beseech the ruling criminals for peace. It could be a step forward merely to obtain the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, although this would not eliminate the grounds of the conflict and the inevitability of a new war. But the authorities would not even grant that without pressure and the opponents of war don't yet have the strength to force such a move. So should we just be quiet and put up with it?
Of course not! Our slogan is: direct resistance by the working class against the economic and political system of the State and Capital. And we can all contribute towards this: don't join the army and exhort others not to join; hinder in all possible ways the normal functioning of the military machine, of the war industries and war institutions; agitate against militarism, nationalism and authority; unite with other people who think and act in the same way. We have to look for such people on the 'Chechen' side as well, to organise cooperation with them. We have to call for fraternisation between the Russian soldiers and the Chechen fighters, for disobeying the orders of our insane superiors. And when a movement from below develops from these 'small actions', then we can think about the next step - a general strike against war up to the fall of the system which breeds war!
RESISTANCE - SELF-ORGANISATION - SELF-ADMINISTRATION
Moscow anarcho-syndicalists
NOTES BY KRAS
(1) V Putin is the Russian president who won the elections on a wave of support for the Chechen war. Back [61]
(2) Maskhadov is the president of the Chechen Republic who has been leading the movement for independence from Russia. Back [62]
(3) Basayev is a Chechen warlord and leader of the Islamist faction of the Chechen independence movement. Back [63]
(4) 'Negotiations between Putin and Maskhadov' is the main slogan of the Russian 'anti-war' movement. This movement is organised by a coalition called the Committee for Anti-war Action (CAWA), which is dominated by bourgeois liberal groups and parties. The left-wing 'Campaign against the Chechen War' collaborates with the CAWA and also supports the call for negotiations. This 'Campaign' coincides more or less with the Praxis group around the Victor Serge Library in Moscow, which edits the newspaper Chelovechnost ('Humanity') and is composed of former or current Leninists and also some libertarians (including one former member of our organisation). Back [64]
(5) 'Self-determination for Chechnya' through a referendum under 'international control' is another demand raised by the Praxis group. Back [65]
Before the US and Britain started the bombardment and invasion of Iraq the 'peace' movement echoed with cries that this war was immoral, illegal and undemocratic. Clare Short, Glenda Jackson, Mo Mowlem and Charles Kennedy thought that, in the event of war, it was necessary to support the military effort. They were described as turncoats, but their views were shared by many, including such as the leader of the Australian Labor Party, Simon Crean, who supports the war while still describing it as wrong.
In contrast, there were already some Trotskyist groups who insisted on the need to 'defend Iraq' some months ago. When the current offensive started, the Socialist Workers Party, a central component of the Stop The War Coalition, added their voice to the support of Iraqi capitalism. In a Socialist Worker editorial ("What we think" 29/3/3) they insist, "It is right to fight the US empire".
"'I'm not fighting for Saddam, I'm fighting for Iraq.' Those were the words of Nasr Al Hussein, a former Iraqi special forces parachutist, on Monday. He was one of hundreds of Iraqi exiles in Jordan queuing to board coaches to take them back across the border to Iraq so they can fight US and British forces�Millions of Iraqi people, who have no time for Saddam Hussein, see this war for what it is - an invasion by the most powerful state on the planet killing for oil and global power�they do not want long-term US occupation whatever their feelings toward the current regime."
With people volunteering to die for Iraqi capitalism, it is the job of revolutionaries to show that 'fighting for Iraq,' or defending any 'national interest', means enrolling for the armies of the ruling capitalist class. The interests of the exploited and oppressed in Iraq are diametrically opposed to those of the capitalist state, whether it's dominated by Saddam now, by British imperialism in the 1920s, by the monarchy of King Faisal II, by the Qasim regime that preceded the Ba'athists, or by any of the alternatives of US imperialism or Iraqi oppositionists that might follow Saddam. Regimes change but it's only the class interests of the ruling bourgeoisie that are served by the capitalist state. The state serves the needs of capitalism for social control through its apparatus of repression, and is at the heart of capitalism's imperialist war drive.
Talk of "an invasion by the most powerful state on the planet" is very reminiscent of what the British bourgeoisie said in the First World War when they insisted on the need to defend 'brave little Belgium', and, in the Second World War, when they said it was necessary to take on the violators of Poland and Czechoslovakia. The bourgeoisie can always think of a reason why workers should forget their own class interests and sacrifice themselves for imperialism. Trotskyism's long history of military recruitment
It is worth noting that the SWP, like other Trotskyist groups, has not always been so loyal to the Iraqi state. Back in the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, they were against Iraq because it was backed by Britain and the US. This meant supporting the Iranian regime that had replaced the Shah, even though it equally represented the interests of Iranian capitalism. The SWP has changed sides, but their basic principle remains the same: workers must lay down their lives for their exploiters; even if they have no illusions in the current regime, they must retain their illusions in the 'national interest'.
The SWP talks the language of 'peace' and 'anti-imperialism', but that doesn't make them any less nationalistic than the promoters of 'patriot rallies' who explicitly mobilise to support the armed forces. An ideology that demands that workers put aside their class interests can only be used in the service of the bourgeoisie.
Attacking the Labour party is one of the tasks that the SWP prides itself on. In a recent article on "Labour and war. Never on our side" (29/3/03) they say that "at every key moment the party leadership has supported imperialism and war". Going through various events of the last century (the First World War, Vietnam, the Falklands, the 1991 Gulf War etc) they pass remarks on the behaviour of the Labour leadership. What they miss out is that the Labour party is not just a handful of leaders but a whole apparatus and ideology which has long been part of capitalism's political system.
They also miss out the Second World War. In 1939-45 the Labour party was an integral part of the coalition government at all levels, active in the recruitment for war and in the repression on the home front. It might seem strange for the SWP to overlook a conflict in which 60 million died, until you remember the role Trotskyists played for the war effort, in the name of anti-fascism, democracy and the defence of Russia. In Britain, for example, the Trotskyist groups wanted Labour to govern alone, despite there being no essential policy differences between Labour and Churchill's Conservatives (only a less warmongering image).
So, when we denounce Trotskyist support for Iraq, it is not an isolated instance, but one example from 60 years of military mobilisation. The SWP say that the only way to stop the war is to "get the troops out. In Iraq the only way is to resist the 'coalition' troops" (SW 5/4/03). In denying the struggle against the very bourgeoisie that exploits you, there is a clear echo here of Trotskyist support for the Resistance that was an arm of Allied imperialism against the Axis powers. The SWP themselves draw a comparison between now and then: "Crowds in Iraq are hunting for parachuting US pilots, like British crowds hunted for German pilots during the Second World War, because they see them as the main enemy, not Saddam" (SW 29/3/03). Endorsing Iraqi nationalism today, like the support for Allied imperialism in the past, is not altered by the leftists trying to give its current anti-Americanism a 'radical' tint (like supporting the Resistance because they were guerrillas rather than regular troops).
Against this inverted jingoism, communists insist that the old watchword of the workers' movement - workers have no fatherland - is more valid than ever. The capitalist drive towards war can only be stopped when the working class generalises its struggle against all states, in all countries. The Trotskyists ridicule such internationalist views by dubbing them 'abstract' and 'utopian'. But to tell the workers today to subordinate their interests to those of any national state is to work actively against the possibility of the international unification of the class struggle in the future.
Car, 2/4/03.
WR public forums on the question of 'War and proletarian consciousness'
The victory of ‘our’ imperialism is always a moment of terrible danger for proletarian consciousness. In 1918, the patriotic euphoria of victory was used to neutralise the massive discontent of the workers in Britain and France who had endured four years of butchery. And above all it was used to separate these sections of the proletariat from their class brothers in Russia and Germany - and thus, to isolate and ultimately destroy the main outposts of the proletarian revolution. The defeat of fascism in 1945 has been used ever since not only to justify the second imperialist holocaust, but also to bludgeon our minds with the idea that ‘democracy’ is the best of all possible worlds.
The collapse of Stalinism in 1989-91 was used to further reinforce this message, adding to it the definitive ‘proof’ that a communist society was at worst a nightmare of state terror, at best an unattainable ideal. Thus it is necessary to understand very clearly the scenes of rejoicing that have met the downfall of the Saddam regime.
The apparent refusal of a majority of the Iraqi masses to lay down their lives for the Saddam regime is certainly to be supported. Contrary to bin Laden and the Islamists, who have called for a jihad in defence of Iraq, and contrary to the Socialist Worker, which has called for exactly the same thing, the only internationalist position today is to reject the defence - tactical, critical or otherwise - of any nation state. The problem is that the ‘coalition’ is manipulating the feelings of relief sweeping the Iraqi population to trap them into supporting the fake liberation delivered by US and British tanks. The same forces which, in 1991, allowed Saddam just enough firepower to crush the revolts in the north and south of Iraq, have now presented themselves as the friends and allies of popular rebellion.
And in the victorious countries, especially America and Britain? The dazzling success of this military campaign will be presented not only as the justification for the war on Iraq - but above all as the best argument in favour of the next war in the strategy for ‘a new American century’.
It is urgent to discuss as widely and as deeply as possible the implications of what is now happening in Iraq. The ICC is organising a series of public meeting on this question. We strongly urge all organisations, groups and individuals who stand for a proletarian, internationalist opposition to war to use these meetings as a forum for debate and clarification.
LONDON Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London WC1 Saturday 26th April at 2.30pm,
BIRMINGHAM Friends of the Earth Centre 54A Allison Street Digbeth, B5 Saturday 10th May at 2.30pm
Supplement to World Revolution 263 BM Box 869 London WC1N 3XX
WR, 10/4/03.
When deputy prime minister Prescott announced legislation to impose a pay deal on the firefighters "particularly given the conflict in the Gulf and the heightened threat of terrorism" (BBC news website, 20.3.03), this was just the latest stage in the long-running campaign around the danger of keeping 19,000 troops on standby to cover industrial action at time of war. It is a campaign that started months ago with the first 48 hour firefighters' strike.
Tory spokesman David Davis joined his voice to the campaign by asking "What will you do in the event that the FBU continue to strike ... continue to undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces?"
And the unions were not to be left out of this patriotic chorus. Andy Gilchrist has not only called an offer that is worse than that originally offered by employers last year, the best that could be achieved "in the political situation they find themselves in" (BBC website, 19.3.03); he has also stated that "It would be foolhardy to reject this offer when British troops are about to go into battle" (quoted in Revolutionary Perspectives 28).
This comes after months of the FBU wearing down the firefighters. First they put in a 40% pay claim, justified by emphasising their professionalism, and calling for public sympathy rather than workers' solidarity. Workers were then kept to a demoralising routine of 24 and 48 hour strikes and the whole thing rounded off with a demonstration at the end of last year where firefighters marched in uniform. All in all they have been kept isolated from the rest of the working class, despite the widespread sympathy that greeted their claim last year.
In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that the government has already started imposing the deal before it is agreed: no more money will be available, and the pay increase of 16% over 3 years will have to be paid for by redundancies. Chief Fire Officers have been introducing the organisational structure necessary for this for several months. The fact that the FBU conference rejected the deal shows that there remains much discontent and anger, but the struggle has been contained. Nevertheless, Prescott's legislation will provide a welcome alibi for the FBU when they have to impose the deal (see WR 261). A campaign directed at the whole working class
We should not make the mistake of thinking this campaign is just about imposing a deal on the firefighters, or even primarily about 19,000 soldiers on standby for industrial action. It is above all a campaign aimed at the whole working class, aimed at discouraging struggles. The ruling class knows that it will have to continue attacks on the working class. The war will have to be paid for, and it comes at a time of economic slowdown.
The campaign to discourage the working class does not only include the calls to remain patriotic, to put up with lousy pay deals during the war, but also much more radical-sounding ideologies. So we heard, among many contradictory ideas on the huge 15 February 'Stop the War' demonstration, the call for strikes when the war started; and the firefighters' strikes in particular have been held up as the way to stop the war.
When representatives of the ruling class make such calls it shows that they are aware that the working class today does not pose an immediate threat of widespread strikes in response to the war. On the one hand the firefighters have already been isolated by the FBU; and on the other hand the opposition to the war has largely been mobilised behind bourgeois ideologies, such as pacifism or support for an alternative imperialist strategy more in line with that of Germany and France. But the use of this fake 'workerist' radicalism also shows that the ruling class understands that the working class remains a threat.
Our rulers know the potential for workers to put their class interest above the national interest. The strikes and mutinies during World War 1 culminated in the Russian and German revolutions, forcing them to end the slaughter. The ruling class will not forget this when calculating the risk of any future imperialist adventure.
The working class today, while undefeated, is nowhere near the level of posing such an immediate threat to the ruling class and its war effort. In fact it is still faced with the need to recover its sense of itself as a class, a sense that was very much to the fore during the large-scale struggles during the 1980s, such as the mass strike in Poland in 1980 or the miners' strike in Britain in 1984-5.
In spite of the fact that the working class does not have the self-confidence it had in the 80s, the succession of wars since the 1991 Gulf War is a powerful factor in showing the complete bankruptcy of the capitalist system, as each becomes harder to justify behind a humanitarian smokescreen. This is giving rise to a very important process of reflection on the question of war among a tiny minority of the working class. But this process can only be interrupted by the constant stream of easy answers, false choices and activist stunts being advocated by the bourgeoisie's more left wing spokesmen. The notion that a strike isolated in one sector, drawn out into on-off 24 and 48 hour actions over months and months - and whether or not troops are used to cover for the striking firefighters - can substitute for a whole development of struggles and class consciousness, is just such an easy answer. This ideological misuse of the firefighters' struggle can only increase their isolation from the rest of the working class and demoralise those who fall for the campaign.
Alex, 5/4/03.
“Whether or not you agree with this war, surely now our troops are involved we have to support them?”
In other words: the best way to support ‘our boys’ is to support them being used as cannon fodder in an imperialist war. Could there be a more idiotic argument than this?
And who, exactly, are ‘our boys’?
Although in the wake of the Vietnam experience the ruling classes of America and Britain are careful to use only professional soldiers for their military adventures, the majority of these troops are still economic conscripts, proletarians in uniform. The ‘us’ they belong to is therefore the working class. But the working class has no country. Therefore ‘our boys’ also include the Iraqi conscripts whom the US and British soldiers are being urged to slaughter.
And we - communists who defend the internationalist traditions of the working class – don’t think our boys should be killing each other for the sake of their exploiters, for the imperialist interests of the UK, America, or Iraq.
On the contrary: faced with the slaughter, we insist on reaffirming these traditions. In particular, we can recall that in the first world war, the proletarians in uniform – supported by strikes and uprisings on the home front - began to turn against the horrors of the war and took their fate into their own hands. They fraternised with the ‘enemy’ troops, mutinied, formed soldiers’ councils and joined forces with the revolutionary workers. The ruling class was so terrified of the spectre of revolution it brought the war to a rapid end.
Today the bourgeoisie is very vigilant about snuffing out even the merest hint of rebellion against war, as it was at the end of the first Gulf conflict. In 1991, the uprising in Basra began when mutinous soldiers fired at posters of Saddam. It seems that, at the beginning, the revolt had a popular and spontaneous character. But it was soon crushed by a sinister alliance of bourgeois forces. Columns of fleeing Iraqi soldiers, who might have joined the rebellion, were obliterated by the US and British forces on the Basra-Baghdad road.
Saddam, however, was allowed to keep his elite Republican Guards intact and they were used to put down the rebellion in blood. In the north Kurdish nationalist gangs, in the south the Iran-backed Shi’ite religious organisations, took control of the movement and tried to use it as a bargaining counter for their own petty imperialist claims. These claims would have led to the break-up of Iraq and this ran counter to US interests. So Saddam was permitted to stay in power as the sole guarantor of ‘order’.
Today both sides are even better equipped to put down any opposition. Saddam’s terror squads are implanted in all the cities and throughout the regular army, ready to deal with any reluctance to back the war-effort. At the same time the arrogance of the Coalition does Saddam’s work for him by driving many Iraqis into the patriotic mind-trap. Besides, memories of the ‘betrayal’ of the 91 revolt are still very fresh in peoples’ minds, and they don’t want to be caught out again.
And if any anti-Saddam revolt does occur, the Coalition forces and their media are on hand to hitch it to their imperialist bandwagon. We have even seen them making up revolts that didn’t really happen.
And yet, there is dissent in the armed forces. A US marine faces jail rather than go and fight in Iraq. Three British soldiers are sent home for criticising the killing of civilians. Desertion from the Iraqi army increases. There is no imminent mass revolt in Iraq, no immediate prospect of fraternisation across the national divide. On the other hand, neither have the ruling classes of the warring regimes succeeded in totally brainwashing their foot-soldiers.
This is a small indication that the bourgeoisie may not always be able to do what it wants with its own troops. If the class war hots up in the centres of world capitalism, the workers will once again be able to ‘support’ our boys by showing them the road to revolution.
Amos, 1/4/03
At the end of March, the ICC held its 15th Congress. This was a particularly important meeting for our organisation, for two main reasons.
First, since the last Congress held in spring 2001, we have witnessed a major aggravation of the international situation, at the level of the economic crisis and above all at the level of imperialist tensions. More precisely, the Congress took place while war was raging in Iraq, and our organisation had the responsibility to make its analyses more precise in order to make the most appropriate intervention.
Secondly, this Congress took place after the ICC had been through the most dangerous crisis in its history. Even if this crisis has been overcome, it is vital for our organisation to draw the maximum number of lessons from the difficulties it has been through, to understand their origins and the way to confront them.
All the work and discussions at the Congress were animated by an awareness of the importance of these two questions, which are part of the two main responsibilities of any congress: to analyse the historic situation and to examine the activities which the organisation has to carry out within it.
The ICC analyses the current historic period as the final phase of the decadence of capitalism, the phase of the decomposition of bourgeois society. These historic conditions, as we shall see later on, determine the essential characteristics of the life of the bourgeoisie today. But in addition to this, they also weigh heavily on the proletariat and its revolutionary organisations.
It is within this framework that we examined not only the sharpening of imperialist tensions, but also the obstacles being met by the proletariat on its path towards decisive confrontations with capital, as well as by our own organisation. The analysis of the international situation
For certain organisations of the proletarian camp, notably the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party, the organisational difficulties encountered by the ICC recently, like those in 1981 and in the early '90s, derive from its incapacity to develop an appropriate analysis of the current historical period. In particular, our concept of decomposition is seen as an expression of our 'idealism'.
It is true that theoretical and political clarity is an essential arm of any organisation that claims to be revolutionary. In particular, if it is not able to understand what's really at stake in the historic period in which it carries out its struggle, it risks being cast adrift by events, falling into disarray and in the end being swept away by history. It's also true that clarity is not something that can be decreed. It is the fruit of a will, of a combat to forge such arms. It demands that the new questions posed by the evolution of historical conditions be approached with a method, the marxist method. This was the concern which inspired the reports prepared for the Congress and the debates of the Congress itself. The Congress approached this challenge on the basis of the marxist vision of the decadence of capitalism and of its present phase of decomposition. The Congress recalled that this vision of decadence was not only that of the Third International, but is indeed at the very heart of the marxist vision. It was this framework and historical clarity that enabled the ICC to measure the gravity of the present situation, in which war is becoming an increasingly permanent factor.
More precisely the Congress had to examine the degree to which the ICC's analytical framework has been capable of accounting for the current situation. Following this discussion, the Congress decided that there was no question of putting this framework into question. The evolution of the current situation is in fact a full confirmation of the analyses the ICC adopted at the end of 1989, at the time of the collapse of the eastern bloc. The present events, such as the growing antagonism between the USA and its former allies that has manifested itself so openly in the recent crisis, the multiplication of military conflicts and the direct involvement within them of the world's leading power - which has made increasingly massive displays of its military power - all this was already foreseen in the theses which the ICC produced in 1989-90 (note 1) [72]. The ICC, at its Congress, reaffirmed that the present war in Iraq cannot be reduced, as certain sectors of the bourgeoisie would like us to believe (in order to minimise their real gravity), to a 'war for oil'. In this war, the control of oil is primarily a strategic rather than an economic objective for the American bourgeoisie. It is a means for blackmailing and pressuring the USA's principal rivals, the powerful states of Europe and Japan, and thus to countering their efforts to play their own game on the global imperialist chessboard. In fact, behind the idea that the current wars have a certain 'economic rationality' is a refusal to take into account the extreme gravity of the situation facing the capitalist system today. By underlining this gravity, the ICC has placed itself within the marxist approach, which doesn't give revolutionaries the task of consoling the working class. On the contrary it calls on revolutionaries to assist the proletariat to grasp the dangers which threaten humanity, and thus to understand the scale of its own responsibility.
And in the ICC's view, the necessity for revolutionaries to explain to the working class the profound seriousness of what's at stake today is all the more important when you take into account the difficulties the class is experiencing in finding the path of massive and conscious struggles against capitalism. This was thus another essential point in the discussion on the international situation: what is the basis today for affirming the confidence that marxism has always had in the capacity of the working class to overthrow capitalism and liberate humanity from the calamities into which it is now leading it? What confidence can we have in the working class facing up to its historic responsibilities?
The ICC has on numerous occasions argued that the decomposition of capitalist society exerts a negative weight on the consciousness of the proletariat (note 2) [73]. Similarly, since autumn of 1989, it has stressed that the collapse of the Stalinist regimes would provoke "new difficulties for the proletariat" (title of an article from International Review 60). Since then the evolution of the class struggle has only confirmed this prediction.
Faced with this situation, the Congress reaffirmed that the working class still retains all the potential to assume its historic responsibilities. It is true that it is still experiencing a major retreat in its consciousness, following the bourgeois campaigns that equate marxism and communism with Stalinism, and that establish a direct link between Lenin and Stalin. Similarly, the present situation is characterised by a marked loss of confidence by the workers in their strength and in their ability to wage even defensive struggles against the attacks coming from their exploiters, a situation which can lead to a serious loss of class identity. And it should be noted that this tendency to lose confidence in the class is also expressed among revolutionary organisations, particularly in the form of sudden outbursts of euphoria in response to movements like the one in Argentina at the end of 2001 (which has been presented as a formidable proletarian uprising when it was actually stuck in inter-classism). But a long term, materialist, historical vision teaches us, in Marx's words, that "it's not a question of considering what this or that proletarian, or even the proletariat as a whole, takes to be true today, but of considering what the proletariat is and what it will be led to do historically, in conformity with its being". Such an approach shows us that, faced with the blows of the capitalist crisis, which will give rise to more and more ferocious attacks on the working class, the latter will be forced to react and to develop its struggle.
This struggle, in the beginning, will be a series of skirmishes, which will announce an effort to move towards increasingly massive struggles. It is in this process that the class will once again recognise itself as an exploited class and rediscover its identity; and this in turn will act as a stimulus to its struggle. The same goes for war, which will tend to become a permanent phenomenon, each time uncovering a little more the very deep tensions between the major powers, and above all revealing the fact that capitalism is incapable of eradicating this scourge, that it is a growing menace for humanity. This will give rise to a profound reflection within the class. All these potentialities are contained in the present situation. It is vital for revolutionary organisations to be conscious of this and to develop an intervention which can bring this reflection to fruition. This intervention is particularly important with regard to the minority who are looking for political clarification in a whole number of countries.
But if they are to be up to their responsibilities, revolutionary organisations have to be able to cope not only with direct attacks from the ruling class, but also to resist the penetration into their own ranks of the ideological poison that the ruling class disseminates throughout society. In particular, they have to be able to fight the most damaging effects of decomposition, which not only affects the consciousness of the proletariat in general but also of revolutionary militants themselves, undermining their conviction and their will to carry on with revolutionary work. This is precisely what the ICC has had to face up to in the recent period and this is why the key discussion at this Congress was the necessity for the organisation to defend itself from the attacks facilitated by the decomposition of bourgeois ideology. The life and activities of the ICC
The Congress drew a positive balance-sheet of the activities of our organisation since the last Congress in 2001. Over the past two years, the ICC has shown that it is capable of defending itself against the most dangerous effects of decomposition, in particular the nihilistic tendencies which have seized hold of a certain number of militants who formed the 'Internal Fraction'. The ICC ahs been able to combat the attacks by these elements whose aim was clearly to destroy the organisation. Right from the start of its proceedings, the Congress, following on from the Extraordinary Conference of April 2002, was once again totally unanimous in ratifying the whole struggle against this camarilla, and in denouncing its provocative behaviour. It was fully convinced about the anti-proletarian nature of this regroupment. And it was no less unanimous in pronouncing the exclusion of the elements of the 'Fraction', which has crowned its activities against the ICC by publishing on its website information which can only play directly into the hands of the police - and by justifying these actions (note 3) [74]. These elements, although they refused to come to the Congress and present their defence in front of a commission specially nominated by the latter, have found nothing better to do in their bulletin no. 18 than to continue their campaigns of slander against the organisation. This has provided further proof that their concern is not at all to convince the militants of the organisation of the dangers posed to it by what they call a "liquidationist faction", but to discredit the ICC as much as possible, now that they have failed to destroy it.
How could these elements have developed, within the organisation, an activity which threatened to destroy it?
In approaching this question, the Congress highlighted a certain number of weaknesses, linked to the revival of the circle spirit and facilitated by the negative weight of social decomposition. An aspect of this negative weight is doubt in, and loss of confidence in, the working class: a tendency to see only its immediate weaknesses. Far from facilitating the party spirit, this attitude can only allow friendship links or confidence in particular individuals to substitute themselves for confidence in our principles of functioning. The elements who were to form the 'Internal Fraction' were a caricature of these deviations and this loss of confidence in the class. Their dynamic towards degeneration made use of these weaknesses, which weigh on all proletarian organisations today, and weigh all the more heavily in that the majority of these organisations have no awareness of them at all. These elements carried out their destructive activities with a level of violence never before seen in the ICC. The loss of confidence in the class, the weakening of their militant conviction, were accompanied by a loss of confidence in the organisation, in its principles, and by a total disdain for its statutes. This gangrene could have contaminated the whole organisation and sapped all confidence and solidarity in its ranks - and thus undermined its very foundations.
Without any fear, the Congress examined the opportunist weaknesses which enabled the clan that called itself the 'Internal Fraction' to become such a danger to the very life of the organisation. It was able to do so because the ICC will be strengthened by the combat that it has just waged.
Furthermore, it is because the ICC does struggle against any penetration of opportunism that it seems to have such a troubled life, that it has gone through so many crises. It is because it defended its statutes and the proletarian spirit that animates them without any concessions, that it was met with such anger by a minority which had fallen deep into opportunism on the organisation question. At this level, the ICC was carrying on the combat of the workers' movement which was waged by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in particular, who had many detractors who pointed to the many organisational struggles and crises they went through. In the same period, the German Social Democratic Party was much less agitated but the opportunist calm which reigned within it (challenged only by 'trouble-makers' on the left like Rosa Luxemburg) actually prefigure its treason in 1914. By contrast, the crises of the Bolshevik party helped it to develop the strength to lead the revolution in 1917.
But the discussion on activities didn't limit itself to dealing with the direct defence of the organisation against the attacks it has been subjected to. It insisted strongly on the necessity to develop its theoretical capacities, while recognising that the combat against these attacks had already stimulated its efforts in this direction. The balance-sheet of the last two years shows that there has been a process of theoretical enrichment, on such questions as the historical dimension of solidarity and confidence in the proletariat; on the danger of opportunism which menaces organisations who are unable to analyse a change of period; on the danger of democratism. And this concern for the struggle on the theoretical terrain, as Marx, Luxemburg, Lenin, or the militants of the Italian left and many other revolutionaries have taught us, is an integral part of the struggle against opportunism, which remains a deadly danger to communist organisations.
Finally, the Congress made an initial balance sheet of our intervention in the working class regarding the war in Iraq. It noted that the ICC had mobilised itself very well on this occasion: before the start of military operations, our sections sold a lot of publications at a number of demonstrations (when necessary producing supplements to the regular press) and engaging in political discussions with many elements who had not known our organisation previously. As soon as the war broke out, the ICC published an international leaflet translated into 13 languages (note 4) [75] which was distributed in 14 countries and more than 50 towns, particularly at factories and workplaces, and also posted on our internet site.
Thus this Congress was a moment that expressed the strengthening of our organisation. The ICC affirms with conviction the combat it has been waging and which it will continue to wage - the combat for its own defence, for the construction of the basis of the future party, and for the development of its capacity to intervene in the historical movement of the class. It has no doubt that it is a link in the chain of organisations that connect the workers' movement of the past to that of the future.
ICC, April 2003.
(1) See in particular 'Theses on the economic and political crisis in the USSR and the countries of the East' (International Review 60), written two months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and 'Militarism and Decomposition', dated 4 October 1990 and published in IR 64. Back [76]
(2) See in particular 'Decomposition, final phase of capitalist decadence', points 13 and 14, IR 62.Back [77]
(3) See on this point The police-like methods of the IFICC [78] in WR 262. Back [79]
(4) The languages of our regular territorial publications plus Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Bengali, Farsi and Korean. Back [80]
The euphoria of victory didn't last very long. The images of happy crowds lining the streets to greet their British and American 'liberators' are already a distant memory. Since the fall of Baghdad we have seen enormous Shiite demonstrations chanting slogans like 'No to Saddam, No to Bush - Yes to Islam' and calling for an Islamic state. In Mosul, within the space of two days in late April, American troops fired on two marches of Iraqi civilians demanding that the Americans pull out. Nearly 20 people were killed and many more injured. This will add to a death toll from the war which will certainly run into thousands, especially when we include the as yet unknown numbers of conscripts obliterated by the carpet bombing of Iraqi military positions. The collapse of the Saddam regime resulted in widespread looting in which much of Iraq's priceless archaeological heritage was stolen or destroyed. To restore order, the occupying armies have had to recall Saddam's old police force, or allow local clerics and their newly formed militia to come to the fore. The USA's attempts to fabricate some kind of 'interim government' are coming against all the political, ethnic and religious divisions which have always existed in Iraqi society and which were only kept underground by Saddam's reign of terror. Meanwhile the hospitals are still completely incapable of coping with the masses of horrific injuries caused by the coalition's bombardments, and large parts of the population have been without decent drinking water for weeks, exposing them to the risk of epidemics which would only further reveal the breakdown of health services throughout the country.
In short: the inevitable military victory of the US over Saddam's crumbling regime has not brought liberation but chaos and misery to the population of Iraq. But then liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny was never the aim.
Let's remember that the overthrow of Saddam was not even the official aim of this war. The principal argument was that Saddam was a threat to world peace because he possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was always a ridiculous piece of hypocrisy, not just because the US and Britain had been among those who had supplied his armies in the first place, but also because no one in the world has made wider or more devastating use of weapons of mass destruction than the US and Britain. The war confirmed this once again: no one can match the US for firepower. And this was without doubt one of the real motivations of the war. Like Saddam in Iraq, US imperialism can only respond to the powerful centrifugal forces that threaten its 'world leadership' by making ever greater shows of force. After the international diplomatic crisis that preceded this war, it has now become evident that these centrifugal forces are made up first and foremost of the USA's main imperialist rivals: Germany, France, Russia and China.
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were only a pretext. In fact one of the reasons he was attacked was precisely because he was a paper tiger and could offer no serious resistance to a US invasion. Even if the occupying armies do finally discover a few canisters of chemical or biological weapons, the outcome of the war showed that Saddam had no capacity to use them. As in 1991, Saddam was the whipping boy: the real targets were the USA's main challengers to global domination.
And this is why Bush's claim that the world would be a more peaceful place once Saddam had gone is the biggest lie of all. Having conquered Iraq, US imperialism has tightened its military control over the strategically vital Middle east, enabling it to turn off oil supplies to its rivals should they present a more serious challenge to its rule. It is already making threatening noises to other states in the region, such as Syria and Iran, and to those further afield, such as Cuba and North Korea. In other words, it has every intention of continuing the 'war against terrorism' which is the euphemism for a permanent military offensive on the scale of the entire planet. This is not at all contradicted by Bush's talk of a 'road map to peace' between Israel and Palestine. Any US-brokered peace will ensure Israel's complete military superiority in the region, and - like the 'victory' in Iraq - only serve to fuel new resentments and hostility. The latest round of suicide bombings and Israeli counter-raids indicate where the road map is really leading.
As for the 'anti-war' states, who kept a pragmatic silence while the war was raging, they are quite well aware that the US is gunning for them and will be doing all they can to put their spokes in the wheel of the USA's military juggernaut. This is why Putin has been arguing, somewhat ironically, that UN sanctions against Iraq can't be lifted until the WMD issue has been settled, and why Chirac has been insisting that the UN play a much bigger role in the reconstruction of Iraq. America, for its part, has argued that Iraq should be forgiven its debts overwhelmingly owed, by spectacular coincidence, to France, Russia and Germany. Unable to challenge the US openly at the military level, its rivals are reduced to diplomatic games to advance their imperialist interests. But as their actions in Africa, Palestine, and the Balkans demonstrate, they are no less capable of playing a covert role in military conflicts, arming and inciting factions and states which are opposing the USA's own pawns. The seeds are being sown for new wars and the continuation of existing wars.
The twentieth century was a century of ceaseless war and barbarism. The twentieth century has already begun in the same vein. This is not because governments have the wrong leaders or the wrong policies, but because capitalism as a social system has reached a historic dead-end and compels all states to join in an imperialist dance of death. Calls for peace and respect for international law, even when raised by millions in the streets, cannot make capitalism go in another direction. On the contrary, they serve only to divert a real struggle against the war drive. Capitalist war can only be eliminated by eliminating capitalism; and that can only come about through the development of class struggle in all countries.
WR, 3/5/03.
Now that the butchery and destruction of the US military intervention in Iraq has been declared officially over, it is time to make a brief balance sheet of the various claims made in Britain to provide a political alternative to imperialist war. We won't bother here with the huge marches against the war in Iraq, organised by the Stop the War Coalition that was supported by leftists of all descriptions as well by the Labour Left, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Daily Mirror and others. They not only did not prevent the war taking place but also gave it a green light. By mobilising millions behind the illusion that a peaceful imperialism was possible they proved to the executive organs of the state that there was no effective counter force to the imperialist juggernaut.
Instead, we will make a short report of those meagre forces that tried to base themselves on a working class perspective, realising that the only alternative to imperialist war is not an illusory peaceful capitalism but the violent overthrow of capitalism itself. No War but the Class War - London
The story of the group with this radical sounding name is essentially a tale of two cities, London and Sheffield.
The NW group in London was formed in the wake of the war in Afghanistan. In a leaflet given out toward the end of 2001 [1], it declared that the official pacifist or leftist opposition to war was a fraud, that capitalism as a whole was responsible for war, and that therefore a class alternative was required, and called for meetings to gather like-minded individuals. But beyond this apparently promising beginning, this group had no other reference points, and admitted that "it didn't have all the answers". In particular its response to the following questions would remain unclear: what is a class movement against war, what form should it take? Was such a movement possible at the present time with the present balance of class forces? What role should NW play: was it itself the class movement, was it a discussion forum for all the contradictory forces that were not taken in by official pacifism, or a political group with a definite programme? What relationship should it have to the existing internationalist groups of the communist left?
Unable to make the clarification of these issues the group's central concern, the conflicting tendencies within the group were destined to go in different directions. Within the group there were all kinds of approaches: activist tendencies who thought that the role of its meetings were to organise stunts of direct action, and others who were more in favour of discussion but in the form of 'workshops' rather than plenary debates, parasitic elements who were motivated by hostility to the presence of groups of the communist left, etc. The ICC, which regularly attended its meetings, far from trying to 'take the group over' as some have implied, argued for an open confrontation of political differences.
Towards the end of 2002, while the new Gulf War was still brewing, the group, or perhaps just the activist part of it, evolved, without explanation, into another one called 'Disobedience'. At the same time the clique-like tendencies of the rest of the group became predominant and the communist left as well as the Sheffield NW group were effectively excluded when the details of the London group meetings became a secret! So much for the NW claims that: "we reject hierarchy, and we strive to reach decisions by consensus" [2]. From now on the 'class war' in London was to be waged behind closed doors.
The London NW thought they could be a political group without a programme or statutes, a discussion circle without being open to discussion, and a mass movement without any class support. After initially presenting itself as a reference point for those searching for class positions, NW ended up as a black hole of confusion and dispersal, at worst a radical appendage of the Stop the War coalition. What is a class opposition to the war?
Although the London NW adopted the word 'class', it used this word rather like the erstwhile anarchist group 'Class War' and other so-called class struggle anarchists. For them the working class is not defined by objective historical economic and political interests, but subjectively, as a collection of individual rebels who become a 'class' movement essentially by an effort of will. In a leaflet handed out to a Disobedience 'Anti-War Day School' [3] NW presented its vision of 'class opposition to the war':
"War is part of the capitalist social relation. We 'make' war, just as we reproduce the rest of society through our work and the reproduction of our social relations through our daily compliance in all spheres of life. Going to work. Giving over money for the goods we buy. Turning up for detention at school. We make the munitions. We make the bomber planes, etc.
What is really needed is not so much an 'anti-war' movement against this or that particular show massacre the telly happens to be flaunting at us to terrorise us but a subjective revolt against the social conditions in which we are living. This undermines the warmongering economy."
Isn't this a variation on the old anarchist idea that the working class is responsible for capitalism and war because in normal circumstances it conforms to the daily requirements of the 'social relation'? According to this 'theory' all the working class has to do is to refuse the demands of capitalism and the war machine and hey presto, a class opposition is born.
However capitalist relations of production exist independently of the will of individuals, and have shown themselves resilient to many of the mightiest class movements in history, let alone the episodic nuisances of individual acts of rebellion and sabotage. Only the seizure of political power by the working class on a world scale can begin to destroy capitalist relations of production and the imperialist war they engender. Only the very real threat of the extension of the Russian Revolution to Germany in 1918 obliged the two imperialist camps to sign the armistice that ended the First World War. This only temporarily delayed the imperialist appetites of the great powers. With the defeat of the revolutionary wave, the counter-revolution in Russia left the way clear for the build up to a new world slaughter.
In the end the NW equation of 'subjective revolt' with 'class opposition to war', has the same ideological basis as official pacifism even if it uses a more radical language. If you think that war can be 'undermined' within capitalism by a collection of individuals refusing the 'social relation' of war then Not in My Name would be a more accurate name than No War but the Class War.
With 'subjective revolt' as the main criterion it's only a short step to seeing a revolutionary class movement - workers' councils even - in the uprising in the South of Iraq after the first Gulf War, which was dominated by reactionary Shiite nationalism, or a proletarian insurrection in the Kurdish nationalist movement in the North. The 'Disobedience against war' broadsheet for the February 15th 2003 demonstration was not afraid to take that step. No War but the Class War - Sheffield
In Sheffield, a NW group was formed in the summer of 2002 on a decidedly clearer basis than the one in London. Not surprisingly, as the group was influenced by the Communist Workers Organisation, a group of the communist left, and agreed to 7 points [4]. In the presentation to the inaugural meeting, in contrast to the confusion mentioned above in London, the essential parameters of the working class struggle and imperialist war were outlined, and the differences with leftist and nationalist forces were delineated. The objective basis of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and its solution to the problem of war is clarified:
"There is only one class which can overthrow [the capitalist system which leads to barbarism and war] and that is the working class however much it has been written off (and it has been written off many times before even by so-called socialists from Bernstein, through Marcuse to Gorz) it is the one global class that is collectively exploited by capitalism. Its struggles alone tend toward a collectivist solution for humanity's problems."
On this basis it is shown that the proletarian movement, as in the case of the left of the Zimmerwald movement during the 1st World War, "called not for an end to war, not for a 'just peace' as the majority at these conferences did but for it to be turned into a civil war to overthrow the system that is behind the war." [5]
Nevertheless, despite this marxist clarity against the ideas of 'subjective revolt' and the idea of 'opposition' to war in itself, found in the London group, Sheffield made some serious errors. It completely overestimated the present capacity of the working class to hinder the war in Iraq, and connected to this, imagined that NW itself could ride on the crest of this proletarian wave. At the same time, as in London, the nature, role and function of the group itself was ambiguous. According to the CWO, defending the orientation of the Sheffield group:
"Operating in Britain, we are currently in a position marked by two main factors.
Firstly, there is a reactionary 'popular front' - type movement capable of mobilising hundreds of thousands of non-class conscious workers who subjectively have identified with a task of stopping 'their' government's drive to war.
Secondly we are witnessing a significant upturn in strike action, including firefighters, rail workers and actions beyond the Unions in transport and hospitals in Strathclyde.
'No War But the Class War' gives us the potential to work across the country with those forces who see a connection between the two and wish to link class struggle with resistance to imperialist war. This is no easy task with forces being geographically scattered and emerging from a range of political perspectives.
We believe that in the last months of 2001 the London NWBtCW group was positioned to stand at the organisational centre of that process. Under the influence of K the rump group has turned their backs on that task." [6]
While the Sheffield group could see that the mobilisations against the war in Iraq were on a reactionary footing, it nevertheless imagined that by linking them to the current strikes, they could be turned into a class mobilisation against imperialist war with NW, no less, at the controls.
But none of the elements of this equation added up.
Workers who have been demobilised, even in their millions, by pacifist marches, cannot in the same period be mobilised on a class basis. For all their appearance of combativity, these marches were a sign of the domination of capitalist ideology over the working class, the victory of nationalism, democracy and human rights over class consciousness. Workers' actions in the recent period, notably the firefighters' strikes, have been significant for their disorientation and dispersal, factors that permitted government and unions to use the strikes as an opportunity to further attack conditions of work and threaten redundancies.
These two elements of the situation added together, far from pointing to class combustion, or providing an obstacle to the war preparations, expressed in a complementary way the working classes' difficulty to react to the development of imperialist tensions as a whole.
While it is true that the activities of parasites in the London group - like the 'K' that the CWO refer to - certainly contributed to its debacle, and prevented it from being an open discussion group, it was not this factor, or its general political confusion, which mainly prevented London NW from being 'at the organisational centre' of a mass class movement against the war. It was because this movement couldn't exist in the present situation, and those with internationalist class positions were destined to remain in a tiny minority.
The Sheffield group was inevitably headed for disappointment. The reactionary themes of the 28 September 2002 demonstration - Palestinian nationalism for example - completely drowned out the internationalist class slogans which NW mistakenly thought should be shouted within the ranks of the march itself and could have a significant influence on it. The working class 'upturn' failed to materialise.
Disillusionment could only increase as the war approached and the isolation of internationalist forces from the 'anti-war movement' became clearer. Intervention of the ICC
For all its supposed idealism, the ICC kept its feet on the ground when it judged the potential of the working class struggle in the context of the build up to war in Iraq. Our belief in a historically favourable balance of class forces - the working class is still a barrier to the generalisation of imperialist war amongst the major powers - doesn't mean that the working class has the immediate potential to physically stop each conflict, or hold back the tendencies to increasing militarism. It is still a latent threat that prevents the bourgeoisie from taking their mutual antagonisms to the ultimate stage, with all the draconian measures that this implies. Confidence in the historic capacities of the working class is vital in order to maintain a sober view of the immediate, day-to-day possibilities of the class struggle, which the bourgeoisie exaggerates or obscures according to its own agenda. At present the working class is going through a long period of disorientation that began at the beginning of the nineties with the collapse of the eastern bloc.
Nevertheless the historic possibilities of the proletarian movement, coupled with the growing seriousness of the world situation, are presently giving rise to small numbers of people looking seriously for revolutionary answers.
This is why we never thought that the NW was a harbinger of a resurgence of class struggle or a definite class political movement that we had 'joined'. It could at most be a reference point for a very small minority that were asking questions about capitalist militarism and the elitist and pacifist frauds that accompany it. And this was why we defended its -albeit limited - class positions against the reactionary attacks of leftists like 'Workers Power' [7] and insisted from the beginning on the importance of the group as a forum for discussion and warned against both the tendencies to 'direct action' and to closing the group to revolutionary organisations.
"the ICC has more than once emphasised the need to discuss the most basic question posed by the war: what is meant by a class response to war in this period. To us it appears that this is almost taken for granted, but it would be extremely dangerous to do so.
There are times when decisive action is required and further discussion becomes a hindrance. But there are also times when the priority of the moment is to reflect, to understand, to analyse, to clarify." [8]
And at the same time we argued that the Midlands Discussion Group should not abandon its role of theoretical research and debate in order to follow the confused NW 'model'.
Its true that we ourselves overestimated the capacity of NW to intervene in the situation when we suggested that NW hold a counter-meeting at the end of the big pacifist marches in order to attract a wider audience; this expressed a certain underestimation of the hold of pacifist and democratic ideology on the demonstrators.
Our general prudence toward the possibility of a class movement against the war did not however mean that the ICC became 'monastic'. On the contrary the ICC has been the most prominent communist left organisation defending internationalist class positions against the stream of the huge anti-war protests not just in Britain, but across Europe, in Australia and the United States, both through public meetings, its territorial newspapers and the International Review and through an international leaflet that was distributed immediately the war on Iraq began.
There is nothing triumphalist in this still modest class intervention. On the contrary the whole communist left - what we call the proletarian political milieu - is doing less than it could and should be doing. It should have carried out a joint intervention toward the class on the basis of its commonly held internationalist positions. Once again the other internationalist groups rejected the appeal of the ICC for such a common stand [9]. Yet such an affirmation of basic unity today would be profoundly important for the long term development of proletarian consciousness and struggle.
In the shorter term, given the confusion and waste of energies represented by the No War but the Class War experience over the recent period, a more cohesive presence of the communist left is all the more vital as a reference point for those questioning imperialist war.
Como, 3/5/03.
1. Reproduced in Revolutionary Perspectives 27, Quarterly magazine of the Communist Workers Organisation, page 10.
2. Idem. Although the London NW had gone through a similar fiasco in 1999 after the Kosovo War when its predecessor voted to exclude the ICC, we considered that the rebirth of the group in 2001 could still provide a forum for revolutionary debate. See WR 228, Political parasitism sabotages the discussion, October 1999.
3. WR 261, Revolutionaries and the struggle against war [82], February 2003.
4. "1) The creation of other groups in other cities. 2) Ultimately we would like to see this coordination become International and internationalist by reaching other countries. 3) these groups to be active locally in opposing STW and the Socialist Alliance and any other left manifestation that sporadically claims the title of revolutionary. 4) These groups also to take on the anti-globalisation movement and draw those in it toward class politics. 5) These groups also engage in discussion and debate to deepen our understanding of where we stand in the process of change and how we can then help to create the conditions to bring it about. 6) These groups would organise discussions between different tendencies as a part of our ongoing activity. 7) NWBTCW doesn't limit its activity to theoretical discussion or mobilising for demonstrations but actively works to take its message into every area where workers collectively congregate." Revolutionary Perspectives 26.
5. Idem.
6. Revolutionary Perspectives 27.
7. WR 250, Workers Power attacks No War But The Class War [83], December/January 2001/2.
8. WR 249, NWBTCW - The priority of political discussion [84], November 2001.
9. See International Review 113, 2nd Quarter 2003.
SARS is thought to have jumped species in a poverty-stricken area of South East China where people live crowded together with their animals in conditions reminiscent of the Middle Ages. This is not unique to SARS but is at the origin of many of the most serious flu epidemics world wide.
Capitalism had brought this area, like the rest of the world, under the domination of its world market by the beginning of the 20th Century. In fact Britain, in its 19th century colonial heyday, fought a holy war for the right to trade freely in China selling opium. Yet capitalism in its decadence has been unable to develop industry or modernise farming in the area, since there are no new markets to absorb the increased produce that would result. And so the conditions for the development of new diseases such as SARS continue to exist. The success of the world market in decadence lies not in preventing the emergence of the disease, but in providing the means for its spread across the globe.
So far SARS has caused 280 deaths from about 4,500 cases worldwide, the majority of them in China (The Times 26 April). Modern air travel means that it has spread to every continent in a matter of weeks. With most of the old fever hospitals closed and demolished, whole hospitals have been quarantined and in China the May Day holiday cancelled to prevent travellers spreading the disease.
Capitalism's advanced decay has created the conditions both for the increase of old diseases, such as TB, and the emergence of new ones like AIDS. Whether through the perpetuation of avoidable poverty, through wars such as the one in Iraq which has disrupted the country's hospitals and water supply, or through increasing ecological disasters, this is a social system which has developed the scientific and technological means of eradicating epidemics, while at the same time producing and extending them faster than it can cure them. In this sense SARS is further evidence that capitalism is rotting on its feet. The campaign of panic
SARS is therefore a real danger, particularly when it hits impoverished populations who lack access to decent medical care. But the ruling class is always ready to use the symptoms of capitalist decomposition to its own advantage. And it has to be said that the bourgeois state and its media are deliberately creating a climate of panic and fear about the SARS virus.
For decades the ruling class has done all it can to eradicate all sense of working class solidarity, making everyone see himself as an atomised individual, dependent on the state. Since 1989 this has been intensified with many campaigns to encourage fear in the population, to make everyone feel that only the state can protect them from child criminals, paedophiles, 'bogus' asylum seekers - and now travellers entering the country who might be carrying SARS. Thus media has raised a 'debate' around the issue of whether or not everyone coming from certain areas of the world ought to be quarantined. This when in the whole of Western Europe there have been 29 cases, of whom 21 have recovered, and no deaths. As always our very 'anti-racist' state is quite happy to use xenophobia, in this case fear of Asian travellers.
The effect of this campaign of fear on working class consciousness cannot be assessed in isolation from the general effect of the whole series of similar campaigns. Nevertheless it has had its impact in small mean ways, such as the panic that broke out among guests at a Blackpool hotel when it was discovered that 15 children from a boarding school were being quarantined there, isolated in a separate wing. The children were subsequently moved to a secret location.
Like any new disease SARS poses the need for careful public health information and research work to bring it under control and prevent its spread. It is the ruling class of decomposing capitalism that needs the climate of fear and panic: to make us feel we rely on the state for protection, and to make us forget the much greater threats that we face today. In terms of disease, heart attacks, HIV, TB and others are likely to claim many more lives than SARS, even in China. But in any case, all these diseases are preventable because at root they are not a medical problem but a social problem. Capitalism in decay, with its train of economic crisis, war and chaos, is the real threat to human health, and the only surgery that can cure this problem is the proletarian revolution.
Alex, 3/5/03.
This short pamphlet, now available on the IBRP's website, aims to debunk the myths peddled by today's Trotskyists about the 'revolutionary' nature of their movement.
Trotskyism is in a state of disarray but retains influence, due in no small part to the status of Trotsky himself as the most important of the Bolshevik leaders of the Russian revolution to oppose Stalin. The CWO's pamphlet includes a lengthy section examining the positions defended by Trotsky and Trotskyism in the 1920s and 30s, contrasting their weaknesses and confusions to the much clearer contemporary struggle of the international communist left. It should therefore be welcomed as a useful propaganda weapon for groups of the communist left today.
Significantly, the pamphlet has attracted the attention of the Trotskyist journal Revolutionary History (Vol. 8, no 1). This 'serious', supposedly non-sectarian publication usually prefers to observe a studious silence on the communist left's historical role and contribution, but it does its best in a vitriolic review to rubbish the CWO's critique. But this serves only to highlight the irreversible distance Trotskyism has travelled from proletarian political positions: the Italian communist left, for example, is ridiculed for its denunciation of the social democratic parties as bourgeois, even though this is precisely the original position defended by the Third International, as expressed by one Leon Trotsky in its 1919 Manifesto�
Needless to say, my own criticisms have nothing to do with this reactionary attack. Along with the ICC I share the same basic position as the CWO on the bourgeois nature of Trotskyism due to its definitive betrayal by supporting the second world war. The problem is that the approach taken by the CWO's pamphlet gives the strong impression that there was nothing proletarian about Trotsky or the Trotskyist movement even in the 1920s, and throws into question all the oppositions that emerged from the Bolshevik Party up to the end of the 1920s.
The tone is set right at the start with the statement that, until he was forced out of power in the mid-20s, Trotsky's role was that of a "faction leader within the Russian party and state'" Even though he was admittedly never a "conscious agent of imperialism", the CWO calls him one of the "principal architects of the degeneration of the Russian revolution", whose rejection of the Stalinist policy of 'socialism in one country' was based not on internationalism but the "capitalist interests of the Russian state", etc., etc.
This attitude is strongly reminiscent of the libertarian and councilist milieu of the 1970s, which was marked by a strong reluctance to admit that Trotsky belonged to the revolutionary movement. We should recall the arguments that the Bolshevik Party could not be considered proletarian after 1921 - in its early days the CWO pronounced this to be a 'class line' (see IR 101). The ICC rightly challenged this at the time as sectarian, but it was symptomatic of the immaturity of the whole milieu; the ICC's earliest studies of the communist left in Russia (IR 7 & 8), although basically correct, reveal in their reluctant acceptance of the proletarian nature of the Bolshevik Party after 1921 and of the political current around Trotsky, the lingering influence of councilism which dogged the re-emergence of revolutionary minorities.
To be absolutely clear: the movement around Trotsky passed irrevocably into the enemy camp through its support for Stalinism and democracy in the second imperialist world war, but for all his opportunist slidings, Trotsky himself died a proletarian revolutionary. The ICC has explicitly recognised this in the article in IR 104 entitled 'Trotsky died as a symbol for the working class', and in a recent series of articles which addresses in a more profound way the strengths and weaknesses of his contribution to the struggle against the Stalinist counter-revolution (see IRs 101, 102 and 105).
The issue here is not just Trotsky or Trotskyism but how we understand the struggle of the proletarian currents within the Bolshevik Party against the attempts of the counter-revolution to capture it completely. Rather surprisingly, the CWO dismisses all of what it calls the 'Communist Party Oppositions' which, because they "had their roots in the bureaucracy", could "never challenge its social basis". Thus, it writes off the Left Opposition of 1923 and the United Opposition of 1927, both of which were allegedly products of the bureaucracy and defended anti-working class positions - even though they included elements of the non-Trotskyist Russian communist left.
We refer readers to IRs 101 and 102 for a more in-depth treatment of the weaknesses of these oppositions, but we argue that they can only be understood as a basic proletarian reaction to the degeneration of the Russian revolution. To take just one example: the signatories of the 'Platform of the 46', which formed the political basis of the Left Opposition, included elements of the left communist Democratic Centralist group like Sapranov, V Smirnov and Ossinski. The United Opposition similarly included (at least for a time) the 'Decists' - indeed according to Trotsky himself, it was formed at their initiative, Sapranov chairing its first conference (see IR 102, p18).
The strength of the Russian left communist oppositions like the Sapranov group was precisely that they emerged from within the Communist Party itself; they were expressions of the proletarian life still left in the party, and up until their final suppression at the end of the 20s refused to abandon it to the Stalinist bureaucracy. We don't seriously think the CWO means to dismiss the Russian left communists who, as it affirms, took up the struggle against the degenerating Soviet state far earlier and more thoroughly than Trotsky or the political current he animated. In fact the CWO commits itself to redressing the "airbrushing from history" of their valiant struggle by both Stalinists and Trotskyists.
But clearly this is not just a matter of the need for historical research; it's about the basic framework communists use to determine the precise class nature of political organisations. The approach of the Italian Left - with whom both the CWO and the ICC claim political continuity - was always one of patience and rigour, avoiding hasty judgements on such questions. The reader of the CWO's denunciation of Trotsky is left wondering why, if he was merely a "faction leader of the Russian party and state", the Italian Left ever put so much political effort into trying to collaborate with him in the first place; even after their definitive political break with Trotsky in 1934, when he and his supporters "crossed the Rubicon and rejoined social democracy" (Bilan no. 11, September 1934), the Italian Left did not, as the pamphlet suggests, simply denounce his movement as bourgeois, and continued to expose its opportunist betrayals through support for one side against the other in the lead up to the second imperialist world war.
We have to ask: does this pamphlet - which first appeared over two years ago - reflect the position of the CWO (and by extension the IBRP to which it is formally affiliated) on the class nature of Trotsky, Trotskyism and all the "Communist Party Oppositions" of the 1920s and 30s, or is this a case of polemical excess getting the better of clarity, reflecting the residual influence of councilism on today's revolutionary movement?
MH, May 2003.
IBRP website: www.ibrp.org [88]
Write to:CWO, PO Box 338, Sheffield, S3 9YX
This article is by a close sympathiser of the ICC. We encourage all our readers to make political contributions to our press, whether in the form of articles, letters or items of information.
May, 2003.
On 28 August last year, as America tried to build international support for its impending war against Iraq, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared President Bush's international isolation over plans to attack Iraq with the lonely stand taken by Winston Churchill before the Second World War. In the face of appeasers and doubters at home and abroad, he told 3,000 assembled US marines, Winston Churchill realised what a threat Hitler posed to Europe. Similarly, he added, President Bush knew that "leadership in the right direction finds followers and supporters."
The comparison tells us more than Rumsfeld intends. Leaving aside the fact that support for World War II is totally reactionary, Rumsfeld's comparison is not completely inaccurate. For, under the administration of Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill, Britain invented the technique of terror bombing of defenceless civilians that has been a feature of most wars ever since. In 1920s Iraq Britain bombed Kurds and Arabs when they rebelled against Britain's attempts to assert control over them. So, it is indeed accurate to compare G. W. Bush and Winston Churchill - but also Adolf Hitler - to each other.
Britain occupied the vilayets (districts) of Baghdad and Basra during World War I. Following the Armistice, Britain occupied Iraqi Kurdistan, beginning with the city and vilayet of Mosul, during November-December 1918. This latter occupation violated an agreement with the Ottomans, the Mudros Treaty, but Britain knew that "the defeated Turks had no option" (Nader Entessar, Kurdish Ethnonationalism, p. 50). British forces also occupied the Kurdish cities of Kirkuk and Suleymaniya. On 1 May 1920 Britain assumed the League of Nations Mandate (protectorate) of Iraq under the Treaty of San Remo and immediately established a Provisional Government in Baghdad. In August 1921 Britain installed a leading member of Arabia's Hashemite dynasty as the King of Iraq. As an outsider, King Faisal I would always be ultimately dependent upon his 'sponsor' for support. Of course, the Hashemites had already proven their pro-British credentials by providing fighters for T. E. Lawrence's Arab revolt against the Ottomans in Arabia.
Basing itself on lessons learnt in its Indian colonial possession as well as its wartime experience in Iranian Kurdistan, Britain cast around for pliable Kurdish figures whom it could appoint to positions of authority, focusing especially on tribal leaders - even going to the extent of 're-tribalising':
"Every man who could be labeled a tribesman was placed under a tribal leader. The idea was to divide South Kurdistan [Iraqi Kurdistan] into tribal areas under a tribal leader. Petty village headmen were unearthed and discovered as leaders of long dead tribes" (Major E. B. Soane, British Political Officer, 1919, cited in David McDowall, A Modern History of the Kurds, p. 120-21).
For all its talk of its 'civilising mission' to non-Christian and non-white peoples, therefore, Britain was deliberately attempting to turn back the clock of social development, in the naked pursuit of its own capitalist interests. Arnold Wilson, the British Acting Civil Commissioner in Baghdad at the time, explains:
"The whole basis of our action as regards Kurds should be in my opinion the assurance of a satisfactory boundary to Mesopotamia. Such a boundary cannot possibly be secured, I imagine, in the plains, but must be found in the Kurdish mountains � [and that] entails a tribal policy" (cited in McDowall, op. cit., pp. 120-21).
Britain appointed Kurdish chieftains to all manner of positions, including one Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji as the Governor of Suleymaniya division - the only area to have a Kurdish administrator. But when its Kurdish appointees proved incapable of following imperial orders, the policy of Kurdish autonomy was simply dropped by Britain. C. J. Edmonds, a British political officer in the region, states that Britain soon became convinced that Iraq would never be viable without its Kurdish component:
"We were now engaged upon what was for Iraq a life and death struggle of which none of us had any doubt, for we were convinced that Basra and Baghdad without Mosul could, for economic and strategic reasons, never be built up into a viable state" (C. J. Edmonds, Kurds, Turks and Arabs, p. 398). Britain's strategic interests
Britain was committed above all to a stable Iraq, as a bulwark against Turkish, Russian and other interests in the region. Financially stretched by the recent World War, Britain was in no shape to pursue new complicated - and expensive - adventures in the fastnesses of Kurdistan. Consequently, it now dropped its policy of support for Kurdish self-rule. When Britain's strategic interests demanded it, therefore, the Kurds were portrayed as almost inherently incapable of ruling themselves. A British Memorandum to the League of Nations asserted:
"The Kurds of Iraq are entirely lacking in those characteristics of political cohesion which are essential to self-government. Their organisation and outlook are essentially tribal. They are without traditions of self-government or self-governing institutions. Their mode of life is primitive, and for the most part they are illiterate and untutored, resentful of authority and lacking in a sense of discipline or responsibility".
Iraq was a viper's nest of mutually hostile warlords and competing ethnic (Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians, Arabs) and sectarian (Sunnis, Shi'ite and others) factions. When Kurds in the region bordering on Anatolia murdered a British Political Officer in April 1919, British imperialism retaliated massively. "The British despatched a full division" to Sulaymaniya (Entessar, op. cit., p. 50), then:
"resorted to aerial bombardment, a technique it began to use as a standard tactic to economise on troop deployment. It had the advantage of instant effect and economy of cost" (McDowall, op. cit., pp. 154-55).
As revolts against the British occupiers multiplied, so too did British retaliation. The most serious opposition came from Sheikh Mahmud, who declared the formation of a Kurdish state and engaged in fierce fighting with British forces in the region from 3 May 1919, then declared himself Ruler of all Kurdistan, before being captured and exiled in mid-June. The Political Officer in Amadia and his assistants were killed in November 1919. Soane now "returned to administer Suleymaniya with a rod of iron" (McDowall, op. cit., p. 158).
In 1920 the whole of Iraq was engulfed in a variety of anti-British uprisings. The year began with a new Kurdish uprising by the Surchi clan. The British now found a new use for Sheikh Mahmud. By August 1920, they were confronted with an increasingly alarming situation, as not just one Kurdish region after another rose in revolt, but soon also large swathes of southern (Shi'ite Arab) Iraq. Meanwhile, Britain, fearful that Kurdistan, especially Mosul, might fall to the Turks, was compelled to return Sheikh Mahmud from exile in October 1922 and to re-appoint him the Governor of Suleymaniya.
When Sheikh Mahmud was re-installed in Suleymaniya, the British declared that they would "recognise the rights of the Kurds living within the boundaries of Iraq to set up a Kurdish Government" (cited in Sa'ad Jawad, Iraq & the Kurdish Question: 1958-1970, p. 8). Sheikh Mahmud seized this opportunity with both hands, declaring the formation of a Kurdish state with Suleymaniya as its capital. On 18 November 1922, he announced himself to be the 'King of Kurdistan'. Entessar (op. cit., p. 53) notes:
"Kurdish disenchantment with Iraqi rule led to renewed uprisings in Sulaymanieh [Suleymaniya] under Sheikh Mahmoud's leadership. In the winter of 1927, an Iraqi expeditionary force supported by British firepower was sent to Sulaymanieh�" The RAF takes over
Overall responsibility for the problem was progressively handed over to the RAF from August 1921. By October 1922 the RAF had principal responsibility for the war, with British ground forces being reduced. In a single aerial sortie, Suleymaniya was bombarded in mid-May 1922, causing the town's 7,000 residents to evacuate the town for the remainder of the conflict. In fact, armed confrontations between Kurdish and Arab nationalists and British imperialism continued until the early 1930s.
Geoff Simons (Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam, London, St. Martins Press, 1994, pp. 179-81) tells the story of British imperialism's capitalist barbarism against the Kurds and Iraqi Arabs:
"Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail 'the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death � for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.'
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): 'I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.' Henry Wilson shared Churchill's enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause 'only discomfort or illness, but not death' to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and 'kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.'
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a 'scientific expedient,' should not be prevented 'by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly'. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with 'excellent moral effect' though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties�
Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: 'They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran � Sometimes they raided three times a day.' Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often 'one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed�', the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that 'if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.'
Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: 'If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns'.
Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that 'The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.' It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retaliation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:
Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delayed-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan".
Hugh Trenchard, the RAF's chief of staff between 1919 and 1927 mentioned earlier, submitted a report to the Cabinet shortly after the RAF had temporarily quelled anti-British unrest in Iraqi Kurdistan.1 Trenchard reported that Churchill had first employed aerial bombardment against Iraq's Kurds as a means of finding "some cheaper form of control". Trenchard enthusiastically endorsed the verdict of the British High Commissioner for Iraq that "a free and vigorous use of � aerial resources" had proven to both highly potent and cost-effective. The RAF chief of staff concluded prophetically:
"Air power is of vital concern to the Empire and in Iraq, under the control of an air officer, further evidence is accumulating of its great potentialities. A continued demonstration, until its effectiveness is beyond dispute, may have far-reaching results, in that it may lead to still further economies in defence expenditure, not only in Iraq, but also in other Eastern territories where armed forces are required to give effect to British policy and uphold British prestige".
Aerial bombardment had proven to be a satisfactory method of mass killing. Jonathan Glancey (The Guardian, 19 April 2003) recalls:
"Winston Churchill, secretary of state for war and air, estimated that without the RAF, somewhere between 25,000 British and 80,000 Indian troops would be needed to control Iraq. Reliance on the airforce promised to cut these numbers to just 4,000 and 10,000. Churchill's confidence was soon repaid".
Glancey reports that the RAF "flew missions totaling 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines". Aerial bombardment is generalised
British capitalism's pioneering aerial terror against Iraqis paved the way for the wholesale use of terror bombing of all varieties. The British bombing of Kurdistan was the first use of aerial bombardment - and the first use of such bombardment in the peripheries of capitalism. British forces engaged in their third Afghan War soon after this also used this tactic. The monster 'Bomber Harris' became notorious "for his ruthless championing of saturation bombing against German civilian and military targets" (Jonathan C. Randal, After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness? My Encounters with Kurdistan, p. 5).
T. E. Lawrence wrote to the London Observer to complain: "It is odd that we do not use poison gas on these occasions". The British military certainly took to aerial bombardment with gusto as a means of spreading mass terror. In 1921, Wing Commander J. A. Chamier suggested that the best way to demoralise local people was to concentrate bombing on the "most inaccessible village of the most prominent tribe which it is desired to punish. All available aircraft must be collected, the attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle"(cited in Glancey, op. cit.).
After proving it in the colonies, this tactic was then deployed during World War II to a massive extent - first of all in the British and German blanket bombing campaigns against each other's populations, which included the massacre of the workers of Dresden in 1945. In Dresden, preliminary sorties were flown using high explosives to remove the roofs from buildings. This was followed by targeted bombing of phosphorous devices into houses, factories, offices, schools and hospitals, with the objective of spreading a devastating firestorm as rapidly as possible. An estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people - many of these war refugees - were killed over three weeks. This was a casualty rate far in excess of the death toll exacted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were also just another example of a massive terror bombing campaign.
Churchill, Harris, Lawrence, Chamier, Trenchard and Hitler were certainly all terrorists of the first order, but they were all merely doing their jobs exceptionally well as enforcers for decadent capitalism. Ali
Note 1: An original copy of Trenchard's report, 'The Development of Air Control in Iraq' is held by Britain's Public Records Office. This chilling document (reference PRO AIR19/109 of October 1922) can be viewed online at the Public Records Office Web site, at the following address: www.pro.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/aftermath/p-iraq.htm [91]
A war against weapons of mass destruction? It's becoming increasingly clear that they are not going to find any. Rumsfeld has admitted that Saddam's regime may have destroyed them before the war. Deputy US defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz has gone one step further. According to the Guardian (30.5.03) "Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair magazine that the decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main reason for invading Iraq was taken for 'bureaucratic' reasons, indicating that Washington did not take the threat seriously". Thus speaks the supreme arrogance of supreme power. Tony Blair however has had to present the whole story with his hand on his heart, and faces a good deal more political opposition from within his own class. This is why he has to brave it out and "remain confident" that these elusive weapons will be found. The basic point has not changed: Bush and Blair justified the war by arguing that Iraq's weapons constituted a clear and present danger to the people of American and Europe. Blair even claimed in the House of Commons that Iraq was primed and ready to strike within 45 minutes. The war proved once and for all that Iraq's military capabilities were virtually zero.
So all that was a huge lie.
A war against terrorism then? But even if the Saddam regime (like countless regimes around the world, not least Britain, as the Stevens inquiry has shown) had links with terrorist groups, the last way that terrorism can be stopped is by mass bombing and military occupation. No sooner was the war in Iraq over than suicide bombers struck in Riyadh, Casablanca and in several towns in Israel. Even in Iraq, shadowy anti-American forces have gunned down US troops. Major cities in the US and Britain have been put on terrorist alert. The war has increased the threat of terrorist revenge attacks.
So that was another lie.
But surely the Iraqi people will be better off without Saddam? Look at the mass graves they found, dating back to the 1991 uprising. He killed thousands and thousands of his own people�
That's true. But let's not forget the responsibility of the 'liberating' countries in all of Saddam's murders. Not only because Saddam was to all intents and purposes put in power by the USA, and armed by them (as well as today's 'peace-camp' countries like France, Germany and Russia) to counter the power of Iran in the region. But also because in 1991 the 'Coalition' of the day called on the Kurds and Shias to rise against the Baathist regime, and then quite deliberately allowed Saddam the weapons he needed to crush them. This was because at that time the US privately accepted that the Butcher of Baghdad was the only force that could prevent the break-up of Iraq.
As for being better off, what is the situation in Iraq today? The 'freedom' brought by US and British tanks is proving to be the 'freedom' of armed gangs of all kinds to impose their will on a desperate population. The list of those - civilians and unwilling conscripts - slaughtered by US and British bombs certainly runs into thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. This death toll will be increased considerably by the break-down in electricity and water supplies, by the collapse of medical services and shortages of food. Attempts to form a new civil administration have come to nothing: in Basra the British set up a municipal authority and dissolved it again almost immediately.
In the absence of any real alternative, many Iraqis are turning to the religious authorities and calling for an Islamic state. Would that be an improvement over Saddam?
The situation in Afghanistan gives us a clue about the real concerns of the US and British 'liberators'. Bush promised that the US would not walk away from Afghanistan. And it's true that US troops are still fighting Taliban forces there. But there has been very little reconstruction and the writ of the Barzai regime hardly even extends to the whole of Kabul, let alone to the rest of the country where the war lords have slotted right back into their old ways. More wars loom
But the Middle East 'road map to peace' - isn't that a benefit of the US victory in Iraq? There's no doubt that the US efforts to stabilise its domination of the Middle East demands a settlement of the Palestinian problem. That is why there has been a huge increase in US pressure not only on the Palestinian leadership but also on Sharon. The new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, was put in place precisely to strengthen the 'moderate' forces in the Palestinian leadership. The US has warned both Syria and Iran that they must stop supporting Hizbollah's terrorist campaign against Israel; Abbas himself says he can persuade Hamas and Islamic Jihad to call a halt to the suicide bombings. And Sharon, despite opposition from the right wing in his own government, has, after exacting a few verbal concessions from the Americans, signed up to the road map, accepting the idea of a Palestinian state and recognising that a perpetuation of the Israeli occupation was "bad for Israel and bad for the Palestinians". A meeting between Sharon and Abbas is scheduled for the first week in June.
But even if all the tremendous obstacles to a political settlement of the Palestinian problem were removed, let's recall the real reasons for the USA's policy in the Middle East, whether in Palestine or Iraq. It is dictated not by any humanitarian concerns but by its innate imperialist needs. In the Middle East, this is not simply a question of making profits from oil, as so many in the 'peace camp' claim. Controlling Middle East oil is first and foremost a strategic goal for the USA, a potential weapon aimed at its main imperialist rivals, and part of a planet-wide strategy to maintain its world 'leadership' and prevent the rise of any power able to challenge it. And the same basic imperialist drives also oblige other powers, greater ones like France, Germany and Russia, Japan and China, or lesser ones like Iran, Syria, or North Korea, to counter US advances however and whenever they can, even if the US victory in Iraq has forced them to adopt a low profile for the moment (see the article on France and Germany on page 5).
'Peace' between the Israelis and Palestinians would merely remove a thorn in the US flesh that would allow it to concentrate its attention elsewhere. Already it is making highly bellicose noises in the direction of Iran, accusing it of harbouring senior al Qaida operatives and of building up a nuclear weapons programme. The ominous term 'regime change' is already being bandied about. It seems that there are differences between the Pentagon and the State department on this issue, with the latter favouring a more diplomatic approach aimed at winning over the 'reformist' elements around Khatemi, but the increasingly aggressive rhetoric coming from the Pentagon can only strengthen the hand of the religious conservatives in Tehran and so heighten the danger of a new conflict in the region.
The war in Iraq was fought not to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not to rid the world of terrorism, and not for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It was an imperialist war fought for the sordid interests of capitalism. And like all the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries, it will generate new wars and an ever-mounting spiral of destruction.
That is the future that capitalism offers humanity, unless its headlong flight towards the abyss is turned aside by the proletarian revolution. Given the low levels of class struggle over the past decade, this may seem like a forlorn hope to many; but the working class is far from the spent force that the bourgeoisie would have us believe. Capitalism's economic crisis, which pushes the system towards war, also obliges the working class to fight in defence of its living standards; and in the main centres of the system the proletariat has not been subjected to a crushing and final defeat, nor yet ground into the dust by the remorseless decomposition of capitalist society. The future belongs to the class struggle!
WR, 30/5/03.
The US is trying to impose its 'road map' for peace on the Middle East. The population of Israel/Palestine have every reason to be cautious and suspicious. Every intervention by the great powers in the region has exacerbated the situation - Britain in the 1920s and 30s, the US since the Second World War. It will also not have escaped their notice that recent military interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq have not resulted in peace and stability but have seen a continuation of armed conflict, alongside a social chaos that precludes the possibility of any sort of reconstruction.
On May 1 George Bush declared that military conflict in Iraq was over. Since then 27 US soldiers have died from guerrilla attacks, with uncounted Iraqi deaths to add to the thousands who died in the 'official' war. The totals are rising as US troops are coming under an average of 13 guerrilla attacks a day. Following the recent deaths of six British military police after British troops fired on a demonstration of local residents, leading British generals are letting it be known that they are worried about being bogged down in Iraq, much as has happened the forces still in Afghanistan. There, eighteen months after the fall of the Taliban, the battles between the factions of different warlords, and against US and other forces continue. Bombs in Kabul, serious battles elsewhere in Afghanistan, and not a sign of Osama bin Laden, whose killing or capture was one of the pretexts for the war. Saddam in Iraq remains equally elusive and continues to call for sabotage and attacks on the occupying forces. US global offensive continues
Not surprising then that in a speech by President Bush on July 4, he made it clear that the US was still at war. Any re-organisation of its forces should not be mistaken for a retreat from the 'war on terrorism'. The US plans to move much greater numbers of troops closer to current conflicts, to superior strategic positions - or nearer to rivals and/or future targets. From its bases in Germany 80,000 troops will be moved east to Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania - closer to the Black Sea, Russia, Turkey and the Middle East. From Saudi Arabia forces are being moved to Qatar and Iraq. From Japan the US has the opportunity to move thousands of troops to Thailand in the heart of South East Asia - in a place well suited for attacks on North Korea.. Leading White House figures have already said that it's not enough for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme. If the US deems pre-emptive military force to be necessary then it's not going to wait for documentation from the UN, especially in the light of its experience in the run-up to the attack on Iraq.
The 'road map' for the Middle East should be seen in the light of this global offensive of the US, whose aim has now been stated openly by the clique around Bush: to impress itself on all-comers and deter the ambition of any other major imperialism to achieve the status of superpower. The Middle East, a historic crossroads between Europe and Asia, and replete with vital oil reserves, is key to the world wide strategy of the US. Hence its determination to maintain a massive military force in Iraq, despite the enormous cost. Iraq, like Afghanistan, is a central element in a line of US occupation from the southern Arabian peninsula and the Mediterranean through to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in central Asia.
To control the Middle East, it is absolutely essential for US imperialism to find some 'solution' to the Israel/Palestine conflict. The longer it goes on, the harder it is for the US to maintain its influence with the Arab states, and the more opportunities there are for the USA's larger imperialist rivals, particularly Germany, Russia and France, to carry out their own intrigues and manoeuvres behind the scenes. Hence the mounting pressure to get Sharon and Abbas to the negotiating table and distance themselves from the 'extremists' in their own ranks. Hence also the USA's current two-pronged approach towards Iran, which the US seeks to use as a player in its road map: on the one hand flattering the 'reformist' elements in the Iranian leadership and trying to get them to put pressure on the armed groups Iran supports in Lebanon and Palestine; on the other hand, naked threats about Iran's nuclear weapons programme and accusations of harbouring members of al-Qaida.
There is of course no guarantee whatever that the fanatical Islamist elements, any more than the equally fanatical 'Orthodox' groups in Israel, will fall in with the road map, despite the recent proclamation of a ceasefire by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades. In all likelihood, there will only be the briefest of pauses before a new round of terrorist attacks and Israeli counter-terror gets underway. But even if the US succeeded in establishing a Palestinian state and mitigating the slaughter in Israel/Palestine, this would be a moment in an imperialist strategy that can only bring war and confrontation on an ever greater scale. Not because America has a unique desire for world domination - it is only acting to preserve a status quo that corresponds to its national interests, much as British imperialism did when it was the world's leading power. Like all the other capitalist powers, large and small, imperialism is not a choice made by this or that country, still less by this or that bourgeois clique. It is an organic product of capitalism at a certain stage of its development - a stage when its development has become decay and its very existence constitutes a growing threat to the survival of humanity. Capitalism's road map can only lead to war and destruction.
WR, 5/7/03.
The 50-year retrospectives on 1953 have included a large amount of nostalgia for that glorious day in June when a new queen was crowned and news came through that a 'Commonwealth' team had conquered Everest. A time when the monarchy was respected, 'traditional values' were still in place and society seemed to make a little more sense than it does now�
Other events in the same year, however, symbolise the darker reality of those days. It was the year of Stalin's death and of the end of the Korean War, but the shadow of a third world war still loomed large. The intensity of imperialist rivalries between east and west also reinforced an ideological terror typified by the McCarthy phenomenon in the USA. And for the majority of the population, east and west, grim austerity and heightened exploitation were the order of the day as world capitalism reconstructed itself on the ruins of the war.
These conditions form the background to the event which we have chosen to commemorate in this issue of WR: the massive strikes of the East German workers in June 1953. Although they took place at a time when the counter-revolution - Stalinist and democratic - still reigned supreme, and were thus doomed to isolation and defeat, these struggles also pointed a finger towards the future: not only the more widespread class movements in the eastern bloc in 1956, but also the outbreaks in western Europe at the end of the 60s, which signalled the end of the counter-revolution and the return of the working class to the stage of history. But it is above all because the movement of the East German workers has left us with important political lessons - 'positive' lessons about how to organise massively against state terror, to spread a struggle as widely possible, as well as 'negative' lessons concerning the workers' illusions in 'democracy' - that the East German uprising is the real proletarian heritage of 1953. The extract that follows is taken from our International Review no.18, written for the 25th anniversary of the movement.
The so-called 'socialist' countries of Eastern Europe arose as a result of the imperialist re-division of the world brought about by World War II. The slogan of the holy war against fascism was nothing but the lie which the western and Russian bourgeoisies ended up using to mobilise their workers in the fight for more profits, markets and raw materials for their capitalist masters. The Allies' love of democracy did not prevent Stalin, for example, from doing a deal with Hitler at the beginning of the war, through which Russia was able to seize large areas of Eastern Europe.
As it became increasingly clear that the Allies were going to win the war, the conflict of interests within the 'democratic camp' itself, and especially between Russia on the one hand and Britain and America on the other, became greater. The Russians received only the minimum of military supplies from the west, and Britain even wanted to open up the Second Front against Germany in the Balkans instead of in France to prevent the Russians occupying Eastern Europe.
What kept this united front of gangsters together was the fear that the war, particularly in the defeated countries, might, as in World War I, be ended by an outbreak of class struggle. The brutal bombing raids by the Allies on German cities were aimed at crushing the resistance of the working class. In most cities the workers' areas were obliterated, whereas only 10% of the industrial equipment was destroyed.
The growing resistance of the workers, which in some cases led to uprisings in concentration camps and factories, and the dissatisfaction of the soldiers (such as the desertions on the eastern front, which were countered by mass hangings), were swiftly crushed by the occupying powers. This pattern was followed everywhere. In the east, the Russian army stood by while the German forces put down the 63-day long Warsaw Rising, leaving 240,000 dead. Similarly, the Russian army was responsible for restoring order and social peace in Bulgaria and elsewhere in the Balkans. In the west, the CPs joined the post-war governments in France and Italy, in order to break the flickering strike movements and social unrest there. The Italian CP in power was supporting the same democratic allies who mercilessly bombed the Italian workers who were occupying the factories towards the end of the war.
The 'Soviet' occupiers began to exercise an organised plunder of the east European territory under their control. In the Soviet Occupation Zone (SBZ) of East Germany, the dismantling of industrial equipment for transportation back to the Soviet Union amounted to 40% of the industrial capacity of the SBZ. The Sowjetinen en Aktiengesellschaften (SAGs, Soviet stockholding companies) were founded in 1946 and two hundred firms in key industries, including for example the massive Leuna works, were taken over by the Russians. In some areas, at the end of the war, the workers themselves began operating the factories and such factories were especially eagerly taken over. In 1950 the SAGs constituted the following proportion of the East German economy: "more than half of chemicals, a third of metallurgical products, and about a quarter of machine production" (Staritz, Sozialismus In Einer Halben Land).
A large proportion of these profits went to the Russians directly as reparation payments. The GDR was committed to reparation payments to the USSR up until 1953-4, until it became clear that the reparations were damaging the Russian economy itself. The decimated East German economy paid the bill through a brutally rising exploitation of the working class. The proletariat was forced in this way to help finance the reconstruction and expansion of the Soviet war economy. Stalin never explained why the working class and the 'Workers' State' in Germany should have to pay for the crimes of its exploiters.
This consolidation of Russian imperialism's economic power in East Germany and Eastern Europe was accompanied by the coming to power of pro-Russian factions of the bourgeoisie. In the SBZ, the Stalinists of the KPD came together with the Social Democratic murderers of the German revolution, to form the Sozialistische Einheits Partei (SED). Its immediate post-war goals had already been expressed clearly shortly before the war began: "The new democratic Republic will deprive Fascism of its material basis through the expropriation of fascist trust capital, and will place reliable defenders of democratic freedoms and the rights of the people in the army, the police forces, and the bureaucracy" (Staritz, op. cit.).
Strengthening and 'democratisation' of the army, the police, the bureaucracy�such were the lessons which these good bourgeois 'Marxists' had drawn from Marx, from Lenin, from the Paris Commune.
Then, three years after the war had ended, came the announcement that the building of 'socialism' had now begun. A miraculous 'socialism' this, which could be constructed upon the corpses of a totally crushed and defeated proletariat. It is interesting to note that between 1945-8 not even the SED pretended that the state capitalist measures they were putting through had anything to do with socialism. And today, leftists of all descriptions who propagate the idea that nationalisation equals socialism, prefer to 'forget' the high degree of statification present in the east European economies even before the war, and especially in those countries most renowned for their 'reactionary' governments, such as Poland and Yugoslavia. This centralisation of the economy under the state had proceeded during the German occupation.
In fact, the famous declaration of the 'building of socialism', along with the economic, political and military tightening up which took place in eastern Europe after 1948, was the direct result of the hardening of the global conflict between the American and the Russian blocs:
"The Two-Year Plan (measured on the 1949 standing) foresaw a rise in production of 35% until 1950, reckoned with a rise in labour productivity of 30%, a 15% growth in the total wage mass, and a 7% sinking of the costs of public firms. The aim of the SED was thereby to raise work productivity twice as fast as wages. The means to these ends were seen by the planners above all in the improvement in the organisation of work, the introduction of 'correct norms' and in the struggle against absenteeism and carelessness at the workplaces" (Staritz, op. cit.).
The rise in wages after 1948, insofar as they took place at all, were merely the result of piece rate norms and 'productivity achievements', or in other words they were the result of higher levels of exploitation. This was the period of the Hennecke movement (the East German equivalent of Stakhanovism) and of an iron discipline in the factories imposed by the unions. But even so these small wage rises became more and more an intolerable burden for the economy and had somehow to be cut. The economically weaker eastern bloc, less and less able to compete with its American-led rivals, was forced, in order to survive, to squeeze super profits out of the proletariat and to invest in the heavy industries (or more precisely, in those industries connected to the war economy), to the detriment of the infrastructure, the consumer goods sector, etc. This situation, which required the immediate and centralised control of the economy by the state, pushed the bourgeoisie into making frontal attacks on the living standards of the working class.
The response of the proletariat came in a wave of class struggle which shook Eastern Europe between the years 1953-56. The movement began in early June 1953 with demonstrations by workers in Pilzen, Czechoslovakia, which led to clashes with the army. These were immediately followed by the rising in the GDR and by the revolt in the massive Vorkutz labour camps in Russia in July of the same year. This movement reached its climax in 1956 with the events in Poland, and then in Hungary, where workers' councils were formed.
It has been estimated that the real wages in East Germany were half the 1936 level (Chris Harman, Bureaucracy and Revolution in Eastern Europe, p.80). In July 1952 the SED announced the opening of a new period of 'the accelerated construction of socialism', by which was meant a further increase in investment in heavy industry, a greater increase in productivity and a greater increase in production norms. It was clearly intended to speed up the post-war reconstruction. In the spring of 1953, at a time when the unions in West Berlin were having difficulty controlling the combativity of the building workers, the government in East Berlin was stepping up a full-scale campaign to increase the production norms generally, and particularly on the building sites. On 28 May it was announced that 60% of the workers on the huge building sites in Stalinallee had 'voluntarily' raised their norms (this is the language of 'socialist' realism). The effects of the nationwide production campaign on the working class were already beginning to show. That same month strikes took place in Magdeburg and Karl Marx Stadt. In response the government proclaimed a general norm rise of 10% for 5 June.
Becoming frightened by the mood among the workers, an anti-Ulbricht grouping within the SED leadership, and apparently with Kremlin backing, pushed through a reform package aimed at gaining the support of the middle classes. This group even began to suggest an easing-up policy as regards the question of the production norms.
But such manoeuvres came too late to prevent a proletarian eruption. On 16 June the building workers took to the streets and marched calling out other workers. Finally the demonstration made for the government buildings. The general strike called for the following day paralysed East Berlin and followed in all other important cities. The struggle was organised by strike committees elected in open assemblies and under their control - independent of the unions and the party. Indeed the dissolution of the party cells in the factories was often the first demand of the workers. In Halle, Bitterfeld and Mersburg, the industrial heartland of East Germany, strike committees for the entire cities were elected, which together attempted to coordinate and lead the struggle. These committees assumed the task of centralising the struggle and also temporarily organising the running of the cities: "In Bitterfeld, the central strike committee demanded that the fire brigade clear the walls of all official slogans. The police continued to make arrests; whereupon the committee formed fighting units and organised the systematic occupation of the city districts. The political prisoners of the Bitterfeld jail were released in the name of the strike committee. In contrast the strike committee ordered the arrest of the town mayor" (Sarel, Arbeiter gegen den Kommunismus).
Because of the speed with which the workers took to the streets, generalising the struggle and taking it straight to the political level, above all because the need to openly confront the state was understood, the proletariat was able to paralyse the repressive apparatus of the East German bourgeoisie. However, just as the rapid spread of the strike across the country was able to prevent the effective use of the police against the workers, in the same way, the international extension of the struggle would have been necessary in order to counter the threat of the 'Red Army'. In this sense we can say that, taking place as it did in the depths of the world wide counter-revolution following the defeat of the revolutionary wave of 1917-23, the East German workers were defeated because of their isolation from their class brothers abroad, east and west. In fact, the weight of the counter-revolution placed political barriers more terrible than the bayonets of Russian imperialism against the extension of the movement from a revolt to a revolution. The links binding the class to its own past, its experiences and struggles, had long been smashed by Noske, Hitler and Stalin - the bloody heroes of reaction - by concentration camps and mass bombings, by demoralisation and by the destruction of its revolutionary parties (the murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht, the political decimation of the KAPD). Having suffered for so long under the fascist and Stalinist one-party states, the workers believed that parliamentary democracy might protect them against naked exploitation. They called for parliament and free elections. They sent delegates to West Berlin, asking for help and solidarity from the state and the unions there, but in vain. The West Berlin police and the French and British troops were posted along the borders of the city with East Berlin to prevent any movements of solidarity between workers east and west. The unions in the west turned down the suggestion to call a solidarity strike, and warned the east European workers against illegal actions and adventurism. The workers called on the Russian army to remain neutral (not to interfere in internal German affairs - according to the strike committee of Halle and Bitterfeld). They learned a hard lesson: in the class war there is no neutrality. The workers wanted to get rid of Ulbricht and Co., not realising that one Ulbricht would simply be replaced by another, and that it's not a question of overthrowing this or that government but of destroying the world capitalist system which hangs like stone around our neck. They didn't understand the need to centralise the struggle politically at the level of workers' councils which would smash the bourgeois state.
Kr, June 2003.
When the working class in France responded to the unprecedented attack represented by the pension 'reforms', it was vital for revolutionaries to be present both in the demonstrations and amongst the various sectors in struggle, in particular the workers in national education. The ICC's intervention in the demonstrations
Unlike the leftists, and the over-excitable elements of the petty bourgeoisie who see the spectre of the social revolution behind everything that moves, revolutionaries aim to carry out a lucid intervention and have to be equipped with a compass, with the Marxist method which is based on nearly two hundred years of working class experience. It is this method alone which can assist them to avoid the traps of immediatism, of petty bourgeois impatience, which can only lead them into becoming water-carriers for rank and file unionism and the extreme left wing of capital.
Thus, as soon as the movement began to become widespread, with the demonstration of 13 May, the ICC's section in France took the decision to bring out a supplement to its main tool of intervention, the newspaper Revolution Internationale. This supplement was oriented around the task of denouncing the scale of the attack on the entire working class, of analysing the manoeuvres of the bourgeoisie aimed at getting this attack through, and of denouncing the role of the unions in response to the revival of class militancy. The main thrust of our intervention was to encourage the working class to reflect about the depth of the capitalist crisis and on the necessity of this experience of struggle, which could enable it to regain confidence in itself and rediscover its class identity. It was precisely because our emphasis was on the need to put forward a general framework of analysis in order to facilitate this reflection that we decided to distribute a supplement and not an agitational leaflet. In all the demonstrations, in Paris as well as in the provinces, the ICC mobilised all its forces and regrouped its sympathisers around it in order to distribute the press as widely as possible
The balance sheet of this mobilisation was very positive: our sales figures broke all records. In the entire history of the ICC, our organisation has never sold so many publications at a demonstration. In particular, in all the demonstrations where the ICC was present, our supplement sold like hot cakes.
We are not saying this to give ourselves medals or because we think we are on the verge of the revolution. These sales figures, as well as the numerous discussions we had in the demonstrations, simply confirm that, despite the difficulties it still faces in developing its struggle and creating a balance of forces that can make the bourgeoisie retreat, the working class is still looking for a perspective. The fact that so many strikers could make the political gesture of buying a paper headed Revolution Internationale or a supplement headed 'The future belongs to the class struggle' is a significant sign of a change in the situation of the class struggle. It means that today within the working class there is the beginning of a real questioning about the future that capitalism has in store for us. This questioning, this search for a perspective, even if it is still very confused and embryonic, is a clear refutation of all the bourgeois campaigns that followed the collapse of the Stalinist regimes, the focus of which was the argument that communism had failed and the class struggle was over.
Thus, this massive attack on the entire working class confirms the validity of what our organisation has been saying since 1968: despite the suffering it brings, the economic crisis remains the best ally of the proletariat. The ICC's intervention in the national education strike
The ICC's intervention was not limited to distributing its press in the street demonstrations.
In the struggles themselves, in the general assemblies, especially those of the teachers, our comrades and sympathisers intervened whenever they could to try to counter the manoeuvres of the unions and their 'radical' base animated by the leftists. All our interventions put forward:
Thus for example, on the 13 May, at a departmental (regional) general assembly regrouping around 500 strikers in Lyon and led by the an 'Intersyndicale' made up of the FSU, FO, CGT, SUD and the CNT, our comrades were able to intervene twice despite the aggressive attitude of the Intersyndicale which chaired the assembly (and in particular a local boss of the Trotskyist LCR, an official of the FSU union, who tried to stop them speaking with interruptions like "Cut it short", "Start by getting your school out on strike"). Despite the union barrage aimed at shutting us up, another comrade who works in the hospital sector had come to this assembly and insisted on the necessity to cross the street and meet up with other sectors suffering the same attack on pensions. His intervention was followed very closely and this forced the praesidium to switch off the microphone. But despite this manoeuvre, our comrade continued his intervention by raising his voice. He was warmly applauded. It was at this moment that the praesidium was obliged to take notice of the orientation our comrades were putting forward: the necessity for geographical extension, but only as a vague perspective - which the leftists did in many places, once the movement began to run out of steam. This parody of extension would be concretised by sending delegations of trade union officials to trade union officials in other sectors.
This departmental assembly clearly showed that the 'radical' unions, to avoid being outflanked by the impact of our interventions, were forced to adopt these kinds of manoeuvres.
When we were able to intervene in the assemblies, we tried to put forward concrete proposals. On several occasions, at Lyon for example, our comrades proposed the following motion: "The departmental general assembly calls on the general assemblies of other sectors to put into action the appeals for extension of the struggle through the strongest possible delegations to public and private enterprises like Alstom, Ateliers, SNCF, Oullins, RVI, TCL, hospitals, town hall, etc�the departmental general assembly considers that the belated union appeals for other sectors to join the fight, some for 27 May, others for 2 June, still others for 3 June, as well as their silence in other sectors, are concrete acts of division and dispersal and go against the need for unity�" This motion got 24 votes for, 137 against and 53 abstentions. The vote on this motion showed that there is the beginning of a questioning of union control over the struggle and of their sabotaging manoeuvres. Although this questioning is only taking place in a minority, the intervention of our militants was not a bolt out of the blue. On several occasions our comrades were called on to develop their interventions, sometimes with invitations to come and speak at other assemblies in the sector where the same kinds of question were being posed. Numerous discussions took place and are still continuing. In other departmental assemblies, like the one on 21 May in Nantes, our comrades directly confronted the unions by proclaiming loudly that "the unity of the struggle doesn't mean trade union unity!" They were copiously hissed throughout their intervention. At the end of the assembly, only four strikers expressed agreement with our position. What we have seen through the echo of our interventions in various regions is that there is a great heterogeneity in the movement, both at the level of mobilisation as well as regards distrust towards the unions.
In a second period, which arrived rather quickly, it became clear that any possibility for a massive development of the struggle had been undermined by the unions, and our comrades were obliged to reorient their interventions:
In addition to the above, the ICC was also present, as always, at the fete of Lutte Ouvriere where it intervened at the forums organised by the leftists, denouncing their sabotaging manoeuvres and insisting on the necessity to draw the lessons from the defeat of the teachers. The ICC was in fact the only revolutionary organisation to intervene against the Trotskyists, despite the whistles of the base unionists aligned to LO and the LCR (1).
In the days that followed, the ICC also held a number of animated public meetings about the struggles in a number of cities.
It is clear today that the movement was not strong enough to push back the bourgeoisie. The working class has thus suffered a defeat. Once again the ruling class is seeking to make workers draw the wrong lessons from this, especially the idea that struggle is waste of time. It is thus the responsibility of revolutionaries to resist these mystifications.
This is why the ICC decided to distribute a leaflet drawing the balance sheet of this experience in order to permit the whole class to draw the maximum of lessons from this defeat, to push workers to deepen their reflection and thus arm them for when they have to return to the struggle against the acceleration of the attacks, already prefigured in the dossier on social security.
SM, June 2003.
(1) Also despite the sarcasm of the elements which we describe as parasites because, while they claim to belong to the proletarian political camp, have no reason for existing other than destroying the reputation of genuine revolutionary organisations, and the ICC in particular. Furthermore, at the LO fete these elements were only present as spectators and didn't open their mouths to combat the forces of capitalism's extreme left wing.
For more than 6 weeks the working class in France has been engaged in struggles of a breadth unknown for quite some years. Hundreds of thousands, even millions of workers from a whole number of sectors have been out on strike and demonstrating in the streets. However, despite this massive militancy, the movement has not succeeded: the government is about to push through the law on pensions, which has been the main focus of workers' anger. What's more, to make it clear who's the toughest, the government has announced that there will be no 'presents' for the strike days lost: they will be fully deducted from the workers' pay, in contrast to what it has done before after movements of this kind. Its aim is clear: it wants the whole working class to know that 'there is no point in struggling', that we have to draw in our belts without complaining, otherwise things will be even worse. Faced with the capitalist attacks, struggle is necessary
'There's no point in struggling': this is the refrain which the exploiters have always sung to the exploited. Nothing could be further from the truth: if today, in the main capitalist countries, workers don't work a 16 hour day like they did at the beginning of the 19th century, if they still get basic social benefits and a pension (even if it's getting increasingly thin), it's because previous generations of workers have fought for these things. The bourgeoisie, the class which rules the world today, does not give presents. It doesn't produce wealth by itself: it is the workers which it exploits who do that. Its reason for existing is not to allow the latter to live decently, but to extract as much profit from them as it can. There are no 'good bosses', whether private or state. A 'good boss', who really wanted the best for his workers, who willingly increased their wages and reduced their time at work would not be 'competitive'. He would soon go bust as a result of competition from other enterprises.
The first thing we have to underline about the recent struggles is that they are a clear rebuttal of all the campaigns which have been inflicted on us since the collapse of the eastern bloc and of the so-called 'socialist' regimes. No, the working class has not disappeared! No, its struggles do not belong to the past! Because the struggle that has just been carried out by the public sector workers is not a struggle of 'functionaries' or 'privileged groups'. It is a struggle of a large part of the working class whose boss is the state, a struggle against an attack which affects the entire working class, both in the public and the private sectors.
The second thing is this: faced with the aggravation of the economic crisis and the attacks of the bourgeoisie, the working class is going to be more and more compelled to fight for the defence of its living conditions. This perspective is clearly contained in the attacks that have already been programmed, particularly the attacks on social security planned for the coming months. It is clear today that the working class has no choice but to struggle. Because if it doesn't, the bourgeoisie will continue to hit it harder and harder.
Thirdly, it is only through the most massive and united struggle possible that the working class can gain the strength to limit the attacks of capitalism and push back the bourgeoisie.
Finally, it is only by returning to the path of struggle that the working class can rediscover its identity as a class, regain confidence in itself, develop its unity and solidarity. This is the only way it can become aware of its own strength and understand that is able to offer an alternative to the impasse of capitalism.
This is why, despite the fact that this recent struggle has not succeeded in pushing back the government (in particular on the question of pensions), the working class must not become demoralised. It must resist the idea that bourgeoisie is trying to feed it - that there's no point in struggling. Why didn't the government give way?
The attack on pensions had been planned by the bourgeoisie for several years - from the time the left was in government. The right has hastened to point this out, as have certain socialist leaders like Delors and Rocard. With the brutal acceleration of the economic crisis over the last year, the bourgeoisie could not hold back from making this attack. But it chose the moment to launch it because it knew that the working class could not fail to respond to such savage blows. This is why it set in place a whole series of measures to make sure that the explosion of discontent would be stopped by the truce of the summer holiday period.
Part of this strategy involved provoking one sector in particular: the education sector, via several supplementary attacks: the suppression of jobs for younger teachers and supervisors whose work brought some relief from increasingly harsh working conditions; the attack around the issue of 'decentralisation', which placed around 110,000 education workers in an extremely precarious job situation.
Why this 'unfairness' towards the education workers? Why were they singled out special attention? With the announcement of decentralisation the government has focused the teachers' anger on this specific attack, thus pushing the main attack (on pensions) into second place. This provocation had the aim of ensuring that the entire working class was unable to recognise its own interests in the teachers' struggle to the extent that the attack on decentralisation does not directly concern the other sectors, unlike the attack on pensions. It is clear that this provocation was aimed at dividing the working class and preventing a massive and unified response by all the public sector workers.
The government knew that the period of exams would act as a barrier to the struggle, and that it could count on a three month truce during the school holidays.
To lead the working class to defeat, the government was, as ever, able to rely on the loyal services of all the trade unions (CGT, CFDT, UNSA, SUD, etc) and the leftists (LO, LCR, CNT, PT). At first, when the government had just announced the attack on pensions, the unions appeared to be divided and to be obstructing any immediate, massive response from the working class. For example, the CGT called off the strike in the buses and railway on 14 and 15 May with the argument that it would be better to wait for the national demonstration in Paris on 25 May and prepare for this 'ideal moment' by not moving. On the other hand, in the education sector, we saw the unions acting very militantly and pushing the teachers to enter the struggle, not around the pension issue, but on the question of decentralisation (the call for Luc Ferry to resign, etc.). This fixation by the unions on the specific attack on the teachers, which was given a lot of media attention, created a certain disorientation in other sectors and blocked the possibility of a massive and unified struggle on the issue of pensions. This is why Raffarin was able to get away with saying that "it's not the street which governs", precisely because the government had quietly been working hand in hand with the unions and knew that it could count on their dirty work to divide and undermine the workers' response.
This divisive manoeuvre was consummated in the exam period which crowned the defeat of the education workers. The 'radical' unions and the leftists raised the threat of blocking the exams with several objectives. First, rousing other sectors against the teachers, in that it would be the children of workers who would pay the price of missing their exams. Second, making the strike unpopular by presenting the teachers as irresponsible and selfish people with no 'professional conscience'. Finally, dividing the teachers between those who wanted to halt the strike and those who wanted to carry on to the bitter end.
This whole agitation by the unions in the education sector had the overall aim of not only sowing the illusion that the teachers, on their own, could push back the government if they were determined enough, but also exhausting the strikers in a long strike that would demoralise them and make them hesitate to take part in the next round of struggles (for the large majority of strikers, they have lost several weeks' pay).
When the teachers became aware that the government would not give in, the unions (and the CGT in particular) had the incredible cynicism to blame the other sectors for not showing their solidarity with the teachers. In short, it wasn't the unions who were responsible for the defeat but�the other sectors who didn't want to mobilise in support of the teachers! The working class is the only force that can change society
The attack on pensions, and the coming attack on social security, is not peculiar to France. It has nothing to do with a good or bad management of the national economy. In all the industrialised countries of Europe, whether governed by the right or the left, the workers are now seeing all the social 'gains' since the end of the second world war being put into question. We are seeing a general collapse of the 'welfare' state. With the deepening of the world economic crisis, capitalism can no longer afford to subsidise the basic needs of workers it can't exploit directly (pensioners, unemployed, the sick, etc.).
Today, the working class has to understand the real significance of the attacks on pensions and social security, which is in no way a 'temporary' phenomenon linked to an 'unfavourable economic juncture' or to an 'unfair distribution of wealth' as the leftists of LO or ATTAC claim.
The collapse of the welfare state merely reveals the historic bankruptcy of the capitalist system, a system which has nothing to offer humanity expect more poverty, massacres, famines and epidemics.
Capitalism is a system that has reached the end of its tether and it is impossible to reform it in order to improve the conditions of the proletariat. The only 'reforms' it can carry out are reforms of the same type as the changes to pensions and social security, i.e. attacks which further degrade the living conditions of the working class.
This is why there can be no other perspective except to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a new society, based not on the search for profit, on exploitation, but on the satisfaction of human needs.
And only the working class can realise this perspective. If it is to do this, it must not give in to demoralisation after each defeat. Today, it has lost a battle, but it has not lost the war. It must prepare for a return to the combat in better conditions, by collectively reflecting and discussing, in the workplace, in general assemblies, by analysing the real reasons for the defeat.
To be stronger tomorrow, to develop a massive and unified combat, it will be vital to:
It is only in and through the struggle that the working class can become conscious of its strength, rediscover its self-confidence. It is through confronting the manoeuvres of the unions and the leftists, in the struggle itself, that the workers will be able to understand that they can only count on themselves.
Faced with the attacks of the bourgeoisie, there is no choice but to fight. More than ever, the future is in the hands of the working class.
RI, May 2003.
The 12th of March last, the World Health Organisation (WHO) launched, for the first time in its history, a planetary alert in order to counter the development of the epidemic of an atypical respiratory disease, eventually called 'Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome' (SARS). The concern of the WHO was real and justified: thus, from March 27th (the day when the Chinese government began to give figures which conformed more to reality) to May 16th, the official number of infected people in the world went from 1300 to 7650, and deaths from 50 to almost 600 with the perspective of a mortality rate of 4% of persons infected.
If today, the states of the developed countries declare that the epidemic has been stemmed on their territories, it continues to wreak havoc in East Asia which accounts for 90% of cases, where victims are counted in dozens each day and where the disease threatens to become chronic.
The WHO, and with it the western bourgeoisie, have congratulated themselves on their mobilisation faced with the epidemic and, along with the rest of the 'international community', have pointed a finger at the 'unpardonable lateness' of the Chinese government and the negligence of its Stalinist health system. It has been said throughout that if China had not suppressed and minimised the breadth of the epidemic, it could have been stopped much more quickly. That's obvious. Because it was in November 2002 that it began to break out in the Guandong Province with a hundred deaths, forcing Peking to impose considerable quarantine measures. All states are responsible
However, the observers of the WHO, i.e., the governments of the developed countries, who denounced the silence and the non-cooperation of China (1), knew from the beginning of February at least of the exceptional virulence of this epidemic of influenza and of the fact that it took the form of a "strange, contagious disease" (2). But it was only once the epidemic was declared in Hong Kong, in Vietnam and Singapore, and above all faced with its extension towards the developed countries, that the WHO reacted publicly. Nevertheless, despite the alert of March 12, it still took weeks for measures to be organised over the total of the more or less twenty countries struck by SARS. In Toronto, where at least one case was already noted, the health authorities of Ontario waited until March 26, two weeks later, to declare a state of emergency. Reputed for its 'level of excellence' the health system of Ontario was overwhelmed to the point where one of its hospitals decided, "To treat all illnesses except SARS because of the threat of not being able to attend to even a minor road accident", when 50 to 60% of those attacked by the disease were doctors and nurses (3, 4). The epidemic caused 24 deaths.
In France, under the pretext that airport restrictions were sufficient to prevent the disease arriving, the state did nothing to ensure that Air France flights coming from at-risk countries were disinfected. But due to the costs of exploitation and commerce, the concern of the air transport companies in the world was to note with horror, not the planetary expansion of a mortal sickness, but a "potential loss" of 4 billion dollars ascribable to the outbreak, twice the losses after the attacks of September 11, 2001 and during the conflict with Iraq put together!. If the leaders of the 'rich' countries denounce with zeal in their media the 'marginal sanitation' of entire areas of Chinese society and the corruption of all types which exist there, it's to make us forget the risks that their irresponsibility brings to the population.
Remember the blood contaminated with HIV, deliberately and consciously used for transfusions for hundreds of haemophiliacs in the mid-80s in France, for the good and simple reason that it was necessary to move stocks, while the heat deactivation technique was perfectly well known, but American. Remember 'Mad Cow disease' whose meat was again sold quite deliberately whereas they knew that it bore the mortal illness CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease). The list is long of the heinous crimes of the dominant class.
We know what the bourgeoisies of the developed countries have done against the development of AIDS, which has killed about 25 million human beings in the world since the beginning of the 80s: a late attempt to contain it here, letting it go in the poor countries where it was seen as bad luck. For 2002 alone, 3 million people died of AIDS and 5 million new declared cases have appeared. Out of the 42 million present sufferers (whose mortality rate is 90%), 70% are Africans, which says enough in itself: this continent has simply been delivered up to misery and decomposition in all its forms, without our 'civilised' bourgeoisies turning a hair. Another quite significant fact is that 20% of new cases concern Eastern Europe (notably Russia) and Asia (India and China closely follow one another). For the latter, the number of HIV positives will go from one million now to ten million in 2010, the result of a massive plan for blood tests and transfusions without adequate hygiene. While everyone's occupied looking at SARS under the microscope, the media haven't made much noise about this reality. Not to 'panic' their populations perhaps?
In any case, the aim is to hinder people from making the link between these 'new' sicknesses that arise from the decomposition of the capitalist world and its incapacity to really eradicate them. New expressions of the mortal sickness of capitalism
Thus the media has not shown much interest on the "very worrying context of the emergence of infections" (5) at the world level: "Nile fever has established itself in the United States (254 deaths in 2002 and no treatment). New strains of Dengue Fever (20,000 deaths in 2002 and no treatment) imported from Asia - a sickness that was thought to be eradicated - are presently colonising South America and infecting 100 million people a year in the world. (...) The Cerebro-spinal Meningitus bacteria are� presently rife in Burkina and has infected 6,300 people and has killed close to 1,000" (6). The SARS virus, this 'serial killer' is a mutant virus in the same vein as HIV: a virus of animal origin whose specificity is to have jumped the species barrier. Not usually causing serious illnesses, animals such as poultry transmitting viruses through their excrement to pigs only provoke, in normal conditions, colds among humans. But it's precisely the conditions of modern stock farming, linked to chronic lack of basic hygiene that facilitates the mutation of new viruses which propagate so much more easily where there is a high population density.
Thus the region of Guandong, from where the epidemic started out, is known for numerous intensive stock farms and its pork and poultry markets. The most affected area in Hong Kong, Kowloon, has a density of 165,000 people per square kilometre. The chicken flu in Hong Kong in 1997, which 'only' killed 6 people due to human non-transmission of the virus and thanks to the massive destruction 1.5 million chickens, had its origins in similar conditions.
The famous Spanish influenza, which appeared between 1918 and 1919 and in three waves of infection caused between 25 and 50 million deaths, several times more than World War I itself, had the same characteristics: duck droppings loaded with viruses ended up in pig troughs and were then consumed by humans.
Excessive deforestation again plays an important role in the development of animal viruses among man. Thus between 1998 and 1999, the appearance of the Nipah virus in Malaysia, propagated by bats through the loss of their natural habitat and settling in intensively cultivated orchards, caused more than 100 deaths, again a limited number due to the non-transmission of the virus between humans.
These sicknesses are, they tell us, 'the ransom of progress". No! These are the products of the weakness of capitalism which, for a century, has no longer been capable of bringing any progress to the whole of humanity: only misery and destruction in all their forms. Faced with the advanced decomposition of its system, the dominant class has nothing other to offer than ideological lies and repression. Thus the Chinese state, in order to face up to the wave of SARS, found nothing better to do than threaten the population with heavy prison sentences, even the death penalty (!) for those "who voluntarily spread pathogenic agents". A sneeze in public and it's jail lofty circles indeed for microbiological overcrowding of all types!
The aberrant nature of such repressive brutality is evident. But the cynicism of the bourgeoisies of the developed countries themselves knows no limits: since the end of the spread of SARS in the west, a near silence is organised on its ravages in East Asia as well as a real cordon sanitaire erected around China through the closure of its territorial frontiers with Russia and central Asia. They can die, but among themselves! On the other hand, our 'civilised' governments deplore the fact of not gaining anything from the drop in commercial relations with China. If the Chinese "little soldiers of neo-capitalism" die of SARS, they can joke about it, providing they continue to produce for the world capitalist market. But once they start propagating their microbes over the planet with the products of their exploitation, no - a million times no.
Here is the real face of capitalism in all the horror that it reserves for humanity.
Mulan, 22/5/03.
Notes
(1) It was the US ambassador herself who reported to the Peking office of the WHO at the beginning of February, the existence of a "strange sickness and many deaths in Canton" (quoted in Le Monde, 4/5 May 2003).
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) It should be noted that the Canadian authorities used the event in order to reorganise the functioning of hospitals in the eventuality of war or a bio-terrorist attack, an idea which spans all the developed countries.
(5) Science and Future no.15, May 2003.
(6) Ibid.
Recorded history is a succession of civilisations which have risen to their peak, fallen into decline, and disappeared. The despotic empires of Sumeria, Egypt, Mexico, China or India; the slave systems of Greece and Rome; the feudal order of mediaeval Europe�each one of these and many others went through periods of flowering when they gave the best of themselves to the world as it then was and to future generations, and through periods of decadence, where their internal contradictions pushed them into a series of catastrophes resulting in their final demise.
Modern day civilisation � the world-wide capitalist mode of production � has long been in its period of decline. The bloody history of the 20th century, with two world wars in its first half and its threat of nuclear annihilation for most of the second, provides proof enough of that.
Those who want us to believe that, despite all this, present-day civilisation is eternal, tell us that 21st century capitalism is different. That it’s no longer a class society facing insurmountable social and economic contradictions, but a post-industrial information economy which � thanks to ‘globalisation’ - has gone beyond the deadly rivalries between nation states.
And yet the catastrophes accumulate, making the future seem ever more menacing.
The Bush-Blair line, that all the principal evils in the world could be eliminated through the quick fix of military intervention, is increasingly exposed by events in the real world. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have not brought prosperity, peace and democracy to the region, but famine, chaos, and new guerrilla conflicts. Far from getting rid of terrorism, the ‘war on terror’ has only served to fuel it. The continent of Africa is tormented by horrifying slaughters like the current ones in the Congo and Liberia. Further US military adventures are threatened against North Korea and Iran. The Middle East ‘road map’ to peace lies in ruins. And all these conflicts, far from showing that competition between nations is a thing of the past, are stirred up by the ambitions of imperialist nations large and small. It is no longer possible to hide the fact that America’s main challengers are not Saddam or bin Laden, but great powers like France, Germany, Russia and China. The sharpening of these rivalries is delivering more and more of the planet to the nightmare of imperialist war.
Behind the march towards war, in the last instance, is the system’s crisis of overproduction. The slump of the 30s precipitated the world into six years of carnage; and it was the post-war reconstruction that allowed capitalist production to renew itself, albeit on a diseased foundation. The end of the reconstruction in the late 60s plunged the world economy into a series of recessions which would have culminated in a new devastating slump if the ruling class had not become so adept at getting round the laws of its own system and living on a mountain of debt. This was precisely the basis for the much-touted US growth of the 90s. But capitalism’s laws always get their revenge: the note has to be paid in the end. Today nearly all the major economies are tipping into open recession. All the great hopes of a new economic revolution � above all the ‘e-economy’ and the internet � have proved to be a pathetic delusion. The poverty and bankruptcy of the ‘third world’ is remorselessly advancing towards the main industrial centres.
Ecological disaster, itself the result of capitalism’s frenzied hunt for profit in the face of a glutted world market, must now be set alongside the military and economic cataclysms. Every year brings fresh confirmation that the dire effects of global warming are already with us. Last summer Europe was hit by massive floods; this summer by the heatwave that has ruined crops and wiped out thousands of human lives.
The apologists for the system may try to offer us all kinds of false hopes of a bright tomorrow, but these are all the symptoms of a civilisation in its death agony. The proletariat holds the key
Unlike previous civilisations in decline, capitalism in its death throes will not fall into a Dark Age from which a new form of society will emerge - there is the possibility of the complete destruction of humanity. And yet the very technological capacities which could, in their present capitalist envelope, bring about this ultimate disaster, could also be used to eliminate exploitation and scarcity once and for all. The capitalist class, which lives on the basis of this exploitation, can never do this; but the exploited class, the proletariat, which is the first to suffer from capitalism’s wars and crises, has a material interest in taking charge of the forces of production and using them for human need, not profit.
This would be a utopian hope if the working class had not shown in the past that it can respond to the crisis of the system with revolutionary action, as it did during the first world imperialist war. The defeat of the revolutionary wave of 1917-23, which shook world capitalism, led many to abandon hope in the proletariat; during the reconstruction that followed the Second World War, we saw the first blossoming of theories about the disappearance of the working class, about how capitalism had bought it off with televisions and washing machines. The international wave of workers’ struggles sparked off by the events of May-June 68 in France exposed the hollowness of these theories, but they have returned in force over the past decade or so: the collapse of the eastern bloc (really the collapse of a weak link in world capitalism) was supposed to herald the end of the class struggle, and all the theories about the ‘new’ capitalism have taken it for granted that the working class itself is a thing of the past.
The apparent success of these theories was certainly reinforced by the considerable difficulties the working class has been experiencing over the last decade, a decade in which it has to a large extent lost confidence in itself and even lost a sense of identity. But capitalism cannot conjure the class struggle out of existence, and recent events have confirmed it: in France in early summer, for example, where there was a massive response to the brutal attack on pensions by the government; and, on a smaller scale, at Heathrow in the same period, where workers’ strike action had a powerful effect for the very reason that they didn’t abide by the union rule book but walked out as soon as they heard about the latest blow against their working conditions. These struggles, and many more around the globe, are only small signs and the forces arrayed against the workers � from the governments and trade unions to the insidious ideological influences of a society in decomposition � are immense. But a growing minority of proletarians is beginning to pose profound questions about the future capitalism has to offer us, about the possibility of a revival of the class war, about the best methods to use in the defence of our class interests. And this minority is the tip of the iceberg; underneath, a much wider development of consciousness is taking place.
Capitalism cannot offer any hope to humanity. But the struggle of the exploited holds out the prospect of the only realistic alternative: the destruction of capitalism and the creation of world-wide communist society.
WR, 6/9/03.
During the summer, the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly meant there was no let-up in the allegations, evasions and accompanying documentation on dossiers, intelligence and weapons of mass destruction. Usually the ruling class is quite happy to let politics take a rest during the newspapers’ ‘silly season’: it’s clearly a serious dispute that shows no sign of disappearing. What we’re witnessing is partly propaganda, and partly a very real crisis within the ranks of the bourgeoisie on the right policy for British imperialism. Lies about capitalist peace
At the level of propaganda, the campaign over the possibility of a peaceful capitalism continues unabated. Before, during, and since the end of the offensive against Iraq, a whole array of liberal and left-wing figures have criticised the government’s militarism with claims that somehow the capitalist state could adopt a non-military policy. Despite all the evidence of imperialist conflicts since the end of the nineteenth century, ‘anti-war’ arguments say that capitalism can follow a peaceful road.
In the row over the Labour government’s dossiers, for example, Air Marshal Sir John Walker, Chief of Defence Intelligence from 1991 to 1994, suggested that claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were “not the reason to go to war, but the excuse to go to war”. From a military man this is probably fair comment � he knows that you don’t base an attack on another country on the basis of one dubious uncorroborated source. He therefore concluded that the decision to attack Iraq was already made last summer, and on the basis of other grounds than Iraq possessing or developing WMDs. The ‘anti-war’ argument also dismisses the stated reason for war, but also allows that there are circumstances in which there will be ‘reasons’ for war. Clare Short and Robin Cook criticised the war on Iraq, but were part of the government that bombed Belgrade and attacked Afghanistan. Others criticised war on Iraq and Afghanistan, because it meant going along with US imperialism, despite having previously advocated war in ex-Yugoslavia in defence of Bosnia or Kosovo. Wars ‘against fascism’, wars for ‘national liberation’, wars ‘against imperialism’ are all justifiable from the point of view of the bourgeoisie. And when Germany, France, Russia and China opposed the attack on Iraq it was for reasons as imperialist as those that motivated the US and Britain.
During the course of the Hutton enquiry it has been implied that while Blair, Campbell and associates were determined to manipulate everything to ensure that a solid case was made for war, there were others who were more cautious, whose influence might have convinced MPs that there was no need for an attack on Iraq. That is not the way that capitalism functions. It is not because of particular personalities or particular policies, but because of the very nature of a decadent system that war is the only means for survival of any national capital. Too close to the US?
Alongside the smokescreen of ‘anti-war’ illusions there is a very serious division within the ruling class that stems from the very limited room for manoeuvre available to British imperialism. In the period of the Cold War Britain remained loyal to the US bloc because of a discipline imposed by the potential threat of Russia and its satellites. Following the collapse of the USSR there were no longer any grounds for maintaining the ‘special relationship’ with the US and, first under Major’s Conservative government, and then under Blair, the British bourgeoisie has tried to pursue a policy independent of US imperialism. This has not always been easy, as Britain, despite boasting the world’s fourth largest economy, has many economic and military limitations, and has had to enter into temporary tactical alliances with the American superpower as much as with a European neighbour such as France. What concerns a significant section of the British ruling class is that the policy of Blair seems to involve a more than temporary alliance with the US, a loss of independence for no obvious gain. They worry that British interests are not being served in an entanglement with the US that alienates potential allies in Europe.
A typical expression of the anxiety that pervades the ruling class comes from Peter Kilfoyle, a former Labour defence minister. He appreciates that there are many who see the role of Britain, “as a ‘bridge’ between a European trading bloc and the US. Unfortunately for them, many in Europe see this as a one-way bridge for American influence and advantage, with the UK cast as a Trojan horse.” (Guardian, 18/8/03). He complains that Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has, “acknowledged that we are to be to the US armed forces what the sepoys were to the British Indian army”, that “the gains of many decades have been frittered away by our blind obedience to the American administration’s wars”, that Britain is now “a satrapy of the new American world order”, that “we are now viewed as a rather ignoble island, subservient to the world’s super-power.” In the words of novelist Doris Lessing “the basis of this admiration of America � appears to be a love of power and the big guy. Look at Blair running around like a little rabbit � we are a colony” (Guardian, 12/8/03).
From the Conservative party, ex-Defence and Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind thinks that “Tony Blair would have us believe that the furore over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been manufactured by some improbable alliance of a machiavellian BBC, Labour malcontents and Tory opportunists” (Guardian, 19/7/03). Rifkind dismisses all the arguments about the horror of Saddam’s regime as “moral blackmail” and recalls that for 5 years Blair didn’t put any case for an invasion of Iraq. He suggested that the arrival of George W Bush in the White House was a key factor in Labour’s change of heart. “Blair recognised that in order to retain the confidence of the new president, and to ensure British influence in Washington, he would have to support regime change in Iraq and the new doctrine of pre-emptive wars.” Rifkind understands the reasons for Britain to have a close relationship with the US, but thinks it should not be unconditional. “Of course, it is sensible for Britain to continue as America’s closest ally, but this has not stopped previous prime ministers - Labour and Tory - from distancing themselves from Washington when circumstances so justified. Harold Wilson refused to send British troops to Vietnam. Margaret Thatcher did not allow her warm relationship with Ronald Reagan to prevent her bitter criticism of the US, both over the invasion of Grenada and over the American attempt to impose sanctions on European countries trading with the Soviet Union over gas pipelines in the 1980s”.
Top Tory Michael Heseltine was “appalled” last year when he heard from an American politician close to Bush that the decision to invade Iraq was already taken long before the UN or the weapons inspectors came to any conclusions. He thinks that no one should be “fooled about the case for regime change”, and that the Hutton inquiry is a way of avoiding a proper judicial inquiry into the real reasons for participating in America’s war.
The diplomatic editor of the Guardian (23/8/03) summarised the view of those most wary of US influence. “For more than 10 years, British policy was to contain Saddam by keeping him weak through sanctions, imposition of no-fly zones and diplomatic isolation. He was regarded as a potential threat but not a pressing one� By the time the [September] dossier was published, Saddam had become someone who had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency”. The mobilisation for war was underway and the only role left for Blair was to prepare British and international public opinion for the inevitable. A real political crisis
While all bourgeois politicians and commentators frame everything they say in nationalist terms you can still distinguish the stances within the British capitalist class. In the face of criticism from left, right and his own party, Blair can still count on the support of pro-US papers like the Sun and Times. Blair is not an isolated individual but a key representative of an important faction of the British bourgeoisie. The Conservative party is dominated by a pro-US faction which is in no position to criticise Blair. But among those in all parties who defend the need for an independent position, there is a difference on the degree to which it is in British interests to sustain alliances with the US. Blair’s famous speech to the US Congress could be dismissed as just so many pleasantries for a charming host, or taken as confirmation that Blair is only a mouthpiece for Bush. He said that “there never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood” and that “Europe must take on and defeat the anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for its political discourse”. He warned of the emergence of a European bloc as “there is no more dangerous theory in international politics today than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitor powers, different poles around which nations gather”.
The pressure put on Blair over Kelly and the dossiers is a way for important factions of the bourgeoisie to remind him that Britain has an established imperialist orientation based on its historical experience. Blair’s Congress speech insisted that “a study of history provides so little instruction for our present day”, where in fact the bourgeoisie is painfully aware of the loss of its dominant imperialist position to the US, of how it suffered at US hands in the Second World War, of how the US frustrated its attempts to become a nuclear power, at Suez etc., and how, throughout the period of the Cold War, the Foreign Office fought against becoming just a branch office of the State Department. The reason the pressure has been so insistent on the Blair faction is because the Tories are no alternative, and because in other respects the bourgeoisie is satisfied with the way that Labour has functioned for British capital over the last 6 years.
The seriousness of the arguments within the British bourgeoisie should not be underestimated. The most intelligent bourgeoisie in the world is showing in this unfolding political crisis a tendency to lose control of the situation. That it should be openly carrying on its internal conflicts in the glare of publicity, including all the revelations that would normally be kept secret for at least 30 years, shows the depth of the problems it faces. In the Hutton inquiry opponents have taken the opportunity to criticise government policy, while Blair and his supporters have counter attacked with diversions, indignation and attempts to muddy the water. There is a danger that these battles will undermine the bourgeoisie’s ability to function coherently as a class on the imperialist level. The bourgeoisie can’t act effectively if it is seriously divided on how it should operate.
A comparison with the crisis before the Second World War shows a further decline in Britain’s position. In the 1930s the policy of ‘appeasement’ was generally accepted by the ruling class, not least because it allowed for a longer period of re-armament. Against this Churchill argued for a ‘grand alliance’ that would include the US and Russia. This was not feasible for years as the US would hold off for as long as possible, and Russia was initially to be in alliance with Germany. The 1930s crisis was ultimately based on the reality that Britain could no longer function as a dominant global power, and had to work out what that meant for imperialist policy. In the early 21st century the British bourgeoisie is arguing about what it means to be a second-rate power with a diminishing room for manoeuvre, losing control in the face of a global offensive by US imperialism. For significant sections of the bourgeoisie, the likes of Blair and Hoon seem to be sacrificing British independence in their enthusiasm for participation in the American project. This argument is not going to go away as the quandary that British imperialism finds itself in can only intensify.
Barrow, 4/9/03.
In World Revolution 365 we republished an article [96]that showed how, when the imperialist war of 1914 broke out, the Labour party and the trade unions offered their services to the ruling class by mobilising the workers for war. But there were numerous voices within the workers’ movement in Britain who, like their counterparts in other countries (like the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Spartacists in Germany) remained loyal to their internationalist principles and raised their voices against the ideological orgy of patriotism and the hideous carnage in the trenches. This article, written by a close sympathiser of the ICC, was originally published in two parts (in World Revolution 267 and 268 in September and October of 2003) which we have now consolidated into one article.
An additional article, on the minority in the UK who maintained internationalist positions in the face of the Second World War, was published in WR 270 and is available here [97].
The first duty of revolutionaries in the face of capitalist war is to defend the interests of the whole working class, as expressed in the historic slogan of the workers’ movement: “Workers of the world unite!”
The defence of internationalism for revolutionaries has never been an abstract principle; it is an intensely practical struggle, involving a fight for clarity inside the political organisations of the working class, and more widely through intervention in its defensive struggles, often in difficult conditions of state repression and patriotic frenzy.
This article examines the struggle of the revolutionary left in Britain against the first world war, looking firstly at the development of clarity at the theoretical level about the entry of capitalism into its imperialist phase, and then at the organisational struggle for an active anti-war position inside the main ostensibly Marxist organisation, the British Socialist Party.
This struggle for internationalism demanded not only a ruthless fight against the jingoism and nationalism of the enemy class, but also against all signs of opportunism and centrism within the working class. (The history of the different socialist organisations in Britain and their responses to the First World War are dealt with in more detail in the series on the struggle for the class party in Britain - see WR 237, September 2000).
The understanding that capitalism had entered into its imperialist phase was the product of a pre-war political struggle waged by the left - in particular the Bolsheviks, the left-wing in the German Socialist Party and the Dutch Tribunists - against the revisionist theories of Bernstein and others on the right-wing of the Second International, who began to argue that capitalism was in fact capable of overcoming its own inner contradictions and that the struggle for gradual reforms alone could result in a peaceful transformation into socialism.
The left in Britain not only participated in this political struggle as an integral part of European social democracy, but also made its own contribution to the Marxist understanding of the changing conditions for the class struggle in the most advanced capitalist countries; as early as the 1880s William Morris identified the rise of imperialism as a response to capitalism’s increasingly desperate need for new markets:
“...the one thing for which our thrice accursed civilisation craves, as the stifling man for fresh air, is new markets; fresh countries must be conquered by it which are not manufacturing and are producers of raw material, so that ‘civilised’ manufactures can be forced on them. All wars now waged, under whatever pretences, are really wars for the great prizes in the world market.”[1]
The British left fought vigorously against local variants of revisionism, making an explicit link between the tendencies towards state capitalism at home and imperialism abroad: “Imperialism...is in its essence nothing but the application outside the British Isles of that socio-political principle which, when applied at home, leads to ‘state socialism’. That principle is the organisation and the consolidation by the power of the state of...the interests of the capitalist classes.” [2]
The Socialist Labour Party in particular developed quite a sophisticated analysis of state capitalism, arguing that even the Liberal government’s welfare measures - despite offering some minimal improvements in the conditions of the working class - were fundamentally “a preliminary measure towards the bureaucratic enslavement of the people.”[3] For the SLP, the final outbreak of the imperialist world war and the insatiable demands of the war economy greatly intensified this tendency and confirmed the reactionary consequences of any further support for nationalisation or state control:
“Nationalisation or ‘state socialism’ so far from being a method of working class progress to socialism, has become the very life blood and method of the most militant and aggressive imperialism... State control means the highest form of capitalism, and will create the industrial warfare of whole empires and groups of empires... Thus, along the road of nationalisation or state ownership, instead of meeting socialism, freedom and peace, we find competition intensified, wage slavery, militarism, and, in the distance, the bloodstained fields of future battlefields.”[4]
Three years of bloodstained battlefields enabled the clearest elements the SLP to conclude that capitalism, like the social systems which preceded it, had now definitely entered into its period of decadence.[5] Although this conclusion was coloured by a mechanistic vision of the system’s ‘inevitable’ dissolution, it was still based on the solid Marxist position that the war was essentially the product of capitalism’s historic crisis of overproduction. Echoing Rosa Luxemburg, William Paul of the SLP argued that in order to avert this crisis the capitalist class had been forced to divert the productive forces into waste production - in particular of armaments - and finally to go to war in order to re-divide a saturated world market[6].
There was also an understanding amongst the clearest revolutionaries that the war could not solve this crisis and that unless the working class was able to destroy capitalism the perspective would be one of further imperialist bloodbaths. On the revolutionary left wing of the BSP, John Maclean was probably the clearest in drawing the lessons of the economic struggle between capitalist states in the new period to ominously predict a second, even more destructive round of butchery, which threw into question the whole basis of any future struggle for reforms:
“The increased output of commodities…will necessitate larger markets abroad, and hence a larger empire. The same will apply to other capitalist countries. This must develop a more intense economic war than led up to the present war, and so precipitate the world into a bloodier business than we are steeped in just now. The temporary advantage the workers may get in shorter hours and higher wages with higher purchasing power will then be swept away in the destruction of millions of good lives and fabulous masses of wealth.”[7]
These were vital insights by small minorities of the British working class into the roots of the First World War and its profound significance for the struggle for socialism, which gave strength to the left’s organisational struggle for internationalism.
In Britain, the earliest and most consistent defender of a revolutionary position against the war was the group around John Maclean and the Glasgow District Council of the British Socialist Party. The BSP led by Hyndman, a notorious pro-imperialist, had declared its wholehearted support for Britain’s entry into the war and called for an allied victory; a position endorsed by representatives of the left and centre in the party.
But even as the BSP was proclaiming its support for King and Country, Maclean and his supporters were carrying out anti-war propaganda at factory gates on Clydeside, where mass meetings of workers passed resolutions calling for an end to the war and sent fraternal greetings to workers of all nations[8]. In September 1914, Maclean argued that: “Our first business is to hate the British capitalist system that, with ‘business as usual’, means the continued robbery of the workers... It is our business as socialists to develop ‘class patriotism’, refusing to murder one another for a sordid world capitalism.”[9] In the first issue of his own paper the Vanguard - started as a riposte to Hyndman’s pro-war Justice – Maclean set out his belief that the only alternative to war now was revolution: “Nothing but world socialism will do. This monstrous war shows that the day of social pottering or reform is past... We do not think national wars are of benefit to the workers so we shall oppose all national wars as we oppose this one. The only war that is worth fighting is the class war...”[10] Unless this war ended in revolution, further world imperialist wars were inevitable.
Maclean’s clear internationalist tendency, however, co-existed in a party still controlled by a rabidly chauvinist leadership. A determined struggle for the organisation was necessary, in order to exclude those who had betrayed internationalism and to win over the whole party to a revolutionary position against the war.
In the decade before the war, the left wing of the BSP had waged a bitter internal struggle against the growing chauvinism of the party leadership. In particular, the left fought to disassociate the party from Hyndman’s public advocacy of a big navy and to obtain its adherence to the official position of the Second International against war. The left was strongest in East London, and in Scotland where Maclean and the Glasgow branches carried out anti-militarist propaganda. In both areas, émigré Marxists with invaluable experience of the organisational struggles in Russian and East European social democracy played a leading role. The left was successful in gaining representation on the party’s executive, and in late 1912 narrowly won endorsement for its own clear rejection of militarism and imperialism.[11] But, in the face of a counter-attack by the right, the opposition revealed a fatal tendency to vacillate; two of its representatives failed to attend the next executive meeting in February 1913, giving the leadership a majority of one in voting to suspend the resolution and to allow the party to decide on the question of maintaining a British Navy. At the 1913 party conference, the centre in the party did all it could to prevent a split on such a ‘non-essential point’, proposing that members should be “free to hold any opinion they like on subjects apart from socialism”! As one delegate bluntly put it: “first and foremost they must have socialist unity.” In the end, the left’s anti-militarist resolution was never voted on and Hyndman, while still airing his ‘strong conviction’ that a very powerful navy was ‘indispensable’ to Britain, agreed to keep quiet for the sake of the party. In a display of phoney unity, a resolution was then adopted, pledging the BSP to oppose the growth of militarism as an integral part of the Second International. For the left this proved a Pyrrhic victory. The right, in danger of losing its grip on the party, had been rescued by centrist conciliation.[12] The working class paid heavily for this failure; at the outbreak of the first imperialist world war one of the very few Marxist organisations in Britain - so painfully built up during the preceding period of capitalist prosperity - remained in the hands of a right-wing chauvinist clique which proceeded to offer its enthusiastic support to the slaughter, dragging the whole notion of proletarian internationalism down into the mud with it.
The BSP leadership’s first tentative efforts to mobilise the party behind the bourgeoisie’s war effort provoked a swift reaction from the internationalists in the party, who found growing support among the membership. The right was forced to prevent this opposition unifying by avoiding a national conference in 1915; at the six regional conferences held instead, the mass of the party rejected both social chauvinist and revolutionary positions, narrowly adopting an ‘india rubber’ resolution which in fact justified the British war effort.[13] Again the leadership survived by allowing the ‘expression of opinion’, but there was a running battle over the party’s press which continued to present the views of the chauvinists, and in 1916 the arch-jingoist Hyndman and his supporters set up a ‘Socialist National Defence Committee’ which effectively operated as an arm of the government in the party; the organisational struggle turned violent and anti-war militants found themselves being set up for state repression by their own leadership.
A split was clearly inevitable, but the opposition - which included both the left and the centre of the party - still hesitated to take the initiative despite gaining a majority on the executive. Within the opposition, there appeared a more clearly defined centrist current, which resolutely avoided any call for action against the war and restricted itself to calls for peace. The Vanguard group around John Maclean called on the party to choose its camp: either the revolutionary left, or Hyndman and the old International. However, with Maclean’s imprisonment and the closure of the Vanguardin 1916 political leadership of the opposition passed by default to the centrist current, which urged peace and called on the Second International to ‘act’. At the 1916 conference, the Hyndmanites were finally isolated and walked out, but even now they were not excluded, and the debates at the conference clearly revealed the centrist confusions of the majority. Essentially the new BSP leadership deeply feared a British military defeat and did all it could to avoid any action that might jeopardise an allied victory.
After the initial shock of the war and the betrayal of social democracy, the question for revolutionaries was whether the old International could be rebuilt or if a new one was now necessary. In practice, with the old International’s leaders now fully backing their respective imperialisms, its central organ, the ‘International Socialist Bureau’ (ISB), was completely impotent. It was eventually on the initiative of the Italian Socialist Party that a first, unofficial international socialist conference was held at Zimmerwald in September 1915. This brought together some of the most important currents of the revolutionary left, including the Bolsheviks, along with representatives of the pacifist centre. The left’s own draft resolutions and anti-war manifesto, which called for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, were rejected by the majority which restricted itself to a call for peace, but the conference acted as an important moment in the regroupment of revolutionaries against the war, enabling the left to establish itself as an organised fraction which later, following a second conference at Kienthal in April 1916, became the nucleus of the Third International.
The BSP executive platonically greeted Zimmerwald but remained opposed to any move to form a new international organisation in opposition to the ISB, while the centre of the party was hesitant in its support, repeating its demand that the ISB ‘act’.[14] In contrast, John Maclean enthusiastically welcomed the Zimmerwald manifesto as a call for “the class war for social democracy” and denounced the ISB’s efforts to keep the sides apart. His émigré collaborator Peter Petroff, with closer links to the movement abroad, was better placed to analyse the political character of the conference, giving it his support while pointing out that its manifesto stopped short of calling for revolutionary action against the war.[15]
The Socialist Labour Party had also been kept informed of the anti-war movement abroad through émigré contacts and supported Zimmerwald as laying the foundations for a new International, denouncing the pro-war socialists with whom all common action was now impossible: “We are at the parting of the ways. Every day the cleavage between the socialists remaining true to the International and the pro-war socialists is becoming more and more marked...”[16]
Sylvia Pankhurst also gave support to Zimmerwald in her paper the Women’s Dreadnought, which was in the process of evolving towards a revolutionary position on the war; its transition to class politics would be marked by the newspaper changing its name to the Workers’ Dreadnought in 1917.
So from their initial isolation, by late 1915 at least some of the scattered revolutionary forces in Britain had taken their first steps towards regroupment at an international level based on a clear political break with the social chauvinists, but also by differentiating themselves - more or less explicitly - from the pacifist centre.
The collapse of the Second International and the definitive betrayal of its opportunist right wing, while disarming the working class and temporarily putting a brake on its struggles, did not constitute a decisive blow, and the genuine euphoria with which thousands of workers greeted the war quickly began to evaporate as the bourgeoisie demanded ever greater sacrifices in the name of the war effort.
As early as February 1915, workers’ struggles re-emerged, when engineering workers on the Clyde struck for higher wages against the advice of their union executive and formed their own unofficial strike committee. Rent strikes also began. In July, 200,000 South Wales miners struck in defiance of the Munitions Act and forced concessions from the government, while in November 1915 transport workers in Dublin paralysed the docks. Unofficial shop stewards’ committees grew up all over country. The introduction of conscription in 1916 provoked further strikes by Clydeside engineering workers, which were only cut short by the wholesale arrest and imprisonment of the strike leaders (including John Maclean). The centre of resistance now moved to England with a strike by engineering workers in Sheffield in November 1916, and in the following March further repressive government measures led to renewed unrest which spread throughout England, eventually involving over 200,000 workers; the largest strike movement of the war.
In the midst of the slaughter, these struggles - which were echoed abroad - began to open up revolutionary opportunities, and despite their initial isolation, those few revolutionaries who had remained faithful to the cause of the proletariat in 1914 now found opportunities to win a hearing in the workers’ struggles. The group around John Maclean was particularly active in the unofficial strike movements on Clydeside; against the prevalent disdain of British socialists for the class’s immediate struggles, Maclean saw every determined struggle of the workers as a preparation for socialism, and the Vanguard group put its efforts into connecting all the different struggles on immediate issues - wages, rent rises, the ‘dilution’ of skilled labour - into a class-wide offensive to end the war, calling on the Clyde workers to adopt the tactic of the political strike along the lines of the pre-war European mass strikes:
“We rest assured that our comrades in the various works will incessantly urge this aspect on their shopmates, and so prepare the ground for the next great counter-move of our class in the raging class warfare - raging more than even during the Great Unrest period of three or four years ago...the only way to fight the class war is by accepting every challenge of the master class and throwing down more challenges ourselves. Every determined fight binds the workers together more and more, and so prepares for the final conflict. Every battle lifts the curtain more and more, and clears the heads of our class to their robbed and enslaved conditions, and so prepares them for the acceptance of our full gospel of socialism, and the full development of the class struggle to the end of establishing socialism.”[17]
The Vanguard group also intervened in Clyde Workers’ Committee - the body set up by the militant shop stewards to co-ordinate their struggle against the Munitions Act - to urge it to organise mass action against the threat of conscription, but was expelled from its meetings after attacking the leadership’s refusal to deal with the issue of the war, which led Maclean to question its ability to respond to the needs of the class struggle, calling on the workers if necessary to ‘take the initiative into their own hands’.[18] Only the revolutionary left around Maclean consistently intervened in the workers’ struggles to call for a class struggle against the war.
The Socialist Labour Party also had a strong presence on Clydeside, where some of its militants played a leading role in the Clyde Workers’ Committee, but it failed to raise the question of the war or to attempt to give the struggles a revolutionary perspective, pandering instead to the syndicalist ideas of the majority and restricting its intervention to a call for nationalisation and workers’ self-management of the munitions industry. From its initial focus on the fight for women’s suffrage, the small group in the East End of London around Sylvia Pankhurst also moved closer to the workers’ struggles to defend their conditions, actively denouncing the imperialist war at mass demonstrations and leading protests to the government against repression and the hunger and misery imposed on the working class.
In this way, despite all their confusions, through active intervention in the growing struggles against the war revolutionaries gained a small but significant hearing for internationalist positions within the working class, and constituted part of an international movement against the war. The outbreak of revolution in Russia in February 1917 - only three years after capitalism had plunged the world into the massacre - spectacularly confirmed the revolutionary perspective of this movement, and when in November 1918 the bourgeoisie was forced to hurriedly declare an armistice in order to be able to deal with the proletarian threat, the SLP rightly observed that: “For the first time in history a great world war had been ended by the action of the workers.” The imperialist war was turned into a civil war.[19]
War and revolution are vital tests for revolutionaries. By supporting national defence in the imperialist war, the right wing of the workers’ movement - including in Britain the Labour Party and the trade union leadership - passed over to the camp of the bourgeoisie. The centre and the left proved by their continued defence of the basic internationalist interests of the working class that they remained within the proletarian camp, but only the left defended the need for a real struggle against the war.
By breaking with the social chauvinists and identifying with the Zimmerwald movement the left had taken the first necessary steps towards the regroupment of revolutionaries at an international level. However, a political struggle against the centre and the influence of centrism within the ranks of the workers’ movement was still an essential condition for the creation of a new party and a new International.
An equally important condition for this was the presence of revolutionaries within the working class, to intervene in the workers’ struggles and give them a revolutionary direction. It was the workers’ own efforts to defend themselves against the attacks on their conditions that laid the ground for a revolutionary struggle against the war and strengthened the left in its struggle against both chauvinism and social pacifism.
MH (contributed by a sympathiser of the ICC)
[1] Commonweal, 19 February 1887.
[2] Theodore Rothstein, Social Democrat, 15 December 1901, p.360.
[3] Socialist, October 1913
[4] Socialist, October 1916.
[5] William Paul, The State: Its Origin and Function, SLP Press, 1917.
[6] See, for example, Socialist, May 1917.
[7] John Maclean, The war after the war, Scottish Labour College pamphlet, 1917, reprinted in Nan Milton (Ed.), Op. Cit., p.135.
[8] Letter from ‘JM’, Justice, 17 August 1914
[9] Justice, 17 September 1914
[10] Vanguard, October 1915.
[11] See ‘Resolution at a meeting of the Executive Committee on 14 December 1912’,BSP Report of the Second Annual Conference, 1913, p.37.
[12] BSP Report of the Second Annual Conference, 1913, pp.16-18.
[13] See Justice, 4 March 1915.
[14] The Call, 24 February 1916.
[15] Vanguard, October 1915.
[16] Socialist, February 1916.
[17] Vanguard, December 1915.
[18] Ibid.
The ICC has taken the decision to bar from its public forums and contact meetings members of the so-called ‘Internal Fraction’ of the ICC [1]. This is the first time that our organisation has taken such a decision and it is necessary to explain publicly the reasons for it to the groups and elements of the proletarian political milieu and the working class in general.
This decision follows the exclusion of the same members of the IFICC at our 15th International Congress in the spring of 2003 [2] and is based on the same motives as their exclusion: the fact that these elements have behaved like snitches against our organisation.
To make things perfectly clear: it’s not because these elements were expelled from the ICC that they can’t take part in our meetings. If for example the ICC was compelled to expel a member because their mode of life was incompatible with belonging to a communist organisation (as for example in the case of drug addiction), this wouldn’t prevent that element from coming to our public meetings afterwards.
It’s because these elements decided to behave like informers that we can’t tolerate their presence at our meetings. This decision would apply to anyone who devoted themselves to making public information that could facilitate the work of the bourgeois state’s organs of repression.
Our decision is by no means exceptional in the history of the organisations of the workers’ movement. The latter have always had the principle of keeping informers at arm’s length in order to protect the security of revolutionary organisations and their militants [3].
Although we have already dealt with this question in our press (in particular in the article in WR 262, ‘The police-like methods of the IFICC’), we cannot avoid briefly going over the facts which led the 15th Congress to expel the members of the ‘Fraction’.
1. The publication on the internet of the date of a conference of the section of the ICC in Mexico (no. 14 of the IFICC Bulletin), a week before the conference was held. This meant that the entire world’s police could strengthen their surveillance at airports and frontiers, and make it much more precise (since our press has always said that international delegations participate in such conferences). What’s more, the members of the IFICC know very well that certain of our comrades have been direct victims of repression or been forced to leave their country of origin.
Following our denunciation of their behaviour, the members of the ‘Fraction’ replied that the date was only published on the day of the conference and that we had other fish to fry in all this. This response was a shameful lie and anyone can verify this by going to the IFICC website. Their bulletin no.14 is dated 24 November 2002, i.e. 6 days before the date of our internal meeting. The ICC itself became aware of the publication of the date on 26 November and it posed the question of whether it was advisable to send certain of our delegates to this conference [4].
2. The publication of the real initials of one of our militants, attached to his present pseudonym. The ‘Fraction’, unable to deny these facts, has tried to get round the accusation: “let’s recall simply that the initials CG were the signature on several articles in Revolution Internationale and the International Review throughout the 70s. It is under the initials CG that the militant Peter of today is widely known in the proletarian camp” (IFICC Bulletin no. 18). What does this last phrase mean? That the IFICC wanted the groups of the proletarian political milieu to know exactly WHO is this Peter that the Fraction’s texts talk about at such great length. We can already ask how this information helps these groups to better understand the political questions at stake. But even supposing that this was the case, the IFICC knows very well that of all these groups, only the IBRP knew CG, the same IBRP which had been informed seven months previously of the real identity of Peter at a meeting with the IFICC (see no. 9 of their Bulletin). As far as other revolutionary groups are concerned (such as the PCI), unlike the police, they simply don’t know who CG was. As for the fact that during the 70s numerous articles were signed CG, that’s quite true, but why have these initials disappeared from our press over the last 20 years? The IFICC members know quite well: because the ICC had judged that to publish the real initials of a militant only makes the work of the police easier. If the IFICC had decided that it was politically crucial to say how the militant Peter signed his articles, they could have used some more recent signatures and not the oldest ones. But this wasn’t its aim. What mattered was to give a little warning to CG so that other ICC militants would get the point and understand the price of combating the IFICC. The fallacious arguments it puts forward to justify its actions only highlights the mentality of informers and blackmailers which has more and more seized hold of its members.
When you look at its Bulletins, it’s evident that rumour-mongering and informing on members of the ICC has become the main business of the ‘Fraction’:
In fact, the main concern of the members of the IFICC when they participate at demonstrations and at ICC public meetings is to know WHO is present. WHO is absent, WHO says what and WHO does what, so that they can later make public all sorts of ‘facts’ about our militants. This is work worthy of the agents of the Renseignements Generales (French security forces)! We can’t forbid the members of the IFICC to follow street demonstrations in order to track us. But we can prevent them doing their dirty work at our public meetings. At the latter, they have not had the possibility of speaking, since we demanded as a precondition that they first give back the money they stole from the ICC. The only reason for coming to our meetings has been this kind of police surveillance, as expressed for example in no. 14 of their Bulletin where we read “It is first of all necessary to know that this text (our article ‘The International Communist Party trails after the ‘Internal Fraction’ of the ICC’, published in WR 260 and 261) was written by CG, alias Peter, as can be seen by its style”. (our emphasis).
In his celebrated pamphlet What every revolutionary needs to know about repression, Victor Serge advises communist militants “never forget that ‘give me three lines of a man’s handwriting and I will get him hanged’ is a familiar axiom of all the police”. Today, when most texts are written directly by keyboard, analysing the “style” of writing is the policeman’s favoured means to identify the author, and the IFICC here is providing him with their good and loyal services.
We should make it clear that we have no reason to think that the members of the ‘Fraction’ are in the direct pay of the police, nor that they are in some way in its clutches. But does the fact that they are snitching gratis and for their own reasons alter the gravity of their actions?
Some people will say to us perhaps that none of this information is any use to the police. This is to understand nothing about police methods, which will make use of the smallest detail in order to compile a complete diagram of the organisations of the working class. The procedures used by the police are very well described by Victor Serge in his study of the Czarist Okhrana [5]. Can we seriously imagine that modern states are less well advanced in all this than their Czarist predecessor?
There will also perhaps be those who say that this banning of the members of the IFICC serves no purpose, because the police can always send someone we don’t know to gather information at our public meetings. This is obviously quite true. But is that a reason for being laisser faire when people who have already shown that they are ready to publish no matter what, and have already declared that they do not feel bound by any loyalty towards the ICC, nor towards its militants, of whom they have a detailed knowledge -come to our meetings and write copious notes about them? Should we open our doors to open and avowed sneaks under the pretext that we can’t detect the hidden ones?
It could, finally, be objected that the special organs of the bourgeois state couldn’t care less about the activities of a tiny organisation like ours. But the whole history of the workers’ movement shows that the special services of the bourgeois state never underestimate the potential danger represented by revolutionary groups, however small their size and influence in the working class at a given moment. Furthermore, despite the fact that for the moment the ‘democratic’ state doesn’t generally exert open repression against the groups of the communist left, the latter have already been subjected to acts of repression (as for example the raids on the International Communist Party in the 70s). The ICC itself has not been spared since certain of our militants, including in the most ‘democratic’ countries, have been subjected to raids, surveillance aimed at intimidating us, prolonged interrogation at the frontier, commando actions by elements who were probably tied up with the state. The members of the IFICC know all this very well.
One of the great weaknesses of today’s revolutionary organisations, and of their militants, is that they tend to forget all the elementary measures of security which enabled the revolutionary organisations of the past to maintain their activity faced with the repression of the bourgeois state whether democratic or ‘totalitarian’. Today, as yesterday, revolutionary organisations have to apply these elementary elements of what we may call ‘political hygiene’. And one of these measures is precisely to chase snitches out our meeting places.
Notes
1. This relates to the following elements: Aglae, Alberto, Jonas, Juan, Leonardo, Olivier, Sergio, Vicente and possibly to other members of the IFICC who have joined it recently and who support the behaviour of those mentioned.
2. see our articles ‘15th Congress of the ICC: Today the stake are high - strengthen the organisation to confront them’ in International Review 114 and ‘The police-like methods of the IFICC’ in WR 262.
3. See the article ‘The struggle of revolutionary organisations against provocation and slander’ in WR 252.
4. Before the congress which pronounced the exclusion of the members of the ‘Fraction’, we wrote twice to each of these former militants, asking them whether they personally defended the publication of this information, or whether it was an action with which they were not personally in agreement. They thus had ample opportunity to go back on it. As can be seen from their replies, published on the IFICC website, we received no response to this very precise question. It was only after the congress that we could read that “it is with good grace that we (the IFICC) recognise that we should have been more attentive in reproducing your letter and suppressed this passage”. Again, this is pure hypocrisy: in order to be published in French on the internet, our letter had to be translated from Spanish. Did the ‘Fraction’ do this in its sleep?
5. What every revolutionary needs to know about state repression.
The International Communist Current, 30/8/03.
Two years ago the attack on the Twin Towers in New York opened the way to an acceleration of military tensions unprecedented since the end of the cold war. This new step into a world of chaos was justified by the so-called ‘struggle against international terrorism’, combined with a ‘battle for the defence of democracy’. This lying propaganda can no longer mask the real worsening of inter-imperialist conflicts between the great powers, in particular between the USA and its former allies in the western bloc.
As we have argued many times in this paper, the USA is permanently forced to assert its world leadership on the military level, a leadership that is no less permanently being challenged by its former allies. The main conflicts since the collapse of the eastern bloc have all been expressions of this, but it has been stated even more openly with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both these countries, the USA has been trying to impose its order directly, but is experiencing growing difficulties in the face of an increasingly chaotic situation. The US is unable to control the situation in Iraq
In order to prevent its principal rivals from putting a spoke in its wheels in Iraq and the Middle East, the USA has attempted to act alone. This is why it denied the UN the chance of playing the slightest political role in the administration of Iraq. On the military level the US operation was a real success. And yet at the present time there is no perspective for withdrawing its 145,000-man military force from the ground; in fact it has been shown to be too small to control the situation. The whole aim of the military occupation � to give the world a convincing demonstration of US power � is being undermined by the fact that the perspective of getting Iraqi society back on its feet seems more and more distant.
Whatever the American bourgeoisie says, it does not control the situation in Iraq. This reality is reflected in all the anti-American propaganda, which uses every opportunity it can to show the harmfulness of the US presence in the country.
The living conditions of the population, which were already deplorable under Saddam, have worsened as a result of the war and of the occupying power’s inability to supply the most basic necessities or repair the essential infrastructure, particularly for water and electricity. Food shortages have provoked a number of riots.
Criminal gangs and speculators are flourishing, creating a climate of instability and insecurity. This is fuelled above all by the activities of terrorist groups, who have been carrying out almost daily attacks on US troops and forces allied to the US: the British, who boasted that they were more sensitive to the feelings of the local population, have increasingly come under fire in Basra, and the Jordanians, whose embassy was bombed. But the economic infrastructure, such as the water and oil pipelines, is also under attack.
The occupying troops are paying a heavy tribute for the defence of the imperialist interests of the US bourgeoisie. At the time of writing over 60 GIs have been killed in ambushes since the end of the war. Terrorised themselves, the US troops in turn terrorise the population and are greeted with growing hostility. A further 78 GIs have died in ‘accidents’ of various kinds. The death toll is far from closed.
Despite the USA’s attempt to bind Iraqi society with ties of steel, anarchy has the upper hand. The attempt to set up an Iraqi authority and a ‘democratic’ constitution � the great beacon of American propaganda and a key justification for the war - remains stillborn. Bush may well proclaim that never before in history has a coalition government united so many different parties as the ‘Provisional Government Council’; but far from being the skeleton of a future government, this coalition is no more than a theatre of conflict between all kinds of rival gangs, all of whom show little interest in any overall ‘national’ interest. Worse still, certain Shiite factions are more and more inclined to wage a frontal combat against the US, especially after the bomb which killed the Ayatollah Hakim and almost 100 of his followers in Najaf on 29 August.
As for Blair’s promise that Iraqi oil revenues would soon pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, this has proved to be a mirage in the desert. Oil revenues are hardly sufficient to pay for the rebuilding of the oil installations, let alone the reconstruction of the entire country. This raises the question: who will pay for the growing financial burden of occupying Iraq? Who will control and pay for the Iraqi protectorate?
Thus although it succeeded in totally eliminating its rivals’ influence from Iraq, the US now finds itself caught up in a contradiction. The occupation of Iraq is a financial abyss and the loss of lives among the US troops will begin to pose serious problems for the American bourgeoisie. The US can’t think of pulling out until it has stabilised the situation to its advantage, but this is proving increasingly difficult. It is thus trying to get other powers involved in the financial and military effort, while maintaining an overall monopoly of command, with the UK playing the role of first lieutenant. So after spurning the UN for so long, the administration is now having to appeal for its help; but powers like France and Germany are reluctant to get involved if they have no say in the overall running of the operation and only play the role of bankers or suppliers of cannon fodder. This is becoming a new point of tension between the big powers.
The continual attacks on US troops and those inclined to support the occupation are increasing the pressure on the USA, and its apparent powerlessness to end them can only further encourage the numerous armed groups acting inside the country, whether Saddam loyalists, home-grown Islamist radicals or the jihadists infiltrating the country from elsewhere in the region.(note 1) [99]. The assassination of Ayatollah Hakim was a particularly hard blow against US claims that it can ensure the security of Iraq and oversee a political solution. It thus clearly plays the game of the USA’s rivals, local and global, even if they didn’t directly order it themselves.
This doesn’t mean that all terrorist actions in Iraq are necessarily directed against the US, as illustrated by the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad on 12 August, which killed over 20 people, including the UN general secretary’s special representative in Iraq, who is a great friend of France (his body guards were all French and it appears that he was specially targeted in this attack). On many levels, this attack served the interests of the USA. Although it does further demonstrate the USA’s inability to maintain order in this country, it nevertheless feeds their propaganda line that Iraq is the focus for the war against terrorism and that the latter isn’t only a threat to the USA. It is also a pretext to put pressure on the big democracies, the USA’s main rivals, to take up their responsibilities and get involved in the process of pacification and the building of a democratic Iraq. It is certainly no coincidence that this attack took place at a time when the US and Britain were already calling for the ‘international community’ to help carry the economic and military burden of controlling Iraq. Nevertheless, France and Germany were able to turn the situation to their own advantage by arguing that it is impossible for the UN to take a more active part in the on the humanitarian level without being associated to the direction of the country’s affairs, so as to ensure the security of its personnel. The week after the attack we heard the French foreign minister Villepin calling for a “political solution” in Iraq, strongly echoed by Chirac who told 200 ambassadors that there had to be a “transfer of power to the Iraqis themselves” and the establishment of “a process which can only be fully legitimised by the United Nations” � the whole thing wrapped up in a denunciation of “unilateralism” � ie the USA.
The contradictions faced by the US bourgeoisie also affect the British bourgeoisie, all the more alarmed by the fact that it has gained precious little from this alliance with the US. The scandal around the death of David Kelly, who was one of the main UN advisers on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, expresses the fact that significant sections of the British ruling class have real disagreements with Blair’s policies. The US road map that doesn’t lead to peace
Just next to the mess in Iraq, the US also has to deal with a situation which has been getting worse and worse for decades: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None of the US plans so far have succeeded. It is nonetheless urgent for the US to eliminate this focus of conflict, even if it means going against Israel’s wishes. The famous ‘road map’ initiated by the Bush administration showed Washington’s determination to force Israel to make serious concessions. It’s no longer a question, as it was with the Oslo accords set up during the Clinton administration, of getting Israel and the Palestinians to sit down and talk. The White House is now demanding that Israel offers no further obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state. The same authoritarian methods have been used towards the Palestinian side, to get rid of anything that might get in the way of a settlement. This is why Arafat, who previously has been a good ally of the US in getting the ‘peace process’ in motion, has been pushed aside in favour of his rival Mahmoud Abbas. And yet despite all the pressure from the US, Sharon, while making a show of accepting a cease-fire, has in reality carried on with his policy of opening up Palestinian territory to Israeli settlers, of making murderous incursions into the occupied territories and assassinating the elders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These organisations, in their turn, simply feed off the Israeli provocations in order to carry out new terrorist attacks in Israel.
For a very short period the ‘road map’ eased tensions, but a new series of terrorist attacks and counter-attacks have already signed its death warrant. All this shows the limits of USA’s muscular diplomacy. The USA’s difficulties in Iraq are echoed and even amplified by its inability to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On the eve of the second anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers, and of the third anniversary of the Intifada in Palestine, the perspective offered by capitalism, both to the population of those regions most directly affected by war, and to the whole planet, is one of growing chaos and horror.
(1) When Bush originally said that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida - it was probably a groundless claim. An irony of the ‘war against terrorism’ in Iraq is that it may well have encouraged Saddam loyalists and Islamic radicals to ally against the US occupation. After all, this is exactly what bin Laden called for just prior to the war! Back [100]
Mulan, 6/9/03.
The ideology of 'anti-globalisation' is an emanation of the bourgeoisie. Its role is to derail any attempt by the working class to understand the world and draw the necessary conclusions, to drag all those who begin to question the current system back into the fold of the defence of democracy, of the capitalist state. It is thus a real danger to the working class.
The anti-globalisation movement has recently begun to give itself a new name in some countries (for example in France). It is using the term 'altermondialisation' - the 'alternative' to globalisation - as though it represented a new and important alternative to the current world order. As we shall attempt to show, this is not at all the case. The brilliant discoveries of anti-globalisation
The basis of anti-globalisation ideology is the denunciation of the 'neo-liberal' policies adopted by the major powers since the 1980s, which have allegedly placed the entire world in the hands of the great multinational companies, subordinating all human activities - agriculture, natural resources, education, culture, etc - to the pursuit of profit. This is sometimes described as a process of commodification and standardisation of products - everything is up for sale, in short.
The world is run by the dictatorship of the market. This dictatorship has at the same time stolen political power from democratically controlled states, and thus from the citizens of the world.
Thus the anti-globalisation lobby raises the battle-cry: 'our world is not for sale'. They demand that the law of the market must not guide political policies. Political decision-making must be restored to the citizens, and democracy must be defended and extended against all financial diktats.
In sum, the anti-globalisers have reinvented the wheel. It's some revelation that capitalist enterprises only exist to make profit! That, under capitalism, all goods are turned into commodities! That the development of capitalism means the globalisation of exchange!
The workers' movement did not wait until the 1990s and the new wave of clever academics and radical thinkers who have come up with all this. All these ideas can be found in the Communist Manifesto, first published in 1848:
"The bourgeoisie has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single unconscionable freedom - Free Trade�The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers�
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood."
Thus, the anti-globalisers claim to be offering a new analysis and a new alternative while at the same time suppressing all reference to two centuries of struggles and of theoretical endeavours by the working class, aimed precisely at understanding the bases for a truly human future. And little wonder: the better world proposed by the anti-globalisers does not look forward, as the workers' movement has always done, but backwards, to a mythical rural past of happy little enterprises and local exchanges - or, more prosaically, to the period between the 1930s and the 1970s, which for them represents a lesser evil compared to the liberalisation which got underway in the '80s. After all, that was the period of 'Keynesianism' in which the state was a more obvious actor on the economic stage.
However, before rushing to choose the years 1930-70 over the last two decades, it's worth recalling a few of the characteristics of that period.
Let's not forget that Keynesian policies did not solve the crisis of 1929 and that massive unemployment had returned to most of the western economies by the end of the 30s; let's not forget the second world war; let's not forget the catastrophic situation of the working class during the world war and for some years after it; let's not forget that since 1945 not a single day has passed without war and that this has resulted in the loss of tens of millions of lives. And finally, let's not forget that at the end of the 1960s, capitalism plunged into an economic crisis which led to the inexorable growth of unemployment.
This is the 'better world' the anti-globalisers look back on so fondly, the lost paradise destroyed by the multinationals!
All this is the expression of a classic ideological manipulation by the bourgeoisie: to present two apparently opposed alternatives which turn out to be the two sides of the same coin.
One of the clearest examples of this false alternative is the argument that the state has withdrawn from the economy, leaving a free hand to the giant companies which are undermining democracy and the general interest. This is a total fraud. The state has never been more present in the economy than it is today. It's the state which regulates world trade and fixes the interest rates, customs tariffs, etc. The state is still the leading economic actor, with a public expenditure which makes up an increasing portion of GNP and of the ever-swelling budget deficit. This is the so-called 'powerless', 'absent' state in the model country of liberalism, the USA. It is virtually impossible to mention any economic, political or social sector in which the state doesn't have an important, if not preponderant role.
And the state is not the guarantor of a better world, where riches are more equally distributed: it's the state which ruins this world, through war, through attacks on workers' wages, pensions and social benefits. It's the state which bleeds the working class dry to stand up to the crisis of the system.
What the anti-globalisers are saying to all those who ask questions about the state of the world is this: the choice is between liberalism and state capitalism, when the real choice is between socialism or barbarism.
The source of wars, of poverty, of unemployment, is not the so-called liberal revolution imposed by super-powerful multinationals, but the mortal crisis of capitalism, which no policy of the bourgeoisie, whether Keynesianism or liberalism, can resolve. False alternatives
The anti-globalisers claim to be anti-capitalist. But all their policies boil down to a criticism of the 'excesses' of this world and to proposals aimed at safeguarding democracy. Behind the whole melange of issues and proposals they put forward lies the old left-wing reformism which the revolutionary movement has fought against for over a century.
Let's look first of all at the idea of a 'solidarity economy', in other words the global extension of all the experiences of cooperatives and self-management which have always meant no more than the self-exploitation of the workers. Linked to this is the notion of the citizen's initiative, according to which each individual can play his part in improving the state of the world. This approach ignores the division of society into classes and ties the proletariat to the bourgeoisie by pretending that everyone is an equal citizen as long as you have enough democracy.
The ideas of a more just management of the economy, of fair trade and all the rest, are also part of this warmed up version of the old reformism. For decades the social democrats have bleated on about the fairer distribution of the fruits of growth. Such conceptions deliberately hide the fact that capitalism is a system in crisis, and that the ruling class, far from sharing the benefits of growth, is compelled to make the working class pay for the crisis.
In any case, who is supposed to be in charge of this fairer distribution of wealth, if not the state? The fulminations of writers like Naomi Klein and George Monbiot against the policy of privatisation exposes what lies behind anti-globalisation ideology; the defence of the public sector, of the state.
But the anti-globalisers also claim to be internationalists. It's true that the various organisations who campaign for 'global justice' exist in many countries, are in contact with each other and repeat the same slogans. But this has nothing in common with working class internationalism. One of the key demands of the anti-globalisers is for protectionist measures to defend small countries or small farmers and traders against the multinationals. In other words, they want workers to identify with the national interest of small states - when the class struggle can only advance by breaking ties with all national interests and all nation states.
As a matter of fact, one of the main unifying themes of the anti-globalisers is opposition not just to the multinationals or the World Trade Organisation, but to the USA. What they denounce above all is US domination of the world market, not the world market as such. And when they call for a stronger democratic state, this is above all a plea for America's imperialist rivals to stand up to the USA's attempts to maintain its global hegemony. Again George Monbiot was quite explicit about this when, in one of his many articles for The Guardian, he called for European unity and the extension of the Euro as a bulwark against US war-mongering. This is about as far away from internationalism as you can get - calling for resistance to one imperialism by binding yourself hand and foot to another. It is no accident that the anti-globalisation movement now plays a central role in the pacifist deception - and thus in the march towards new imperialist wars. A real danger for the working class
Why has the bourgeoisie invested so heavily in publicising the anti-globalisation movement?
We can answer this at two levels. In the most general sense, the democratic ideology which is so crucial to the maintenance of capitalist class rule cannot do without the idea that there is a political opposition to the status quo.The strong grip the old socialist and communist parties once held over the working class has been weakened by its experience of left-wing governments and the collapse of Stalinism, and there has been a growing need for a new and more credible 'anti-capitalist' alternative to the right.
More specifically, the bourgeoisie cannot afford to ignore the fact that within the proletariat more and more people are posing serious questions about the current state of the planet. To a large extent they come from a generation which has little interest in traditional politics and tends to be openly distrustful towards the old left parties.
This is why the anti-globalisation movement, with its ideology of local self-activity, of libertarianism and syndicalism, its mish-mash of a hundred different mini-causes and sub-movements, is so well placed to lead this embryonic questioning into the dead-end of bourgeois ideology.
The refried leftism of the anti-globalisers is thus an important instrument of the ruling class, which needs above all to hide the simple truth from those it exploits and oppresses: capitalism cannot be reformed, improved or made fair. It needs to be destroyed and replaced by a global communist society, and this cannot be achieved without class struggle leading to the world revolution.
H, 4/10/03.
'Blair out', 'Bliar', 'Tony's a Tory'.
These were the most prominent slogans on the anti-war demo in London on 27 September.
But calls for Blair to go aren't limited to the 'far left' groups who hand out placards emblazoned with these slogans.
Respectable ex-cabinet ministers like Claire Short and Robin Cook have more or less explicitly called for his resignation, accusing him of deceiving the country over the war on Iraq. At the recent Labour party conference he was under fire not only over the war, but also his domestic policies - privatisation, student fees, relations with the unions, to name but a few.
Gordon Brown has already begun to tout himself as an 'alternative' - his conference speech avoided justifying the war and rousingly reasserted 'Old Labour' values such as the 'redistribution of wealth'. A false alternative
To think that Brown is an alternative to Blair is to disregard his role at the heart of the Labour government in the management of the capitalist economy where the rich have got richer and the poor poorer.
68% of working taxpayers earn less than £20,000 a year and 51% earn less than £15,000 (according to the Inland Revenue). These are levels of low pay deliberately encouraged by the government through the minimum wage and the Working Families Tax Credit system. His 'distribution of wealth' has seen hundred of thousands losing unemployment benefits due to entitlement changes. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers have been thrown out of work. National Insurance contributions and direct taxes have been increased.
'Prudent' Gordon is also working out ways to make the working class pay the cost of the war and occupation of Iraq - current cost £3 billion and rising.
Neither are the likes of Short and Cook any alternative.
They fully supported British imperialism's participation in the Kosovo and Afghanistan adventures, the military enforcement of the 'no-fly' zones over Iraq, and the maintenance of crippling sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of the Iraqis they now claim to care so much for. Nothing new about Labour's capitalist policies
Socialist Worker (4/10/3) says that Blair and Brown "are both cut from the same Tory cloth". Yet Labour's history shows that it is not becoming a crypto-Tory party but is and has long been a reliable part of the ruling class's political apparatus. In its own right, with its own ideology, it has imposed austerity measures on the working class and defended the interests of British imperialism in times of war and peace - ever since the First World War.
At the Labour Party conference Jack Jones (former leader of the T&G) and Michael Foot were both honoured for their long service, and some nostalgically recalled the days of 'Old Labour'. This is the Jack Jones who was central to the Social Contract imposed by the Labour government of 1974-79. At that time government and unions inflicted a ruthless incomes policy on the working class and worked tirelessly to undermine and defeat the struggle against this attack. This is the Michael Foot who said that Britain was never closer to 'socialism' than during the Second World War - when Labour did its best to ensure that the workers were enrolled to die for British imperialism, repeating what it had done during the 1914-18 war.
All these figures are 'cut from the same cloth'. The fabric of the Labour party has been cut to suit the needs of British capitalism for the last ninety years, and, to mix metaphors, there is no 'reverse gear', or any other means, to change it. The groups that make up the Socialist Alliance also pose as an 'alternative', but their programme for strengthening the capitalist state's management of British capitalism is indistinguishable from the ideology that guided Labour in government and opposition for the decades before Blair became Labour leader. United on the need to attack the working class
The only thing that would change if Blair was replaced by Brown or some other defender of the 'real values of Labour' is the rhetoric. This is because a Labour government acts in the way its does not because of the particular individuals who lead it, but because of the class interests it serves. Brown would sound more 'socialist' but a capitalist government has to consider a number of factors. It has to take account of the state of the economy, and in the face of a worsening crisis it is the working class that has to pay the price. Unemployment, job insecurity, harsher regimes for those in work and in education, cut backs in benefits, the decline in basic services such as the NHS (with more and more available only to those who can pay for them), the disappearance of pension funds: the capitalist state presides over all the attacks on the living and working conditions of its citizens.
Brown has amply shown his willingness to carry out such attacks. As has the labour party, be it New or Old, since the First World War when it has managed British capitalism at a local or national level. It was a very 'old' even 'socialist' Labour government that laid off 30.000 Liverpool council workers in the 1980s (aided and abetted by the 'Loony Left' council run by Derek Hatton and the Trotskyist 'Militant' group).
Thus we can see that all the wings of the Labour party are agreed on one thing: the need to attack the working class in order to defend the interests of British capitalism. Labour defends British imperialism
The government of the capitalist class is not only in economic competition with every other state, it is also compelled to defend its interests militarily. Every capitalist state is imperialist and has to devote enormous resources against the potential threat of other armed states defending their interests. It is the nature of capitalism that requires every national capital to be armed and ready for conflict - not the particular policy of individual governments.
Labour governments have proven themselves to be intransigent defenders of British imperialism. Not only since the 1990s but since 1914. The first Labour government (1924) made a clear commitment to this by continuing the previous government's policy of bombing and gassing the rebels and civilians in Iraq. The only alternative is the class struggle
In addition to the economic crisis and imperialist conflict the capitalist state is aware of the threat posed by the struggle of the working class. Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class, and the more that the ruling class attacks the working class, the greater the potential for workers' struggle in defence of their class interests. The massive struggles that took place in France this May over the issue of pensions were a stark reminder to the ruling class of this potential. In Britain we have yet not seen such a massive outburst of combativity, but the unofficial strikes at Heathrow, in the post and the shipyards are signs of a growing unwillingness to accept attacks on living and working conditions (see the article on page 3).
If the class struggle is to make significant steps forward, workers will have to learn to rely on their own strengths - the ability to organise, to unite, and to develop their own political programme aimed at the overthrow of the capitalist system. And the only way the working class can make progress in this direction is to refuse to get caught up in all the false alternatives offered by its exploiters.
WR, 4/10/03.
Prior to its September public forum in Paris on anti-globalisation (see the article on page 8 of this issue, based on the presentation given at the meeting), the French section of the ICC called on other sections, as well as sympathisers of the ICC, to attend this meeting to express their solidarity with the section, which is one of the two most directly confronted with the presence of the parasitic group that calls itself the Internal Fraction of the ICC [1]. As we explain in more detail in our article 'The ICC does not allow snitches into its public meetings [102]', published on our website as a supplement to WR 267, the ICC, having excluded these elements from the organisation at our last international congress, took the decision to bar them from our public meetings as well. In our view, the activities of this group constitute a danger not only to the ICC but to the whole milieu of proletarian political organisations. In particular, its constant use of personal information and innuendo about members of the ICC on its website and in its bulletin puts it on the same level as that of informers and provocateurs. Closing the doors of our meetings to them is thus an elementary act of self-defence. This view is reinforced in the letters we print below. They come from three of our sympathisers in the UK, two of whom were able to attend the meeting in person, where they met members and sympathisers of the ICC from a number of countries.
28.09.03 Comrades of the ICC, I am writing to express my support for the recent decision to exclude the so-called 'Internal Fraction of the ICC' (IFICC) from all public meetings of the organisation. This latest development in the battle for defence of the revolutionary organisation was, as you are aware, explained in the article "The ICC doesn't allow snitches into its public meetings [102]" (web supplement to WR 267) and put into practice at the last public meeting in Paris on the 13th of September, which I was fortunately able to attend.
That said, before moving on to discuss the meeting I feel it is important to repeat again that my support for this decision (and obviously the ICC) does not stem from any 'brainwashing' or blind loyalty to the organisation, which will disappoint those elements whose 'political' lives revolve around the misfortunes of the 'Stalinist' ICC and its crazy sympathisers; rather it comes from time spent working and discussing with the organisation. The openness and honesty with which the ICC has dealt with its latest organisational crisis has shown once again that the organisation is far from being the cult it is often portrayed to be. Compare this approach with the IBRP's response to the behaviour of the LA Workers Voice group and it is clear who in the proletarian political milieu is facing the difficult, but vital, question of the revolutionary organisation head on.
Although there isn't the time or the space here to discuss the IFICC's behaviour in detail it is important to make a few brief comments. The IFICC has acted from the beginning in a way not befitting members of a communist organisation. They have ignored the statutes of the organisation whose platform they claim to defend, they have stolen money from the ICC to fund their own activity and finally through gossip and the publication of sensitive information they have put individual ICC militants and the organisation as a whole at greater risk of police infiltration. Their activities have effectively threatened the very existence of the ICC!
This is why the ICC had to exclude the IFICC. Not to deny them their 'democratic' speaking rights! And this is what formed the opening presentation of the Paris public meeting. The main reasons for this important decision, as outlined above, were given along with an attack on the 'democratic' fantasies of the IFICC. They may claim not have 'disrupted' previous meetings they have attended but the presence of gossips does little to promote open comradely discussion. Nor does the case that they are not in the direct pay of the state lessen the seriousness of their activities. The IFICC's written response to the ICC's decision was also discussed. As appears usual there were no attempts at political discussion but more veiled threats and bullying claims that the exclusion couldn't be enforced as the ICC 'weren't up to it'. The members of the IFICC left sulking outside the meetings in Mexico and Paris may now want to rethink their opinion of the ICC's abilities.
Time was given after the presentation to discuss the exclusion. Comrades and sympathisers of the ICC from Britain, France and Germany all spoke about the importance of the decision and the seriousness of the situation with the Fraction. With the onset of decomposition the stakes for humanity are higher than ever and revolutionary organisations have a responsibility to ensure that the chaotic and nihilistic tendencies prevalent in decaying capitalist society don't find their way into their ranks. The situation in France is not unique and as a German comrade stated "the fight against the (In)fraction is an international one". The meeting in Paris with its international 'audience' showed that the ICC was prepared, and able, to take up its responsibilities to the class and defend the revolutionary organisation.
Unfortunately I do not have time to discuss the presentation and discussion on anti-globalisation, which followed the announcement on the Fraction. Suffice it to say both were rigorous and criticised the idealism and utopianism of those that believe that the world can be 'made good' without the intervention of the working class and the removal of capitalism.
For Communism,
Harry
29.9.03. Dear ICC, The following letter is a reflection on the themes at the recent meeting of RI in Paris. I decided to attend the recent meeting of RI in Paris in support of the ICC in its conflict with the parasitic Fraction. At the meeting RI convincingly defended its decision to exclude the Fraction from its public meetings in addition to the previous exclusion from the organisation. I believe the defence of revolutionary organisations is important and should not be underestimated. To counter capitalism the working class must organise to defend its interests. Any activity on the proletarian terrain is subject to attack by the ruling class. The working class must organise to counter this. This includes the vanguard who form revolutionary organisations. If these organisations are not defended they are organisations in name only.
The Fraction is guilty of trying to destroy the organisation. This has included personalised attacks on comrades of the ICC, the publication of the real initials of members, the publication of details of internal meetings, the theft of funds and the theft of contacts' details.
This activity should be condemned by all revolutionaries. I believe it is correct for the ICC to expose the details of the Fraction. Firstly as a warning to other revolutionaries and to show openly the problems that revolutionaries face.
In the meeting the comrade from Germany correctly emphasised the importance of organisational issues. Defending the organisation has been an important part of revolutionary history. She highlighted the problems of the German revolution and the organisational failures that contributed to the defeat of the working class. All those in the meeting defended the ICC's decision on this matter.
The meeting proceeded onto the main presentation. This was on the ideology of anti-globalisation as an attack on the working class. In France there is a large petit-bourgeois movement which uses anti-globalisation theory to support it. They are joined by the left in a broad coalition. The bourgeoisie are happy to support this as it plays easily into the anti-American campaign.
A comrade of the ICC was correct to draw comparisons with Proudhon who was attacked by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy. Anti-globalisation poses a false opposition between a ruthless big capitalism and a nice small democratic capitalism. In the Communist Manifesto Marx describes capitalism's globalising dynamic. There is not a non-globalising version of capitalism. There is also not a version of capitalism that doesn't exploit the poor or one that is free from war.
Anti-globalisation is also a defence of capitalist democracy. A false view that the state stands above vested interests. In reality the state is the organised arm of the ruling class as a whole whether you can vote or not.
In Britain the ruling class does not give the same level of support to anti-globalisation theories. This is because the UK has closer ties to the US. But this ideology is useful for diverting searching elements away from proletarian politics. This I know unfortunately from personal experience. Whatever the wide ideas that are expressed in this movement they do not include the destruction of the capitalist system or the organisation of the working class.
I was pleased with the level of contributions in the meeting and it was a nice change to be in a large room full of people who support class positions.
Yours, D
Letter of solidarity from a sympathiser unable to support the ICC in person at the Paris meeting.
3.9.03
I want to express my solidarity with this meeting and the proposed exclusion of the members of the 'IFICC'. It's not only a 'logical' consequence that they should have no place in the ICC's meetings but a continuation of the ICC's permanent - and not passive - struggle for the defence of the organisations of revolutionaries. It is also part of the struggle against democratism which so much infects the groups of the proletarian milieu.
This is the application of a necessarily deepening analysis of this whole episode of the fight the ICC has been through and responded to. The contempt for organisational statutes, the theft, duplicity, denigration and back-door informing has to be responded to with revolutionary vigour.
At the same time as playing up the 'divergences' of the milieu, the IFICC's bulletin no. 20 has kept up the pressure on their targeted individual in the ICC by making sure his name is kept to the fore and the attention of the bourgeoisie.
I support your action.
Fraternally, E
From a subsequent letter from the same comrade
20.9.03 Reading the last issue of RI, I want to reinforce the view I put forward in your proposal to ban the IFICC from public meetings. Their spying activities, something I tended to underestimate, are focussed in this article: who's at what demonstration or intervention: who's not there; who's possibly doing what, as well as other hard information. This has nothing to do with political divergences and can only be of use to the state agencies dedicated to unveiling such things. (The IFICC's) copious taking of notes (who said what) also carries a similar sort of threat that is implied in their sending out of their unsolicited 'bulletins' ('we know where you live - we have your address'). This reinforces my support for your positive action.
Notes
1. The other being our Mexican section, which has already taken similar measures against the members of the IFICC there.
4/10/03.
The murder of Foreign Minister Anna Lindh during the Swedish Euro referendum brought a new intensity to the democratic campaign. It was cynically used by the bourgeoisie to denounce the 'attack on democracy and the open society'. All the political parties of the bourgeoisie, from right to left, agreed to stop the campaign and called for a vote in memory of Lindh.
The 82% turnout was the highest in any referendum so far. It was also slightly higher than in the elections for the last parliament. While the bourgeoisie showed a national consensus to 'defend democracy' (despite the fact that the murder seemed not to have any political motives, probably being the act of a disturbed individual), it was still obvious that the ruling class was divided on the Euro. But the bourgeoisie was able, in the wake of the murder of one of its most prominent politicians, to show a united face in the referendum to mobilise the working class in the defence of democracy. In other words, to defend the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Why was there a majority against the Euro? The leading factions of the bourgeoisie, like the bosses' union, and leading capitalist companies like Ericsson and Volvo were for the Euro, as were the main figures in the Social Democratic Party (SAP), like Prime Minister Persson, Foreign Minister Lindh and Finance Minister Ringholm. However, even inside the government there were divisions which cut through the whole SAP, as well as inside the union apparatus where there were forceful critics of Sweden joining the Euro.
The Centre party, which traditionally has roots in the agricultural sector and was for Sweden joining the EU in the referendum of 1994, was also against joining the Euro. The other right-wing parties were for the Euro, even if there where strong minorities that were against.
The result of the referendum must be seen as a set back for the leading factions of the bourgeoisie, which had underestimated the strength of the 'no' campaign. The 'no' campaign has continued since the 1994 referendum, focussing on the myth that all the cuts in the welfare state were due to joining the EU. Attacks on the working class
The fact that many workers voted 'no' should be seen as an expression of discontent with the long period of attacks on the social wage in Sweden. The left has been in the forefront of the attacks on workers' living conditions. This is most clearly shown in the cooperation between the Green party, the former CP, and the SAP in government, which relies on the other parties to continue as the party at the heart of the state apparatus. The attacks on workers' living conditions have been skilfully organised, mostly on a local and municipal level, mostly by the left parties, but partly by the right wing party protesting against the 'red-green coalition'.
In fact the attacks on workers have been so efficient that Sweden is admired by the bourgeoisies of France and Germany which have had difficulties in undertaking the 'structural reforms' that have already been achieved in Sweden.
The reason why the attacks on workers have been so effective in Sweden can be explained by a number of factors. There has not been a frontal attack on workers' pensions as in France; it has been phased in on a step by step basis. This was accelerated after the financial crash in Sweden in the early 90s, when workers in Sweden suddenly faced mass unemployment. The attacks have also been dispersed across a number of sectors.
The bourgeoisie, and particularly the left, have diverted the dissatisfaction in the working class with electoral campaigns that focus on democracy as a way of channelling discontent. Before the summer the bourgeoisie also used a strike organised by the unions in the municipal sector, which was drawn out and fragmented. This was a lesson to all workers on how not to fight, staged by the unions for workers in the public sector to let off steam. This was effective despite there being a certain loss of confidence in the unions when the strike was seen to lead nowhere, leaving many workers disappointed about how the strike was run. Strategies of the Swedish bourgeoisie
The fact that the bourgeoisie used the referendum in its democratic campaign against the working class does not contradict the fact that the bourgeoisie was divided over the Euro. This division, particularly inside the SAP, has its roots in changes at the economic and imperialist level.
The bourgeoisie had a huge shock in the early 90s when it could not defend its currency (which was tied up in the ERM); the Reich bank increased the interest rate to 500%, and big parts of the banking sector collapsed, only to be saved by the 'lender of last resort', the state. This gave rise to a very sceptical attitude to a fixed rate for the currency. Devaluations have always been the medicine of the Swedish bourgeoisie when it was in crisis, but they have led to an extreme devaluation of its assets and the selling off of big companies like Volvo and Saab to American capital, and with major pharmaceutical companies being integrated into big American capital.
The growing financial turbulence of the 90s drew a part of the bourgeoisie towards the Euro. But the leading faction delayed its change of policy too long, a change from distancing itself to an attitude of searching for cooperation because it needs to improve its position with the prospect of future financial storms. The leading circle in the SAP did not want a referendum, because it knew the difficulties in controlling the election campaign, as well as the advantages the 'no' side had gained. In parliament they could easily get a majority. But most of the SAP wanted a referendum.
On the imperialist level, throughout the 20th century, Sweden always had an attitude of trying to stay out of trouble for as long as possible. It avoided entering into alliances with other powers unless it was absolutely necessary in order to stay out of conflicts. For example, it was close to Germany during the Second World War, exporting significant quantities of iron for the German war effort, and allowing German troops to advance on Norway and Finland through Sweden. The Swedish bourgeoisie laid the rails for German imperialist adventures. The rapid desertion of a former ally faced with defeat was clearly demonstrated in the switch from Germany to the side of the Allies at the end of the war. The success of this policy formed the basis, after the war, of the myth of Sweden's 'neutrality'. It helped the western bloc as an infiltrator and agent in the so called 'progressive movements' of national liberation, which in fact concealed the battle between the American and Russian imperialist blocs. Since the dissolution of the blocs, Sweden's imperialist role has decreased, with the tendency for each country to fight for itself, and the difficulties Sweden faces in playing off other powers against each other. The complete lack of an independent policy in relation to the US offensive after 9/11 was shown in outright apologies for American imperialism. It was only with the open opposition to the US by France and Germany that Persson and Lindh showed a more 'independent' face and fell in with the critics of the American adventure in Iraq. Both Lindh and Persson tried to play a more significant role in Europe, getting closer to France and Germany. One example of this was Lindh's open critique of Berlusconi over the new European constitution. The desire to join the Euro is part of a tendency toward establishing closer cooperation with other European countries. What does Lindh's killing show?
There is no doubt that the former Swedish foreign minister was an effective defender of Sweden's imperialist policy. There did not appear to be any fraction of the bourgeoisie that objected to Anna Lindh, despite the differences over the Euro etc. Who benefited the most from her murder? On one level the bourgeoisie was able to use it to mount nationalist and democratic campaigns and increase the turnout in the referendum, but it also lost an important member of the government, who had been expected to succeed the current Prime Minister. There do not appear to be any real political motives within the bourgeoisie for the killing of one its leading members. It also looks unlikely that a foreign power would have been interested in killing Lindh, not even Berlusconi with his hurt pride and loyalty to the US.
A murder like this does show one aspect of social reality. We have seen one of the vilest media campaigns, at least by Swedish standards, against an innocent man, with his whole life exposed, not only in all the major evening papers, but also in the more 'serious' daily papers. No detail has been left unpublished, no speculation has been too far-fetched or obscure. The events have confirmed the status of the media as a bunch of lying hyenas, prepared to fill their pages with anything, no matter how scurrilous. And a completely corrupt police force has leaked intimate details of the investigation, as well as all kinds of speculation, to the press, whose rights are defended with laws 'protecting the free press', or for the 'protection of media sources' etc.
We have also seen how the psychiatric care system in Sweden has collapsed, partly through the constant cuts in this sector, and this has rebounded on the architects of this 'reform'. People are locked up, abandoned to live on the streets, to get addicted to drink or drugs, to commit suicide, or even to kill others in their moments of despair. It seems likely that the man who is currently accused of killing Anna Lindh needed psychiatric care, which he had been repeatedly refused.
As the furore was beginning to die down, the SAP government put forward a package of tax increases in new budget proposals directly hitting the living conditions of many workers. At the same time there has been a rash of announcements of new cuts in the public sector on the municipal level, sacking a new round of workers in the 'welfare system'. The attacks of the bourgeoisie continue.
Olof, 30/09/03.
This article was originally published in 2 parts. It has now been consolidated into one article, the complete version of which can be found here [104].
Since the collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989, the anti-communist propaganda of the bourgeoisie - based on the 'greatest lie of the 20th century' that claims Stalinism was the inevitable outcome of Marxism - has obtained heights never before imaginable. But moreover, the influence of the classical theses of anarchism - this 'radical' petty bourgeois critique of Marxism-has itself widened, touching even those political circles that seek to link themselves up with Marxism once again. The bourgeois critique, like the anarchist criticism of Marxism, affirms - even in the case where Marx is not relegated to the same ranks as Stalin - that certain fundamental theses of Marxism, supposedly false, prefigured the rise of Stalinism. Notably, the Marxist conception according to which the proletariat has an historic task, a mission to complete, is considered a residue of idealism and even as a religious deformation of the scientific spirit. One finds such anarchist influences even among the declared partisans of historical materialism, for example the review Soziale Befreiung (SB), written by the Unabh�ngige R�tekommunisten (independent council communists) in Germany. This influence does not surprise us since SB declares itself partisan of a "post-Marxist communism" in its new brochure The Terror of Capital (vol. 1).
In SB's last brochure, one finds a critique of a quotation from the Parti Communiste International's (PCI) celebrated article, Auschwitz, ou le grand alibi (Auschwitz, or the great alibi). This reads: "It happens at times that the workers themselves fall into racism. This happens when threatened with massive unemployment, they tend to concentrate their anger on certain groups: Italians, Poles, or other 'wops,' 'blacks' etc. But within the proletariat these drives only occur at the worst moments of demoralization; they do not last. Once it enters into the struggle, the proletariat sees clearly and concretely where its real enemy lies: it becomes a homogenous class with a perspective and an historic mission."
After having clarified this conception as a "form of the idealist cult of the proletariat," SB continues its critique further: "Bordiga's conceptions are the idealist and deformed reflection of proletarian life, which is strictly bourgeois as well. The working class is not strictly a unitary class. It is possible in crisis situations for it to act collectively, but this is a completely different matter. But this story of 'a historic perspective and an historic mission' is a revival of the idealist residues of Marxism: the faith the petty bourgeoisie has in another class. (Almost all the Marxist theoreticians of the 19th and 20th centuries - beginning with Marx and Engels themselves - were renegades from the bourgeoisie). Who then assigns these 'historic missions'? The God of History? All of this is terribly religious! Its purpose is to directly link the theory of the party impartially and inflexibly to the service of said mission." (Ibid, pg. 5)
The bourgeois, or more precisely petty-bourgeois, assertion according to which the Marxist conception of the proletariat's historic mission is supposedly religious and thus already contains the seeds of a Stalinist and bourgeois party-state regime of terror is echoed in SB's brochure.
But if the marxist conception of the working class is the equivalent of an idealist and religious "cult of the proletarians", what materialist conception - perhaps "post-Marxist" - does SB offer us as an alternative? We read: "The interests of the majority of the working class is determined simply by the quest to live a little bit better than it currently does. To the extent that this is possible in one way or another, the relations of exploitation are supported because in the normal course of capitalism the more conservative forces within the proletariat determine its behaviour. But as long as its combat is carried out in the interior of capitalism, it will lead to an approval of the rules of the capitalist game, of which the nationalist 'solution' to the social question is an integral part. The social partnership always posses a nationalist orientation." Nationalism and the social partnership can thus fully constitute expressions of the working class, as long as it develops its combat "in the interior of capitalism." Because, according to SB, the proletariat "as a class dominated by capital, can not be anything else but bourgeois." As an example of this 'bourgeois-worker' struggle, SB takes "white male workers who seek to preserve their standard of living to the detriment of women, people of colour and foreigners. In order to obtain work and social benefits, they thus lead a concurrent struggle produced by capitalist relations against other wage-earners. Sexism and racism constitute the ideologies of this class struggle."
How could a class that fights in such a bourgeois manner come to revolutionary consciousness? According to SB "Revolutionary class consciousness cannot ignite in large sections of the working class until capitalism, shaken by crisis, can no longer satisfactorily satisfy basic needs. It is not until this moment that the adhesion of the proletariat to nationalist ideology can be broken." The revolutionary nature of the working class
SB affirms that the working class's struggle, as along as it is conducted within capitalism, reverts to an approval of the rules of the capitalist game and poses a nationalist orientation in the context of the "social partnership." However, experience shows absolutely that the working class's struggle cannot hold to the rules of the capitalist game because it is a struggle against exploitation. Autonomous workers' struggle and self-organization remains fundamentally outside bourgeois legality and, once it is launched, it sees itself immediately confronted with the entire arsenal of the exploiters' state. This includes not only the police and the courts but also the unions and the leftists.
The idea that there would be two proletarian struggles, one within the capitalist system, the other outside of it, is entirely false. In reality, there does not exist such a line of separation between the proletariat's economic struggles and the revolutionary assault. Since the aspirations of the immediate everyday struggles of the class - the maintenance of a certain standard of living, the diminution of exploitation, the opposition to the pursuit and intensification of the dehumanization of work - in the historic sense are no longer possible to obtain within the capitalist system, the revolutionary assault becomes nothing other than the defensive struggles taken to their ultimate consequence. Therefore, it is true (as Rosa Luxemburg demonstrated at the beginning of the 20th century against the opportunist 'revisionists', like Bernstein), that the development of a revolutionary voice and the communist perspective within the proletarian masses is a necessity - in order that the defensive struggles, if only temporarily, prevent the aggravation of the working class's situation. This is the reason why, since capitalism as a system attained its apogee, that the proletarian struggle, conforming to its nature, takes the form of the mass strike: the generalized struggle of class against class.
Naturally, the working class, like all the members of this society of commodity production is continually exposed to the pressure of the bourgeois competition of each one for himself. Naturally, the worker, taken as an individual, like all the members of this society, is exposed to the influence of racism and nationalism. However, as this competition derives from the economic nature of the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie, the nature of the proletariat's combat consists of association and the struggle against this competition. Because without the struggle against competition, without unification, workers' struggle is not even possible. Even if every worker taken individually may be racist or sexist, for the workers as a class to respond, they must confront this capitalist division and learn to tighten their ranks.
This is why the PCI's text on Auschwitz is perfectly correct to affirm that the class, with the exception of the deepest moments of demoralization, constantly fights these divisions in the course of its struggle.
Already in 1845, in The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels recognized the importance of workers' association, as "the first attempt of the workers to abolish competition. They assume this idea to be very true, that the domination of the bourgeoisie is secured only by the competition between the workers themselves, that is to say on the infinite division of the proletariat, on the possibility of imposing on them various categories of worker. And it is precisely because they challenge, even if in a unilateral and always limited fashion, this competition, this vital nerve of today's social order, that they constitute such a danger for this social order." (1) Engels affirms moreover that it is only in combating capitalist competition that the workers "affirm themselves as human beings, that in addition to their labour power also have a will".
Marxists recognize here that the revolutionary nature of the proletariat is already present in its daily struggles. Even the most intelligent representatives of the dominant class have for a long time recognized this fact as for example the Interior Minster of Imperial Prussia Puttkamer, author of the famous phrase: "Already in every strike lies the hydra of the revolution". Or moreover as Lenin himself also stated: "Each strike is a little crisis of capitalist society." The workers' struggle is also a theoretical and political struggle
In fact, if the workers' defensive struggles normally hold themselves to the rules of the capitalist game, as SB affirms, how does one then explain how the suffering, which the aggravation of the capitalist crisis causes, would lead to the development of a revolutionary consciousness within the entire class. SB sees the incapacity of capitalism to satisfy "the most basic needs" of the workers as a precondition to this. However, capitalism has already known many such situations (the Great Depression after 1929, the end of the Second World War in Europe, or even today in numerous parts of the world) without that necessarily opening the way to a revolutionary consciousness among the proletarian masses. In reality, there are more than simply economic preconditions for this. Marxism has repeatedly demonstrated that the proletarian struggle is never simply economic. On the contrary, it possesses a theoretical and political dimension that is just as important. It is a characteristic of councilism to negate this other dimension and to await this consciousness as the unilateral, and more or less automatic, consequence of capitalism's desperation. However, capitalism will never face a situation of such utter desperation as long as the proletariat does not understand the necessity for its overthrow.
Class consciousness is not only a product of the immediate economic situation or the immediate struggle; rather it is an historical process, the accumulation, not only of the advance of the struggle, but also the clarification of the political lessons of these struggles drawn from the development of society and the class struggle. A fundamental element of this maturation of consciousness is to "see clearly and concretely where their enemy lies", as the PCI validly formulates the question. Here we see the dangerous consequences of SB's non-marxist conception of the working-class. The historic mission of the working class
As SB does not understand why the working class is revolutionary, it is not possible for it to understand the proletariat's historic mission. Let us see how Marxism has responded to this question. Engels writes in Anti-D�hring that "the historic role of the capitalist mode of production and its ruling class the bourgeoisie consists of concentrating, enlarging the dispersed and narrow means of production, to become the commanding levers of modern production. � But � the bourgeoisie cannot transform these limited means of production without transforming individual means of production into social means of production, useful only by an assembly of men." (2) But even if production is socialized, the appropriation of the fruits of production remains private, dispersed and anarchic. "In this contradiction, which gives this new mode of production its capitalist character, is already contained in embryo all the great collisions of the present. When the new mode of production comes to dominate in all the decisive sectors of production and in all the economically important countries, and vanquishes individual production until it has been reduced to insignificant residues, one will clearly and at the same time brutally witness the incompatibility of social production and capitalist appropriation" (3). This concentration of the means of production through the socialization of production is at the same time the decisive factor that leads to the separation "between the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the capitalists on the one hand, and on the other the reduction of the producers to a state of owning nothing other than their labour power. The contradiction between social production and capitalist appropriation manifests itself as the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie." (4)
Communism, that is to say the satisfaction of human needs, motor of the development of socialized production, constitutes the only positive solution possible to the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Only the proletariat can establish communism, because it is the only class that produces in a socialized fashion under capitalism. This collective nature of the proletariat, grounded in production, makes it, and it alone, the bearer of a future society without classes. There is no trace of "religion" in any of this or of a "cult of the proletarians." It is capitalism itself that confers this historic mission on the proletariat. Or as the Communist Manifesto formulates the matter: "The progress of industry, of which the bourgeoisie is the passive and unconscious agent, replaces the isolation of the workers in competition by their revolutionary union through association. The development of large-scale industry undermines, from under the feet of the bourgeoisie, the very ground upon which it established its system of production and appropriation. The bourgeoisie produces above all its own gravediggers."
More broadly speaking, within the question that SB raises in a rhetorical fashion -"Who assigns historic missions? The God of History?" - is posed the fundamental question of the Marxist method, of the historical materialist conception.
"A social formation never disappears until it has developed all the productive forces which it can contain, new and superior relations of production never substitute themselves for old ones, before the material conditions for the existence of these relations are born within the womb of the old society. This is why humanity never poses itself tasks except those that it can resolve, because, as shall be shown, it will always find that the task itself only arises where the material conditions for its resolution are already present, or at least are in the process of becoming." (5) From Weltrevolution no 119 (August-September 2003) organ of the ICC in Germany.
Footnotes
(1) Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (2) Engels, Anti-D�hring (3) Ibid (4) Ibid (5) Marx, Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Despite all the talk about the 'end of the class struggle' over the past decade or so, the spectre of the class war just won't go away.
In May and June in France, government attempts to make drastic attacks on the pension system led to a huge number of strikes and demonstrations by public sector workers. Austria and Greece saw large-scale mobilisations by state employees against similar attacks. There have also been a growing number of smaller spontaneous walkouts, like the one at Heathrow last summer. Perhaps even more important is the mounting evidence that workers everywhere are beginning to ask questions about what future capitalist society - with its plunge into poverty, war and environmental destruction - holds in store for us all.
The current unofficial strike of around 25,000 workers in the post office in the UK is the latest expression of this world-wide revival of struggles. And there is ample evidence that the ruling class has deliberately provoked the postal workers, with the aim of crushing them and so 'setting an example' to other sectors of the working class - just like they did to the miners in the 80s. Government and bosses on the offensive
As with the miners in the 80s, there are of course issues specific to the postal sector.
After years of poor industrial relations, mounting financial losses and the impending pressure of competition from the private sector, the Royal Mail's newly installed senior bosses, backed in different ways by the government and the Communication Workers' Union (CWU), have sought to attack the pay and working conditions of its employees. An estimated 17,000 of the required 30,000 job losses have already been achieved and the 'Way Forward' national agreement provides the basis for brutal increases in productivity (i.e. exploitation).
The post office bosses thus have every interest in having a showdown with their workers - in provoking a strike that will give them the pretext to dismiss militants and impose an even more ruthless regime in the workplace. Their behaviour in the past couple of weeks has been provocative in the extreme.
Almost immediately after the strikes around the issue of London weighting, postal workers in the capital, and increasingly across the country, have been faced with a wave of intimidation, bullying and enforced changes to working practices by local managers. Those who have refused to accept the changes have been suspended. Their fellow workers have walked out on unofficial strike in solidarity. Managers have sent unsorted mail (so-called 'blacked mail') to other centres, where workers have refused to touch it. They themselves get suspended resulting in more walkouts. Thus the strikes, initially involving relatively small, petty incidents, escalated into a veritable national crisis. And once the strike had reached this level, there were further revelations about how Royal Mail managers were being told by their superiors to demand entry to mass meetings, take photos of picket lines, and engage in other forms of witch-hunting.
So either the Royal Mail has suddenly gone barmy, or this is part of a conscious strategy of provocation. And if it is, it is impossible to imagine that the higher-up bosses aren't acting in concert with the government.
What's at stake in the post office isn't just the question of making it more competitive economically at the workers' expense. The postal workers have in the last two decades established themselves as the most militant sector of the entire working class in Britain. Time and time again they have shown their contempt for the official union rule book and have responded to bosses' attacks by walking out on the spot, and deciding in mass meetings whether or not to go on strike, instead of allowing their anger and unity to be dispersed by official ballots.
This is why the government - the executive arm of the capitalist state - has every interest in smashing the postal workers and their 'bad example'. Faced with a rising tide of working class anger, and a slow but real development of class consciousness, they hope that by taking on and defeating the postal workers they will be able to nip this renewal of class struggle in the bud.
The postal workers have shown a tremendous determination to defend themselves and an inspiring ability to spread the struggle within their own sector. But, as with the miners in the 80s, one sector alone cannot push back an attack that is being coordinated from the heart of the capitalist state. The postal workers have shown what solidarity among postal workers means. To fight off this and future attacks they need to call on the solidarity of all the other sectors who are becoming increasingly discontented - local government workers, firefighters, airport workers and all the rest�and these other sectors will need to link their demands to those of the postal workers. Is this an attack on the union?
On picket lines up and down the country, postal workers have expressed the belief that the bosses are out to smash the CWU. This idea is reinforced by union officials and by papers like Socialist Worker: "�the union's future, indeed its whole existence as an effective organisation, is now on the line" (Socialist Worker, 1/11/03). Their national leaflet dated 28/10/03 is entitled 'One Union, One Fight'. They want the workers to see the defence of the union and the defence of their pay and working conditions as one and the same.
On the surface it appears that the attack on the postal workers is an attack on the union: one of the conditions for a return to work at Dartford, for example, has been an end to time granted for union activities during the working day; in many sorting offices, union representatives were the first to be suspended for rejecting additional management demands.
But the ruling class is well aware that it needs the unions to maintain order in the workplace. The response of the official unions to this dispute has once again shown that the union machinery is on the side of the bosses, not the workers. The national leaders are distancing themselves from the strike movement: "The CWU has repudiated this action and has made it clear to our branches and members that we do not support unofficial action." (CWU press release, 28/10/03). Furthermore, the union would dearly like to gain some control over the situation. When Allan Leighton, the Chief Executive of Royal Mail, failed to convince a mass meeting of strikers at the Greenford centre in West London to return to work, the leader of the CWU, Dave Ward, said "I hope this experience has impressed on Allan Leighton that he needs to instruct his managers at every level a need to discuss, consult and negotiate with the CWU. The only alternative is industrial anarchy" (CWU, 27/10/03). Clearly the last thing the unions want is 'industrial anarchy'! The role of unions everywhere, since 1914, has been to keep workers' struggles in a prison of legality, to sabotage efforts by workers on strike to extend their struggles outside their immediate locality and the particular sector involved.
However, a militant sector like the postal workers can't be kept under control merely by the well-paid bureaucrats at the head of the CWU. Thus, although it doesn't officially support the strike, the union is giving free reign to its rank and file network of shop stewards and local branch officers, leaving them to keep control of the mass meetings and the picket lines. While these people may well believe they are acting to defend their fellow employees, workers must never forget that their role is to serve the interests of the unions and thus of the employers and the state.
What the ruling class wants is not to liquidate the CWU, but to increase its control over the workforce - to make postal workers give up their bad habits and keep to the union rule book. What it wants is for the CWU to ensure that there are no more wildcats - only symbolic, ineffective official strikes. No more direct and immediate appeals for solidarity, only paralysing union ballots and cooling-off periods.
The lesson that workers in the post and elsewhere must draw from this is not that they should rally to defend the union. They should instead defend everything that expresses their independence and their ability to organise themselves. Mass meetings must be real centres of discussion and decision-making, not answerable to any union apparatus. Delegations to other workers, or to negotiate with the bosses, must be directly controlled by the mass meetings.
Above all, we have to reject the 'corporatist' trade union view that each sector should stick to its own grievances and demands. We must recognise that workers everywhere face the same attacks, and unite our resistance against them.
WR, 1/11/03.
In the first ten months of 2003 there have been large scale struggles involving workers from a range of sectors struggling with a determination unknown since the 1980s. In May and June millions of workers in France demonstrated against attacks on pensions. In Austria there were a series of demonstrations, also against attacks on pensions, culminating on 3 June with the largest demonstration seen since the Second World War when a million people took to the streets (this is in a country with a population that's less than 10 million).
There have also been significant, unofficial, isolated, spontaneous struggles: the wildcat strike by BA workers at Heathrow, the unofficial strike by up to 1000 workers at Alcatel-Espace in Toulouse in June, and in August 2,000 contract workers at an oil refinery in Puertollano (Spain) went on unofficial strike after an accident that killed 7 workers. In September up to 2,000 Humberside shipyard workers, from three different firms, went on unofficial strike in support of 98 subcontract workers who had been sacked for demanding another £1.95 an hour. There is also the current strike among postal workers in Britain, currently involving at least 20,000 workers.
There have been a growing number of struggles in most European countries, along with struggles in the US. For example, in California there have been strikes on the public transport system in Los Angeles which through solidarity action closed down bus lines, the underground and light rail transport. A strike of 70,000 supermarket workers in California has affected nearly 900 stores in the first such action in 25 years.
In Greece there has been a wave of strikes in the public sector involving thousands of workers including teachers, medical staff, fire-fighters and coast guards. Other strata such as 15,000 Athenian taxi drivers have also been on strike and demonstrated.
After 14 years with no large-scale mobilisations, record low levels of strikes in the main capitalist countries and the ruling class proclaiming the end of the class struggle, these recent struggles are the expression of a change in the social situation. What these struggles mean
To fully understanding the meaning and implication of these struggles it is necessary to put them in their historic context. On the immediate level the struggles of this year are not that different from those in other periods of struggle since 1989. In 1993 there were huge demonstrations in Italy against attacks on pensions, in 1995 there was a large scale class movement in response to similar attacks in France. However, this year we have seen simultaneous movements, struggles following each other and the growth of small but significant unofficial struggles. Above all, these struggles have unfolded in a context of growing unease in the working class about the future capitalism holds for it.
At the time of the struggles in France comparisons were made with May 68. We did not see this year as being a new 68, but the comparison does highlight the importance of the factor of workers' embryonic questioning of capitalism.
"In 1968 one of the main factors in the resurgence of the working class and its struggles on the scene of history at the international level, was the brutal end of the illusions encouraged by the period of reconstruction, which for a whole generation had offered the working class full employment and clear improvements in its living conditions after the unemployment of the 1930s and the rationing and famine of the war and the immediate post-war period. With the first expressions of the open crisis, the working class felt itself under attack not only in its living conditions and working conditions, but also in terms of a blockage in the perspectives for the future, of a new period of increasing economic and social stagnation as a result of the world crisis. The size of the workers' struggles following May 1968 and the reappearance of the revolutionary perspective showed clearly that the bourgeoisie's mystifications about the 'consumer society' and the 'bourgeoisification' of the working class were wearing thing. Though we must keep things in proportion, there are analogies between the present attacks and the situation at that time. Obviously there is no question of identifying the two periods. 1968 was a major historical event which marked the emergence from more than four decades of counter-revolution. It had an impact on the international proletariat incomparably greater than the present situation.
Nonetheless today, we are witnessing a collapse of what appeared in a sense as a consolation after years in the prison of wage labour, and which has been one of the pillars that has allowed the system to hang on for 20 years: retirement at the age of 60, with the possibility at that age of enjoying life free from many material constraints. Today, workers are being forced to abandon the illusion of being able to escape for the last years of their life from what is increasingly experienced as a purgatory: a working environment where there are always too few people for the job, the amount of work is constantly increasing, and the rhythm of work is constantly speeding up. Either they will have to work for longer which means a reduction in the length of the period when they could at last hope to escape from wage labour, or else because they have not contributed for long enough they will be reduced to a wretched poverty where deprivation takes the place of overwork. For every worker, this new situation poses the question of the future." ('The massive attacks of capital demand a mass response from the working class' International Review 114).
This questioning is strengthened by the experience of the proletariat over the last 14 years. With the collapse of the eastern bloc the proletariat was thrown into a profound retreat. The collapse left workers feeling helpless as the whole international situation changed, with the world engulfed in chaos. At the same time the ruling class used the collapse and the growing economic 'boom' of the 1990s to push the idea that the class struggle was dead and that workers had to see themselves as citizens who had a stake in society. These campaigns crashed into the reality of the recession from the beginning of the new century and the subsequent bursting of the internet bubble and the tidal wave of lay-offs that has been sweeping the US, Europe and the rest of the world. At the same time, across Europe, in the US and beyond, capitalist states have been attacking the welfare state; cuts in unemployment pay and entitlement, cuts in pensions, attacks on health, education etc. All of which has shown the working class what capitalism has to offer and generated a determination among workers to respond to attacks on pensions and other parts of the social wage.
The smaller, isolated, unofficial struggles express a growing discontent in the proletariat against accepting attacks imposed by the bosses and unions. The Heathrow check-in staff, not known for their militancy, simply could not stomach yet another attack or the union's complicity, so they walked out. The fact that such a small number of workers could cause such concern to the bosses, unions and media was a graphic example of the fact that the ruling class know that something is changing in the social situation The perspective
The potential contained in the present situation is of historic importance. Today is not the same as 1968, the class is not emerging from a period of historic defeat lasting decades, but from a decade or more of retreat. And before 1989 there had been 20 years of waves of struggles. Thus, the present generations of workers have potentially over 30 years experience of confronting the attacks and manoeuvres of the ruling class to draw on. This, combined with the questioning being produced by the increasingly global nature of the attacks, could provide the conditions for the taking of important steps towards the eventual decisive class confrontations between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, which will determine whether the proletariat has the ability to go onto the revolutionary offensive. Class identity, the key question for the working class.
Central to this perspective will be the ability of the proletariat to regain and strengthen its class identity. By 'class identity' we mean the understanding of being part of a class, one with common interests to defend. This sense of class will be the basis for eventually taking struggles onto another level through their extension and self-organisation.
The nature of the attacks is providing the grounds for this to happen. The dismantling of the 'social buffers' of the welfare state, along with the intensification of exploitation in the factories, offices, hospitals etc and the growth of mass unemployment (over 5 million in Germany, 10% of the working population, levels of lay offs in the US unknown for decades, 800,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the UK since 1997, etc) confront workers with the stark reality of capitalism: either work your guts out to produce surplus value or rot in poverty.
For decades the ruling class have tried to use the welfare state to soften the impact of capitalism on the working class, but now the truth of what Marx said in Capital is becoming clearer: "Capitalist commodity production is thus the first economic formation in the history of humanity in which unemployment and the destitution of one large and growing layer of the population, and the direct helpless poverty of another, also growing layer, are not merely the result, but also a necessity, a condition for the existence of this economy. Insecurity of existence of the whole of the working population and chronic want... have for the first time become a normal social phenomena" (Capital Vol. 1). Counter-attack of the bourgeoisie
The ruling class is fully aware of the threat posed by the working class. The capitalist state has a whole apparatus for dealing with workers' actions: the trade unions, democracy, leftists, courts, police etc. Nonetheless, its greatest fear is that the workers will develop their class identity and on the basis of this begin to pose political questions about the nature of capitalism, and the need for an alternative.
Thus, when the French bourgeoisie had to carry out a frontal attack on the working class it did all it could to stop this generating a sense of class identity. The unions and left presented it as a struggle against a 'hard line' right wing government, rather than capitalism being the cause. All sectors of the population were mobilised. And they also made an example of the teachers, whose struggle suffered a brutal defeat. In Austria the unions were also able to contain the anger within demonstrations and limited strikes. In Germany, the ruling class was able to use the struggles in France and Austria to stir up a struggle of engineering workers in the East, which, through the demand for equal pay with workers in West, stoked up divisions. They were able to turn workers' anger against other workers who did not join the strike.
The latter attack was an expression of the wider problem of decomposition that the proletariat will face in its struggles. The growing decay of the social fabric works against the development of class identity because it breeds the idea of each against all. Each individual or sector of workers is encouraged to just be concerned with their every day survival, even if that means doing down your fellow workers. During the teachers struggle in France, the radical trade unions encouraged the idea of the most militant workers trying to impose the struggle on other workers by blocking schools, roads etc, leading to hostility between workers and profound demoralisation. In Spain (Puertollano) the unions kept the subcontracted workers' struggle separated from the permanent workers, again leading to hostility and demoralisation.
The ruling class is very sophisticated and has much experience to draw on in its struggle against the proletariat. It is essential to understand this, because to underestimate the capacity of the class enemy is to disarm the working class. Today's struggles are only the first unsteady steps in the opening up of a period of the potential development of the class struggle. The bourgeoisie is going to do all it can to undermine, divert and corrupt working class combativity and its deepening consciousness.
The working class is faced with an enormous challenge. There is going to be a long and torturous development of struggles marked by defeats and set-backs. Workers will need to confront the devastating effects of the deepening crisis: mass unemployment and poverty. Entering into struggle is a very difficult process, but the serious reflection that has to accompany the development of struggles gives them more political significance. The development of the struggle will also enable the proletariat to begin to draw out the lessons it had already started to grasp in the 1980s, in particular on the role of the unions and the need to spread struggles beyond one sector. This whole process will be fed by and stimulate the wider questioning of the capitalist system. The changing social situation is a great historical challenge, but there is not any guarantee that the class and its revolutionary minorities will be able to meet it. This will depend on the determination and will of the class and its minorities.
Phil, 1/11/03.
Since the collapse of the Russian bloc at the end of the 80s, and the resulting disappearance of the western alliance, the US, the world's only remaining superpower has been permanently forced to take the initiative on the military level, where it enjoys a crushing superiority over all its rivals, with the aim of defending its global leadership from the growing challenge from France, Germany, Russia and China. Since the first Gulf war, all the major conflicts have been the result of a pre-emptive policy by the USA, aimed at forestalling the emergence of a new imperialist bloc. But the US is in the grip of an insoluble contradiction: each new offensive, while it momentarily puts a brake on the challenge to American leadership, at the same time creates the conditions for further challenges, by increasing feelings of frustration and anti-Americanism. The whole escalation since September 2001, which has seen the USA, under the pretext of the struggle against terrorism and 'evil dictators', carrying out the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq without the least concern for the role of NATO and the UN, is bound up in this logic. Nevertheless, none of the conflicts which preceded Afghanistan, and above all Iraq, have engendered such a difficult situation as the US is now in.
Emboldened by the ease of its victory over Saddam Hussein, the American bourgeoisie gave little thought to the huge problems posed by the necessity to maintain a military occupation of Iraq. The US is going to be bogged down there for the foreseeable future despite the promises made by the Bush administration about the reconstruction and democratisation of Iraq. Continuous attacks on American troops (and, increasingly, on Iraqi civilians) by the so-called 'resistance' made up of ex-Baathists, and both home-grown and imported Islamists are having a demoralising effect. The number of American troops killed 'after' the war has already surpassed the number killed during open hostilities.
In order to try to maintain order and keep the situation under control, the US is obliged to increase its troop numbers there. A sign of the unpopularity of this mission is the fact that professional volunteers are becoming harder and harder to find and the troops in Iraq are more and more openly expressing their unease about the situation. This has expressed itself in a panicky tendency for US soldiers to shoot up everything that moves; but it is also beginning to take the form of vocal criticisms of the whole Iraq adventure by soldiers and their families at home. 'Road map' in shreds
Before launching the US onto this new military offensive, Bush announced that the liberation of Iraq would overturn the geopolitical landscape of the region. In substance this meant that the US domination of Iraq would strengthen its influence throughout the region, and allow it to press on with the strategic aim of encircling Europe. Such a scenario obviously involved the US being able to impose a 'Pax Americana' in all the most unstable areas, above all in the most explosive of them all, Israel/Palestine. Bush even announced that this conflict would soon be over. Bush was quite right to think that the situation in Iraq would have a strong influence on what happened in the territories occupied by Israel. This is being demonstrated today, but not in the way Bush hoped, since the conflict there is getting worse by the day. The present failure of the American bourgeoisie in Iraq is a real handicap to its policy of pressurising its turbulent Israeli ally to accept the 'road map to peace'. This has been totally sabotaged by Jerusalem. Such difficulties in imposing its will on Israel are not new and partly explain the failure of the various peace plans over the last 10 years. Nevertheless these problems have never been as heavy with consequences as they are today. This is illustrated by the short-term policies which someone like Sharon is able to impose in the Middle East, based exclusively on trying to escalate the confrontation with the Palestinians in order to chase them away from the occupied territories. As in the rest of the world, there's no possibility of peace in this region. The card played by Sharon, the butcher of Sabra and Chatila, can only lead to further bloodbaths, which will in no way resolve the Palestinian problem. On the contrary, this keeps coming back like a boomerang, above all in the form of an increasingly uncontrolled terrorism. Such an outcome can only have negative consequences for the US, which obviously cannot simply abandon its main ally in the region. USA's rivals take advantage of its difficulties
The USA's difficulties in Iraq undermine its international credibility and authority; its rivals can only rejoice in this and try to make the most of it. France has been the most insolent of all: at the UN general assembly, Chirac expresses his differences with his "great ally", arguing that Bush made a mistake in intervening in Iraq in spite of all the reservations put forward by a number of countries, including France of course. More worrying for the US is the fact that up till now it has been unable, despite repeated appeals, to get another major power, apart from the UK, which took part in the military operation from the start, to reinforce its troop contingent in Iraq. Spain, which is not a great power, sent a purely symbolic force. Only Poland, which is a still smaller power, responded positively to American appeals to join the great powers on the parade ground. It will be equally difficult for the US to find volunteers to help it meet the costs of stabilising and reconstructing Iraq.
Even the unanimous vote for resolution 1511 which Washington put before the UN at the end of October, while representing a partial political victory for Bush as it recognises the American presence in Iraq, does not really mean that the USA's major rivals are backing the Iraq adventure. Both Germany's Joschke Fischer and France's Villepin voted along with strong criticisms, the latter saying that there was risk that the resolution would serve no purpose. Germany, France, Russia and China all made it clear that there was no question of putting a cent into the reconstruction of Iraq.
In fact, the USA's present situation of relative weakness has inspired its rivals to go back onto the offensive. Thus on 20 September, in Berlin, there was a meeting between Schroeder, Chirac and Blair, who agreed on the need for Europe to have an autonomous military force and headquarters, an idea which the British bourgeoisie has hitherto opposed. Britain's small steps taken here towards the USA's greatest rivals is not unconnected to the fact that Britain is also paying the cost of the Iraqi misadventure and it needs to change the balance in its alliances by finding a counter-weight to the US. Blair's declaration in this regard is rather eloquent: "On the question of European defence we have a more and more shared position" (Le Monde, 23.9.03). Similarly, at the UN general assembly in September, the 25 members of 'Greater Europe' (the EU 15 plus those who intend to be part of its future enlargement) all voted, apparently on the initiative of Germany and France, in favour of a text which can only accentuate the USA's embarrassment over the policies of its Israeli ally, since it condemned Sharon's decision to deport Arafat. Through a symbolic vote, the image of the US was once again under fire. And among the 25 members of Greater Europe who implicitly criticised the US in this vote, a majority had, prior to the outbreak of the Iraq war, more or less supported the US option against France, Germany and Russia.
In the same logic of sabotaging US policy, the agreement between French, German and British foreign ministers to accept Iran's promises about controlling its nuclear programme was another embarrassment for the US. One of the aims of its offensive in Iraq has been to move towards the neutralisation and even the control of this strategically vital country - this is why Washington has been trying to impose the same kind of inspections regime on Iran as it did on Iraq. By playing the role of mediators with the Iranian regime, the European states are putting a spanner in America's works.
This fact, as well as the recent evolution of Britain's position on the autonomous European force, illustrates a characteristic of the period opened by the disappearance of imperialist blocs which the ICC highlighted at the time of the first Gulf war: "In the new historical period we have now entered - and this has been confirmed by the events in the Gulf - the world appears as an immense free for all, where the tendency of 'every man for himself' will come into its own, and alliances between states will have nothing like the stability they had in the period of the blocs, but will be dictated according to the needs of the moment" ('Militarism and Decomposition', IR 64).
The fact that this situation is unfavourable to the formation of new blocs and thus to the movement towards a third world war between major powers will not spare humanity from a plunge into barbarism: the wars and chaos of decomposing capitalism could, in the long run, equally result in runaway destruction and undermine any possibility of founding social life on a rational and harmonious basis. Capitalism has nothing to offer humanity; the only future is the worldwide communist revolution.
LC, 1/11/03.
At this year's Anarchist Bookfair there was a meeting devoted to 'direct action' against the war in Iraq. The ICC intervened at it because the question of war is a vital issue which has stirred up a lot of people, some searching for an anti-war struggle based on the working class and wanting to go beyond the 'official' protests and demonstrations. In the meeting much of the discussion focused on the tactics of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) within the Stop the War Campaign (STWC). From a 'direct action' point of view the SWP were energetic but tended to dominate meetings. Some thought that the SWP were boring, others didn't like the way that the SWP tended to criticise advocates of direct action as 'elitist' - a criticism that was taken to heart.
The reason for this discussion was the fact that the partisans of 'direct action' had decided to participate in the Stop the War Campaign over the last year. Although the reason for this decision was not put forward explicitly, the logic seemed to be that if you wanted direct action, then you didn't want to be sidelined during the massive demonstrations mounted since the start of the run-up to the attack on Iraq. They wanted to be 'with the masses'.
The ICC intervened to point out that the problem with the Stop the War Campaign was that it was part of the bourgeoisie's mobilisation for the Iraq war. It raises the banners of pacifism and democracy to lead workers into the arms of the ruling class. It defends an anti-American foreign policy for the British state, it defends the national bourgeoisie at the very moment it's advancing its interests with military means. Leading figures from the government such as Robin Cook and Clare Short expressed their 'anti-war' views in harmony with the more leftist opposition of the STWC.
The general reaction was that the ICC's intervention was 'bonkers'. However, it is a matter of record that the bourgeoisie always rolls out pacifist campaigns when it's preparing for war. It preaches harmony between classes with different interests, it says that 'peace' is wanted by all reasonable people. Like the Stop The War Campaign previous pacifist mobilisations have said that war is a specific policy of particular governments, rather than the result of capitalism's inherent imperialist appetites.
In International Review 113 we published an article by Trotsky from 1917 on "Pacifism as the servant of imperialism" in which he shows how pacifism presents a supposed alternative for those who are shaken by the prospect of military conflict, as part of the recruitment for imperialism. In Britain, for example, a figure like Lloyd George was noted as an opponent of the Boer War, as an advocate of disarmament and neutrality, condemning the march toward the outbreak of the First World War. Yet, with the German invasion of Belgium he took his place in the ranks of the unashamed warmongers, as Minister for Munitions, then War Secretary and then as the pacifist Prime Minister who directed the British war effort to victory.
Today, if you look at the Stop The War Campaign, you can see that what's wrong with the SWP or CND is not that they're 'boring' but in the politics they defend. The SWP defends particular policies for British imperialism, demands that the government put a different emphasis in its dealing with other countries. Although, in the case of Palestine for example, the SWP line up directly with the major battalions of the British bourgeoisie. With the CND there is a commitment to national defence that is quite explicit. It only argues against using nuclear weapons for the defence of the British state. The massacres of the First and Second World Wars become quite acceptable from this point of view - with the sole exception of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaskai.
So, both these groups defend British imperialist interests, and this underlines that the Stop the War Campaign cannot be taken at face value as an 'anti-war' group. Those supporters of 'direct action' who have enrolled in the STWC's meetings and demonstrations have, in their own terms, 'given in' to the 'mainstream'. 'Direct action' becomes just another facet of the bourgeoisie's democratic mystifications. After all, didn't Tony Blair himself invite the 'anti-war' movement to protest during Bush's visit - as a demonstration of their democratic rights, the democracy that Bush and Blair are currently trying to impose with force of arms on Iraq.
At the Anarchist Bookfair meeting there was some tentative support expressed for the ICC's position. There was a recognition that the ICC was pointing to 'contradictions' in the view being put forward by the defenders of direct action. Subdued and partial as this support undoubtedly was, it was important as a concrete expression of the fact that the working class will not inevitably be drowned in the pacifist mobilisations of the bourgeoisie - it is capable of putting forward a perspective based on the development of the class struggle and, therefore, of showing a real, effective class resistance to the bourgeoisie's wars.
Hardin, 4/12/03.
In the middle of 2002 there were intensive war preparations in the Indian subcontinent. Both the Indian and the Pakistani ruling cliques were on the verge of open war. Both these imperialist states resorted to an unprecedented mobilisation of arms, ammunition and soldiers on the international borders between the two countries. Both sides mobilised one million soldiers armed to the teeth with all sorts of lethal weapons. Threatening statements about using nuclear weapons were issued by some sections of the political authorities in both countries. The Indian bourgeoisie proved to be much more aggressive and seemed to be bent on going towards open war in response to the more hidden war through terrorist activities sponsored by the bourgeoisie of Pakistan. But the pressure of the 'international community', particularly the US, compelled the Indian bourgeoisie to call a temporary halt to the march to war.
Since May - June 2003 we have seen new 'peace' initiatives in the subcontinent, culminating in the current cease-fire declared by Pakistan and welcomed by India. The Indian Prime minister has been extending the 'hand of friendship' to his Pakistani counterpart. The Pakistani bourgeoisie and the state authority have been responding favourably to the peace overtures. 'Confidence-building' measures are being taken by both sides. Both sides have released some prisoners. Talks are going on to re-establish air, road, railway and sea links. Road links have already started functioning on a limited scale. Ambassadors have already returned, a year after they left or were compelled to leave the capital of the other country. In January the Indian Prime minister Vajpayee is due to visit Islamabad for the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, although so far New Delhi has ruled out any bilateral talks with Pakistan's leaders on the margins of the summit. Most recently, in November 2003, a cease-fire was declared that has so far held along the entire frontier of the disputed Kashmir region. So apparently the 'peace' initiative is gaining momentum in a border conflict which has left tens of thousands dead.
Can there be any real peace between these two imperialist states, whose very birth was from the womb of intensifying imperialist conflict - the epoch of capitalist decadence? Can there be any real peaceful and harmonious relations between any two capitalist states, all of whom are bound to be imperialist in this phase of the life of world capital? A loud NO is the only answer. War and 'peace', in decadent capitalist society are two inseparable aspects of the same imperialist strategy. 'Peace' in this epoch is nothing but a particular moment between two phases of open war. It is used by the warring imperialist states for the political and military preparation of a new, more dreadful and devastating war. 'Peace' and 'peace initiatives' are nothing but the continuation of war in a different form and are a very important part of the overall diplomatic offensive of one side against the other. There cannot be any real, permanent peace in dying capitalism.
In the Indian subcontinent 'peace' was always followed by outbreaks of open war. The Kargil war was preceded by the Lahore 'peace'. The Agra 'peace' was followed by the near war situation in January and June of 2002. The Tashkent 'peace' was followed by the bloody war of 1971, which resulted in the dismemberment of the eastern part of Pakistan and the formation of Bangladesh. Bangladesh was born as the product of the intensifying conflict between the two factions of the Pakistani bourgeoisie, of the imperialist conflict between the Indian and the Pakistani bourgeoisies, and the global battle between the US and Russian imperialist blocs. So war and 'peace' efforts are nothing but the two sides of the same imperialist coin. The needs of US imperialism
The latest 'peace' initiative cannot be any different. It is nothing but a cover for the intensifying imperialist conflict. It is inseparably linked with the ceaselessly intensifying diplomatic offensive of each against the other, aimed at enhancing the political standing of each in the eyes of the 'international community', particularly of the US super-boss after its spectacular and unilateral show of military muscle in the war in Iraq. These are nothing but complementary steps for furthering the cause of the future war. In June 2002, when war initiatives in the subcontinent were reaching a climax, the US left no stone unturned to prevent the outbreak of war and to maintain 'peace' in the region. 'Peace' in this part of the world is necessary for America's current global imperialist strategy. Its aim is to consolidate its strategic position in Afghanistan, Iraq and parts of central Asia. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan - with the extension and strengthening of armed attacks against the US-led forces of occupation - has further reinforced the USA's need for 'peace' in the subcontinent. So this imperialist juggernaut has to wear the robes of a peacemaker and resort to peace initiatives in certain strategic areas, in order to increase its ability to launch its military adventures elsewhere, and to intensify its offensive against its most dangerous potential rivals - Germany, France and other major powers.
It's much the same with other imperialist powers, whether large or small. We have seen the 'peace-mongering' role of the French, German, Russian and Chinese bourgeoisies in the last Iraq war, just as we have seen the more open war-mongering of the same major powers in other wars. In any case, the conflict between the lesser powers and the sole super-power, whether hidden or open, is bound to increase. The political authorities in India often speak of the double standards of the US when it comes to the struggle against international terrorism. The Indian bourgeoisie can neither totally support the imperialist policies of the US nor can it totally oppose them. But it is compelled to maintain relations with this military and economic giant, and the recent 'peace' initiative is very intimately linked with the strategy that Indian capitalism has to adopt in its relations with the US.
The audacious aggressiveness of the Indian bourgeoisie, with its insistence on open military confrontation with the Pakistani bourgeoisie, and the efforts of the latter to avoid open war with its Indian counterpart, have led to some diplomatic isolation of the Indian state in the 'international community'. The Indian ruling clique was not very successful in convincing the 'world community' with its endless claims that Pakistan is the sole source of terrorism, not only in Kashmir but also in other parts of India and abroad.
India is not the US. It has to bother a lot about the attitude of the 'international community'. The first and second Iraq wars and the current situation of the US have pushed the Indian state to take the 'peace' initiative. The Indian bourgeoisie has realised that it will have to pay very dearly for any open aggression against the Pakistani state without the consent of the 'international community', and of the US in particular. On top of this, the role of the Indian bourgeoisie in the Iraq war did not satisfy Washington. So the imperialist interests of the Indian bourgeoisie have obliged it to resort to the 'peace' initiative as the best bet in the present situation. This initiative got a sudden boost just before the visit to the subcontinent of Richard Armitage, the deputy US Secretary of State and a very important person in the Bush administration.
The Pakistani state also needs to please the US boss following the role it played during the Iraq war. Pakistan has indeed been identified internationally as a state which harbours Islamic terrorists and there have long been rumours of connections between the Pakistani secret services and gangs like al-Qaida. Moreover, the Pakistani bourgeoisie has learnt the bitter lessons from its past open wars against India. Hence the blossoming of 'peace' initiatives by both imperialist twins at the present moment. These initiatives also got a boost just after the return of the Indian defence minister from China following a "very successful and cordial trip". This minister has now made a series of statements that make him one of the most China-friendly politicians in the ruling clique. In the present international balance of forces, China is also encouraging both Pakistan and India to make 'peace', rather than reiterating its classic policy of playing Pakistan off against India. Growing tensions
But the undercurrent of inevitable imperialist tension, mutual suspicion and confrontation is gathering momentum just beneath the thin cover of peace initiatives. The Indian Prime Minister said in Switzerland on June 2, 2003, "Earlier we used to be asked to talk to Pakistan. Now the world is telling them to stop cross border terrorism". According to Brajesh Mishra, the national security adviser of India, "a core consisting of democratic societies has to gradually emerge from within our existing coalition, which can take on international terrorism in a holistic and focussed manner". The Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, said in an interview on 16th June 2003, "the problem with India is they are too conscious of their larger size and they believe in coercing their neighbours. They want to dictate terms to us, they want to dictate their version of a solution. We will not take that � let them not treat us like any small country around. We are a powerful nation". According to the political resolution of the BJP, the dominant political party in the ruling coalition of India, the basis for any dialogue with the Pakistani authority will be to get back that part of Kashmir that they call POK i.e. Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. According to a report in The Telegraph of 19th June 2003, India has blocked the entry of Pakistan into the high-profile Asean Regional Forum and the Indian foreign minister has played a crucial role in this. Mr Yashwant Sinha, from the ministry of external affairs of India, said in front of top armed forces officers and diplomats on 19th October 2003: "Who is friend and foe in this battle against terrorism is a critical question �if foes were allowed to masquerade as friends, the forces of global terrorism will never yield". He further added, "the penchant of some to deal with authoritarian regimes for short term gains will also remain short lived." The implications are quite clear. In the same meeting the Prime Minister of India spewed venom against the Pakistani bourgeoisie: "Does Pakistan have a democracy? Does it have an elected government? Those who rule at gun point are talking of rights of self-determination [in Kashmir]". The Statesman, a sophisticated newspaper of the Indian bourgeoisie, highlighted a news item with the title "Rocca blow for Islamabad". It is reported here that the US assistant secretary of state, Ms Christina Rocca, has said that India is a victim of terrorism and Pakistan should "redouble" its efforts to curb cross border infiltration.
As for the cease-fire, it has been timed as a propaganda exercise to coincide with Vajpayee's visit to Islamabad. Ershad Mahmud of the Institute of Policy Studies in Islamabad says "it is more symbolic than substantive". A member of the Kashmiri militant groups in Muzzafarabad voiced his suspicion of the cease-fire: "Pakistan may get some political benefit from the cease-fire because it initiated the move, but the real beneficiary is India, which will strengthen its positions and improve its bunkers" (Yahoo! News, 26.11.03). Once again imperialist peace paves the way to imperialist war.
Above all, the nuclear threat has by no means been removed. The Pakistani president Pervez Musarraf said in Seoul in South Korea on 7th November, 2003: "I think we are fully justified in developing our nuclear and missile capability because there was an external threat and if ever that threat arises in any other area�we will again respond to it in a similar manner in future also." The Indian Prime Minister said in London on 7th November: "it is a matter of concern for us as this programme (Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme) is unambiguously directed only against India". From all these glimpses, the reality of the 'peace initiative' is very clear.
Communist Internationalist, November 2003.
More and more people are becoming convinced that the world in which we live in is sliding towards barbarism.
War, terrorism, economic crisis, pollution, famine, disease, crime, drug addiction - the horsemen of the apocalypse seem to have gone forth and multiplied.
The bourgeoisie, its media and above all its politicians, still prattle on about peace and economic recovery and reforms. Their promises are less and less credible.
The problem for most people is not in understanding that this world is sick, even mortally ill. The problem is seeing the cause of the illness and its cure.
This is hardly surprising. There are so many false explanations. No hope in false explanations
Faced with a world that is rapidly descending into chaos, millions have turned to religion - to Islam, Christianity, the numerous New Age cults - to provide some hope. Many see the catastrophic state of the world as the fulfilment of ancient prophecies about the Last Days. But this flight into archaic mythologies is itself the expression of a decaying social system. And all the apocalyptic ideologies have one major feature in common: they reduce mankind to a passive plaything of divine forces, and are thus opposed to any rational understanding of the present mess, and thus to any solution based on conscious human action.
Many blame the problems of the world on individual leaders. The massive demonstrations against Bush's visit to Britain were largely animated by intense hostility to the particular individuals in the White House and at 10 Downing Street and the small cliques around them, as though some other leader or clique would follow a fundamentally different strategy for US or British imperialism. This is just the mirror image of blaming bin Laden or Saddam for all the terrorism and insecurity in the world.
But perhaps the most false of all false explanations is the current vogue for 'anti-capitalism', 'anti-globalisation' and 'alternative worldism', as typified by the huge European Social Form recently held in France. A strange 'anti-capitalism' this, which accepts enormous funds from the state (for example, over 2 million Euros were given to the Forum by the local governments of Paris and surrounding regions); which preaches, not the end of trade but 'fair trade'; which doesn't want nation states to be abolished but to be strengthened against the 'globalising power of the multinationals'; which declares that the 'alternative world' will be set up not by what Marx called the gravedigger of capitalism, the international working class, but by an amorphous mass of 'citizens' reclaiming their 'democratic rights'.
Every one of these explanations serves the interests of the existing social system, because every one of them diverts and obstructs any genuine search for the underlying cause of the sickness of present-day civilisation. The class which rules over this system, the bourgeoisie, will do everything in its power to hide this truth: that the current form of social organisation, the capitalist order that dominates the entire planet, has become not only an obstacle to further social, economic and cultural development, but a threat to the very survival of humanity. For workers' revolution
These false ideologies not only block any understanding of the cause, they also stand in the way of the cure: the revolution of the working class, a class that has the capacity to destroy lethal capitalism and establish a new society based on relations of solidarity. Capitalism is divided into a chaotic mess of national units defending their particular interests with every military means - the revolution of the international working class provides the basis for a single world community. Capitalism is an inherently crisis-ridden economy devoted to production for the profit of the bourgeoisie - the working class can establish an organisation of production undertaken for humanity's needs. Capitalism devotes its energies to the refinement and strengthening of its repressive state machine, whereas the overthrow of capitalism opens up the possibility of man "organising his political forces as social forces", as Marx put it.
Since the present organisation of society is utterly against the real interests of the vast majority of humanity and benefits only the tiny minority of exploiters who run it, it can't be reformed out of existence. It can only be replaced by a revolution which takes on the same programme in all countries: destruction of the capitalist state; establishment of the political power of the workers' councils; abolition of private property and of production for sale and profit.
What makes this so difficult is that it requires a break with all the habits, ethics, assumptions, and ideologies which are daily pumped into us by the existing order. It demands the theoretical clarity to see the bankruptcy of the existing social relations, and the political confidence of hundreds of millions of anonymous workers to take complete charge of the running of society.
Opponents of revolution from right to left denounce this as, at best, utopian and unrealistic, at worst, the bearer of new and even more terrible forms of chaos or tyranny.
But it is not a utopia - that is an abstract scheme coming from nowhere, the mere dream of isolated intellectuals. It is the logical culmination of the struggle of a very real force - the working class - against exploitation. And in spite of all the proclamations to the contrary, despite all its real difficulties, that struggle is more and more raising its head today.
At the end of the 1960s, the international class war returned after being prematurely dismissed during the post-war economic boom. There followed twenty years of waves of workers' struggles. Then, again, since the end of the 1980s there has been a demoralising propaganda barrage about the 'end of the class struggle'. And yet the recent outbreak of wide-scale movements against attacks on the social wage in Europe, the return of spontaneous strikes in Britain and other countries, confirm once again that the working class continues to react to the crisis of the system, of which it is the principal victim. However limited they may seem, today's defensive struggles contain the potential for the development of more massive, more conscious and more political struggles where the perspective of revolution is no longer seen as a utopia, but as the only realistic response of the working class to capitalism's drive to war and barbarism.
WR 6/12/03
What does it mean to defend internationalism? In the first two parts of this series, written by a close sympathiser of the ICC, we saw how revolutionaries in Britain stood up and opposed the First World War. In this part we look at how revolutionaries defended the international interests of the working class in the even more difficult conditions of the Second World War, which demanded an understanding of the balance of forces between the classes after the defeat of the revolutionary wave. It was particularly important for revolutionaries in this country to be clear about the real nature of democracy and the dangers of supporting it against fascism. The different responses of proletarian groups and elements provide both positive and negative lessons for revolutionaries today.
Proletarian political groups in Britain
By the Second World War there were very few proletarian political groups which had managed to survive the counter-revolution without betraying or succumbing to the effects of defeat and demoralisation.
The Communist Party (CP) had long ago betrayed the interests of the working class by adopting Stalin’s policy of ‘socialism in one country’, and had actively joined the bourgeoisie’s preparations for war by calling on the working class to mobilise in a ‘Popular Front’ with the main bourgeois parties and trade unions for a ‘just war’ against fascism (albeit with an abrupt change of line on the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact).
The original left communist opposition in the CP, around Sylvia Pankhurst and the Workers’ Dreadnought paper, had been expelled early on and disappeared in 1924. Among those groups and elements remaining either on a clearly proletarian terrain or in the more ambiguous swamp between the working class and the bourgeoisie were:
- the Socialist Party of Great Britain;
- some elements in the anarchist movement;
- the anti-parliamentary or council communists around the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation and Guy Aldred’s United Socialist Movement;
- the Trotskyists in the Revolutionary Socialist League (the official British section of the Fourth International), and the Workers’ International League.
What was the correct stance for revolutionaries to adopt on the war? In the face of a second threatened worldwide massacre the slogan raised by internationalists in 1914 was even more relevant: “Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!” (Lenin, 1914). In the face of the very real brutalities of the fascist regimes, and the massive use of anti-fascist ideology to mobilise workers for war, it was all the more vital for revolutionaries to warn the class against the no less brutal nature of bourgeois democracy and to affirm, in the words of Karl Liebknecht, that: “The enemy is in your own country!”
The example of the Vanguard group around John Maclean in the first world war still provided a model for revolutionaries in Britain: a refusal to support the bourgeoisie’s war effort and calls for the class war against British capitalism, through anti-war propaganda in the working class and intervention in every struggle for immediate demands, to at least try to develop a mass movement agaist the war.
Understanding the course of history
For the Italian Communist Left around the journal Bilan the victory of fascism in Germany marked a break in the revolutionary course which appeared in 1917 and a decisive turn towards the only capitalist outcome of its historic crisis: world war (1). The late 1930s saw a build up of military preparations and an extension of imperialist conflicts: the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the war in Spain, and the war between China and Japan. In this situation the watchword of Bilan was: “No betrayal!”
Trotsky, on the other hand, while defending the correct position that capitalism was in its death throes, drew the opposite conclusion; that the situation was pre-revolutionary, requiring only the necessary leadership, which the Fourth International – founded on the very eve of the world war – would provide. As we will see, this led his supporters to depart from the principle of internationalism - which Trotsky himself still clung to despite his opportunism - and to participate in the war.
Other proletarian political groups, while clinging to the principle of internationalism at least in words, did not defend it in practice, or found it very difficult to go beyond abstract slogans. The two questions that proved to be a ‘litmus test’ for these groups’ ability to defend internationalism were:
- whether democracy was in any way to be supported against fascism;
- whether all states were equally reactionary and therefore to be opposed.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain
The SPGB had adopted a social pacifist position in the First World War and sided with bourgeois democracy against the soviets in the Russian revolution.
In response to the war in Spain and the rise of fascism one part of the party called for the defence of democracy, basing itself on the SPGB’s own position that the revolution would be won through the democratic process, although the SPGB as an organisation took the position that “Democracy cannot be defended by fighting for it” (2). The SPGB’s 1936 pamphlet War and the Working Class declared war to be an inevitable product of capitalism and opposed any participation by the working class: “War...solves no problem of the working class. Victory and defeat alike leave them in the same position...They have no interest at stake which justifies giving support to war” (3).
In the issue of Socialist Standard following the declaration of war in 1939 the party’s executive committee printed a statement reiterating this position and denouncing both sides in the war. It expressed its concern at the “sufferings of the German workers under Nazi rule”, declared its wholehearted support for “the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights” but repeated its position on “the futility of war as a means of safeguarding democracy”. It called on workers to refuse to accept the prospect of war and “to recognise that only socialism will end war”, concluding by repeating the expression of “goodwill and socialist fraternity” to all workers that it had made in 1914.
In practice the SPGB made no attempt to oppose the war. From July 1940 onwards its paper carried no openly anti-war propaganda in order to avoid being suppressed by the state, apologising to its readers that “While we deeply regret having to adopt this course, we cannot see any workable alternative to it” (4). As a consequence Socialist Standard continued to appear throughout the war, filled with ‘historical’ and ‘theoretical’ articles, and the party continued to hold public meetings. It was left to the individual member whether to accept conscription or become a conscientious objector.
To summarise, the SPGB defended internationalism in words but not in practice. Its position was close to pacifism while its propaganda about ‘democratic rights’ added a small dose of mystification to the bourgeoisie’s own war propaganda.
The anarchists
In 1914, after a short struggle, the anarchist Freedom group had broken with Kropotkin over his pro-war stance and came out against the war. In the war in Spain the Freedom group and anarchists generally gave uncritical support to the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists of the CNT-FAI and their call for a united anti-fascist struggle, but at least one section took a more critical stance. In 1936 the journal Spain and the World, started by the Italian anarchist Vero Recchioni (Vernon Richards) later joined by Marie Louise Berneri, published criticisms of the CNT-FAI’s collaboration with the bourgeois Popular Front government (5).
On the outbreak of the second world war this same grouping started the journal War Commentary, which strongly denounced the pretence that the war was an ideological struggle between democracy and fascism, and the hypocrisy of the democratic allies’ denunciations of Nazi atrocities after their tacit support for the fascist regimes and for Stalin’s terror during the 1930s. Highlighting the hidden nature of the war as a power struggle between British, German and American imperialist interests, War Commentary also denounced the use of fascist methods by the ‘liberating’ allies and their totalitarian measures against the working class at home. In 1942, after a sordid deal by Churchill and Roosevelt with the ‘French Quisling’ Admiral Darlan, the paper ruthlessly exposed the democratic illusions of the bourgeois left:
“…it should be obvious to the Tribune that capitalists, politicians, generals and diplomats…have gone to war to defend the British Empire, ‘to hold our own’ as Churchill put it: they have gone to war to defend Christianity, that is to say the principles upheld by Franco and Co; they have gone to war to reinforce their position… If the allies’ victories continue, many more fascist rats will leave the Axis’ sinking ship, and be welcomed by the democratic camp. And that is as it should be. The rats who helped Mussolini to conquer Abyssinia, who helped Franco to crush the Spanish revolution (sic), who armed Japan against China, who bombed the Arabs and the Indians, come together when it suits them… Everywhere workers will understand that it is not through military or diplomatic victories that fascism will be crushed” (6).
But the paper’s perspectives for the working class remained rather abstract. It did call for international working class solidarity and the class struggle “as the only means for the workers to achieve control over their destiny” (7), but despite its clear analyses of international events and sharp exposés of democratic hypocrisy, War Commentary explicitly avoided any ‘slogans, manifestos and programmes’, claiming merely that: “Our policy consists in educating [the working class], in stimulating its class instinct, and teaching methods of struggle” (8). In this, it revealed its anarchist prejudices against centralised political organisation and intervention in the class struggle.
The council communists
During the depths of the counter-revolution some of the communist left’s positions were kept alive by those who called themselves ‘anti-parliamentary’ or ‘council’ communists, mainly regrouped in the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF) on Clydeside. Influenced by the surviving Dutch and German Left, but also by anarchism, these revolutionaries stubbornly continued to denounce the Labour Party and trade unions and to highlight the counter-revolutionary nature of the Stalinist regime in Russia.
But the APCF welcomed the election of the Spanish Popular Front government in 1936 and threw itself enthusiastically into support for the ‘Spanish struggle’, supporting the legal government against the flouting of ‘international law’ and urging protest strikes to pressure the British government into lifting its arms embargo, effectively taking sides in what was in reality an inter-imperialist struggle. The group also gave uncritical support to the CNT-FAI and co-operated with the Freedom group to publish a bulletin, Fighting Call, which reprinted without comment articles by the CNT-FAI and speeches by anarchist ministers in the bourgeois government. But some militants who went to Spain were more critical of the CNT-FAI leadership, rejecting the idea the ‘democratic’ capitalism was preferable to ‘fascist’ capitalism, and warning that anti-fascism was the “new slogan by which the working class is being betrayed” (9).
Before the war in Spain ended, the anarchists in the group split away and the APCF managed to avoid making the same errors at the outbreak of the Second World War. The APCF denounced the British democratic capitalists who used fascist methods against colonial workers and peasants, and warned against driving the Italian and German workers into the arms of their rulers by supporting British imperialism. Rejecting the slogan of ‘Victory for the Allied nations’ raised by a group of Indian nationalists, the APCF stated:
“We stand for the victory over Hitlerism and Mikadoism - by the German and Japanese workers, and the simultaneous overthrow of all the Allied imperialists by the workers in Britain and America. We also wish to see the reinstitution of the workers’ soviets in Russia and the demolition of the Stalinist bureaucracy. In a word, we fight for the destruction of all imperialism by the proletarian world revolution” (10).
The APCF thus remained faithful to the watchwords of internationalism, although its practical slogans remained abstract, for example calling on workers to demand that their ‘spokesmen’ organise a general strike against conscription on the eve of war (11). It is not clear whether the group engaged in any practical anti-war activity, but Solidarity provided informative coverage of the class struggle against the war abroad, via correspondents like the ex-Spartacist Ernst Schneider (‘Icarus’) who was a regular contributor (12). Later in the war, commenting on the trend for democratic capitalism to use totalitarian methods, the APCF did try to give a more practical perspective to the growing workers’ struggles:
“The only answer to fascism is the workers’ social revolution, by workers’ control, by immediately fighting conscription in all its phases, by building up workers’ committees in opposition to the boss and the trade unions; by building workers’ open forums, where the workers themselves can discuss and decide. By that method we can stem fascism and open up the road to workers’ power” (13).
But the main strength of the group was as a forum for diverse anti-war elements. For example, in the middle of the war Solidarity carried an important debate on the relationship between party and class, with contributions from Pannekoek and Paul Mattick. While remaining a heterogeneous grouping which was unable to decisively break from the influence of anarchism the APCF, unlike Guy Aldred’s grouping (14), was able to make a real contribution to the understanding of the Marxist movement in Britain on a number of important questions, including the change in period from ascendant to decadent capitalism and its implications for the proletariat’s struggle, and the capitalist and imperialist nature of the Russian state. Unlike the Trotskyist movement, which we shall examine in the next article, the council communists’ basic grasp of the principle of proletarian internationalism allowed them to pass the acid test of imperialist war, by refusing to support democratic anti-fascism and calling for class struggle against the capitalist system as a whole. MH
(To be continued)
1. See ICC pamphlet The Italian Communist Left 1926-45, p.69
2. Robert Barltrop, The Monument: The story of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, Pluto Press, 1975, p.99.
3. Quoted in War and Capitalism, SPGB, 1996.
4. David Perrin, The Socialist Party of Great Britain, Bridge Books, 2000, p.115.
5. These criticisms were by Camillo Berneri, Marie Louise’s father, who was editor of the Italian revolutionary anarchist paper Guerra di Classe and fought in Spain. In Barcelona, he discussed with delegates of the majority of Bilan - the only one of their contacts to have any positive results - before being murdered by the Stalinists during the May events of 1937 (see The Italian Communist Left, p.98). Vero Recchioni, later Vernon Richards, was a collaborator of Berneri.
6. War Commentary, December 1942, quoted in Neither East Nor West, selected writings by Marie Louise Berneri, Freedom Press, 1952, p.49.
7. War Commentary, August 1941, Ibid., p32.
8. War Commentary, December 1940, Ibid., p.19.
9. Workers’ Free Press, October 1937, quoted in Wildcat, Class War on the Home Front, 1986, p.29. The APCF also reprinted a denunciation of the counter-revolutionary actions of the CNT-FAI from International Council Correspondence, journal of the American council communist group
around Paul Mattick (‘”Tear Down the Barricades”’, Workers’ Free Press, September 1937, reprinted in Revolutionary Perspectives, no.1).
10. Solidarity, October-November l942, Wildcat, Op.Cit., p.51. At the same time this article did express support for the nationalists in their ‘fight for liberation from British imperialism’.
11. Solidarity, May 1939, in Wildcat, Op. Cit., p.40.
12.As a revolutionary sailor in the First World War, Schneider had taken part in the armed uprising in the German Navy, later writing an account of these events (The Wilhelmshaven Revolt by ‘Icarus’, first published by Freedom Press, 1944; Simian Press edition, 1975).
13. Solidarity, May 1944, Wildcat, Op. cit., p.57.
14. Guy Aldred’s United Socialist Movement, which was formed after an obscure split in the APCF in 1933, opposed the Second World War but lapsed into bourgeois pacifism, collaborating with dubious elements like the Duke of Bedford, an apologist for Nazism who advocated a negotiated peace with Hitler.
The once all-powerful dictator reduced to a haggard tramp who didn't even try to defend himself when he was caught, humiliated by filmed medical examinations and soon to be put on a very public trial: these images, broadcast all around the world, aren't neutral. They have been carefully set up and selected by the Bush administration.
The message is clear: the USA has done what it set out to do; it has made a prisoner out of one of the bloodiest tyrants on the planet. Bush and co. have scored a point in the war against terrorism. Didn't Bush himself say in September that "Iraq is the central front in the war against terrorism"? This coup has come at such an opportune moment for the US that we are entitled to ask whether or not the moment to close in on Saddam was itself carefully chosen by the occupying power.
At the point that Saddam fell into the hands of the US, it had been becoming more and more evident that the US army was stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, completely unable to stabilise the situation. Not a day passed without a terrorist attack on the coalition forces. The attacks had even spread beyond Iraq, to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and so on. The US had been obliged to alter its attitude towards its main imperialist rivals, in particular Germany, France and Russia. This is why they sent Colin Powell to negotiate with these powers about assisting the US to substantially disengage from Iraq before November 2004. Even a 'hawk' like Rumsfeld has publicly supported this idea - the decision is supposed to be taken in June 2004 at the NATO summit in Istanbul next June. Countries like France, Germany and Belgium did not openly come out against this US request; in fact they were quick to say that "was something presented as an idea to think about". Meanwhile at the NATO summit in Brussels, the bargaining came out into the open: German, French and Belgian forces would take part in the Iraq operation if the US accepted the creation of independent European structures within NATO. The announcement that France, Germany, Russia and Canada would not be allowed to bid for contracts in the 'reconstruction' of Iraq could not hide the fact that the USA was losing the initiative in the global inter-imperialist conflict.
The capture of Saddam, however, enabled Bush to savour some revenge. It will certainly give a boost to the 'hard line' position of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. As the former French foreign minister Hubert Vedrines put it, "with this capture, the Americans have recovered political authority and legitimacy". It will also allow the US to regain the initiative at the diplomatic level. The Bush administration is for the moment in a more favourable position to push countries like France to accept a freeze or moratorium on Iraqi debt. It will also help to improve the international image of the American-backed interim Iraqi government. In Europe, countries like Spain and Poland, which have been accused of sabotaging the accord on the European constitution, will also benefit along with other countries like Britain and Italy that participated in the war. For the moment, the French-German couple has been weakened. This arrest has really come as the perfect Christmas present for the USA.
The USA's position has also been greatly strengthened by the almost simultaneous announcement that Libya has agreed to give up its own 'weapons of mass destruction' - in effect, to return to some degree of international respectability. Britain's defence secretary Geoff Hoon immediately touted this new deal as proof of the correctness of the war-like approach to Iraq: "We showed, after Saddam Hussein failed to cooperate with the UN, that we meant business and Libya - and I hope other countries - will draw that lesson" (Guardian, 22.12.03). In Iraq, as elsewhere, capitalism can only lead humanity into barbarism
However, we didn't have to wait long before there were new terrorist attacks in Iraq - in fact they came the day after Saddam's arrest was announced. Whoever carried them out, they prove that nothing has been resolved. The rivalries between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, brought to the surface by the collapse of the Saddam regime and sharpened by the US occupation, can only worsen in the future. The Iraqi population will also benefit very little from the much-heralded 'reconstruction' This will largely be limited to state and transport infrastructures and the restoration of order in the oil fields - all of which obeys the needs of imperialist strategy or state repression and has nothing to do with ensuring the welfare of the population. Despite the momentary strengthening of the USA, the perspective in Iraq, just as in Afghanistan, is one of chaos, misery and desolation.
As for the current reinforcement of the US position, the capture of Saddam is a double-edged sword: as the chaos continues to spread, it will no longer be possible to put it all down to Saddam working in the shadows Indeed it will be even more obvious that the principal factor of destabilisation is the US intervention itself, and this will no doubt be exploited to the full by the USA's main rivals. In any case, whatever form the future American military presence in Iraq may take, whatever the degree of involvement of the European powers, the tensions between the USA and its European rivals in the region can only dramatically increase.
Revolutionaries have to denounce all the hypocritical speeches that claim that stability and peace are possible in this society. If the working class is not yet in a position to prevent the development of wars and barbarism across the world, it is still the only force that can prevent this barbarism reaching its ultimate conclusion - the destruction of humanity.
Bird, 20/12/03.
We are seeing the return of the wildcat strike, with unofficial walkouts in the post and the civil service, by fire-fighters and by BA workers at Heathrow. In the context of the developments in the struggle of the working class internationally this year, and particularly the large strikes and demonstrations against the attacks on pensions in France and Austria (see WR 266 and IR 114), this is a small sign of increasing militancy.
Workers face many open enemies in these struggles, including the bosses and the government and the more devious enemy of the unions. Even more dangerous are those who would condemn the development of militancy and class consciousness to a dead-end; not with faint praise, but with absurd cries of victory: 'Postal workers 1st class victory' and 'We've given Royal Mail a good hiding' screamed the headlines in Socialist Worker 8/11/03 with the article stating "Victory! At last, a real victory by a big group of workers against a very important employer." Really?!
The reality of the recent postal workers' strike is very far from the great victory presented by SW. Workers walked out over the demand for increased London weighting, but on this aspect of the 'real victory' SW is silent as the grave. It spread because of management provocation, as workers were immediately "faced with a wave of intimidation, bullying and enforced changes to working practices by local managers. Those who have refused to accept the changes have been suspended. Their fellow workers have walked out on unofficial strike in solidarity" (WR 269). Unsorted mail was sent to other offices leading to solidarity strikes in other areas.
If we have any doubts that the provocation was carried out by the bosses acting in concert with the government, we only have to look at the way the same policy of provocation is being carried out in other industries. For instance, the Department of Work and Pensions has imposed a wage settlement even before there was a ballot, and at a time when the main civil service union, the PCS, is balloting its members on national pay bargaining. Workers walked out on strike. Fire-fighters, faced with the provocation of half their meagre pay increase being deferred, walked out on a wildcat strike answering only 999 calls. Strengthening the union against the workers
At first sight it may seem insane for the government and employers to provoke wildcat strikes at a time when we are seeing a new development of militancy, but they have a clear strategy. "What's at stake in the post office isn't just the question of making it more competitive economically at the workers' expense. The postal workers have in the last two decades established themselves as the most militant sector of the entire working class in Britain" (WR 269). The ruling class is provoking workers to struggle to teach the whole class a lesson.
Let us go back to the Socialist Worker and its presentation of the 'good hiding' suffered by Royal Mail: "Union busting charter smashed", "Bosses must negotiate NOT impose change", and the six points management insisted strikers sign up to before they could return to work have been withdrawn for the moment and will be discussed with the union. In other words, workers who originally struck for pay, or to defend working conditions, or in solidarity with other workers, were left appearing to rely on the CWU to negotiate conditions in which it was possible for them to return to work without the immediate imposition of a whole barrage of new attacks. Attacks which will only be brought in after negotiation. And make no mistake, the Royal Mail intends to complete the 30,000 planned job losses (17,000 of which have already been achieved) and the brutal increases in productivity envisaged in the 'Way Forward' national agreement.
Although the postal workers were too angry and too militant to be held to a limited, legal strike delayed by a postal ballot, they were not yet strong enough to break the bounds of the union altogether. It was an open secret that the CWU was in fact controlling the strike through its 'rank and file' apparatus of workplace representatives and officials. Management demands for an end to time granted for union activity only added weight to the notion pushed by both mainstream and leftist media according to which the union takes the credit for workers' militancy, and the leftists add that the strike was to defend the union against attack.
If we look only at the immediate result of the postal workers' strike than we find that it is the unions that achieved the 'real victory', not the workers. We need to look beyond the immediate result. The turning point in the class struggle
By provoking workers in many different sectors the government and bosses are showing that they need to force through the economic attacks necessitated by the crisis. But we also need to understand what it tells us about the overall development of the class struggle.
"The ruling class is fully aware of the threat posed by the working class. The capitalist state has a whole apparatus for dealing with workers' actions: the trade unions, democracy, leftists, courts, police, etc. Nonetheless, its greatest fear is that the workers will develop their class identity and on the basis of this begin to pose political questions about the nature of capitalism, and the need for an alternative" ('Turning point in the international class struggle [113]', WR 269). By class identity we mean the recognition by workers that they are part of a class with common interests to defend. The nature of the attacks being imposed provides the basis for this, particularly when those attacks, involving the intensification of exploitation and growth of mass unemployment, are repeated in industry after industry all over the world, or involve the dismantling of social buffers such as health and pensions. In addition, the attacks on pensions, whether in France, Austria or the civil service in Britain, pose the question of what future capitalism can offer those who have put up with a lifetime of exploitation.
For nearly a decade and a half the bourgeoisie has benefited from the propaganda campaign it developed using the collapse of the Eastern European countries and the Russian imperialist bloc to tell us that workers must remain within the framework of the unions and democracy or their class struggle would lead inevitably to the most brutal Stalinist state capitalism. This lie is no longer so effective in holding back the development of struggles and the sense of class identity that goes with them.
It is no longer enough for the ruling class to divide workers up between those in the capital and those in the rest of the country with the issue of London weighting (as for teachers, council workers, postal workers) or members of different unions (in schools, railways) or different enterprises or bargaining units (civil servants are divided into 170 such units, the break up of British Rail into different concerns). The militancy and the solidarity expressed in the post and other strikes recently illustrates this point.
Despite the fact that the post strike was provoked by the ruling class at a time that suited them, that it has been used to create a propaganda to strengthen the unions, it has been an important sign of the increasing militancy in the working class world wide today. It is that militancy and the massive struggles that it engenders, which will lead to the development of the class identity that is so important in the further development of class consciousness.
Alex, 6/12/03.
Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#note_01
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#note_02
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#note_03
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#note_04
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#note_05
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/255_pmdefence.html
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#note_06
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#note_07
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#back_01
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#back_02
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#back_03
[12] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#back_04
[13] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#back_05
[14] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#back_06
[15] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_pci_2.htm#back_07
[16] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/bordigism
[17] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/internal-fraction-icc
[18] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/pacifism
[19] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/war-iraq
[20] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/135/internationalism
[21] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftn1
[22] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftn2
[23] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftn3
[24] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftn4
[25] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftn5
[26] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftnref1
[27] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftnref2
[28] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/108_machiavel.htm
[29] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftnref3
[30] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftnref4
[31] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/261_terrorism.html#_ftnref5
[32] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_decomposition
[33] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/32/decomposition
[34] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/terrorism
[35] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/50/united-states
[36] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/186/imperialism
[37] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/historic-events/world-war-ii
[38] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/germany
[39] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/20/parliamentary-sham
[40] https://en.internationalism.org/259_bali.htm
[41] https://en.internationalism.org/262_bali_reply.htm
[42] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/readers-letters
[43] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/asia
[44] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/war
[45] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/france
[46] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/ivory-coast
[47] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/australasia
[48] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/economic-crisis
[49] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/262_infraction.htm#note_01
[50] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/262_infraction.htm#note_02
[51] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/262_infraction.htm#note_03
[52] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/262_infraction.htm#back_01
[53] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/262_infraction.htm#back_02
[54] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/262_infraction.htm#back_03
[55] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/parasitism
[56] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_01
[57] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_02
[58] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_03
[59] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_04
[60] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_05
[61] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_01
[62] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_02
[63] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_03
[64] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_04
[65] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_05
[66] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/chechnya
[67] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/internationalist-anarchism
[68] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/socialist-workers-party
[69] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/public-meetings
[70] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/britain
[71] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/class-struggle
[72] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#note_01
[73] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#note_02
[74] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#note_03
[75] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#note_04
[76] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#back_01
[77] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#back_02
[78] https://en.internationalism.org/262_infraction.htm
[79] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#back_03
[80] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/264_15cong.htm#back_04
[81] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/congress-resolutions
[82] https://en.internationalism.org/261_ppm_against_war.htm
[83] https://en.internationalism.org/250_nwbcw.htm
[84] https://en.internationalism.org/249_nwbcw.htm
[85] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/correspondance-other-groups
[86] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/nwbcw
[87] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/262/environment
[88] http://www.ibrp.org
[89] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/communist-workers-organisation
[90] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/development-proletarian-consciousness-and-organisation/left-opposition
[91] http://www.pro.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/aftermath/p-iraq.htm
[92] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/58/palestine
[93] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/history-workers-movement/1953-east-germany
[94] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/intervention
[95] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/images/mclean.jpg
[96] https://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201403/9573/1914-labour-and-unions-mobilise-workers-war
[97] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/270_rev_against_war_03.html
[98] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/historic-events/world-war-i
[99] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/267_usiraq.htm#note_01
[100] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/267_usiraq.htm#back_01
[101] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/anti-globalisation
[102] https://en.internationalism.org/267_snitches.htm
[103] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/sweden
[104] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/267_rev_against_war_01.html
[105] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/28/306/struggle-britain-against-imperialist-war
[106] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/development-proletarian-consciousness-and-organisation/british-communist-left
[107] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/13/marxism-theory-revolution
[108] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/128/historic-course
[109] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/official-anarchism
[110] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/61/india
[111] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/144/pakistan
[112] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/images/marieberneri.jpg
[113] https://en.internationalism.org/269_turning_point.htm