Through his exposes and his contributions to the discussions, Cajo Brendel proved, in our opinion, that the 'classic' positions of the German-Dutch left have lost none of their relevance even if, as Brendel asserted, along with Marx, "our theory is not a dogma but a guide to action". As has long been the case with, what can be called "the Dutch can be called "the Dutch school of marxism", which was animated by, among others, Anton Pannekoek and Hermann Gorter, comrade Brendel denounced the bourgeois character of parliamentarism, the trade unions, and social democracy, and the state capitalist nature of the former eastern bloc. And while the state capitalist currents like Stalinism and Trotskyism have welcomed the new "Red-Green" government in Germany as a step forward for the working class, Brendel showed the profoundly anti-working class nature of this government.
With regard to the "voluntarism" that has become fashionable today, Brendel explained that it's not enough just to want the revolution. Revolution presupposes the objective economic and social crisis of the system.
Understanding the 20th century and the question of determinism
Cajo Brendel's positions gave rise to some controversial discussions, as was his intention. The question was raised of integrating the major events of the 20th century into an overall understanding of the historic period and of the balance of forces between the classes. For Brendel, a victorious proletarian revolution in Spain in the 1930s was not possible above all because modern capitalism had not yause modern capitalism had not yet arrived in Spain (for a detailed presentation of Brendel's position on Spain, see the pamphlet (written with Henri Simon) "From anti-Francoism to after-Francoism: political illusions and the class struggle" - Editions Spartacus).
For Brendel, there are certain parallels between Spain in the 30s and Russia in 1917: in both cases these were bourgeois revolutions.
A participant remarked that Spain in the 1930s was still an essentially agrarian country but that agriculture like industry functioned on a capitalist basis. The main criticism of Brendel's conception, for whom the bourgeois revolution was still on the agenda at that time in Spain, was raised by comrades of the former group "The Social Revolution is not a Party Matter" (founded in Germany after 1968, this group was in its time the first left communist organisation in Germany for decades, even if it only had an ephemeral existence). These comrades declared that Cajo Brendel was only seeing the events in themselves, isolated from the international and historical framework. The question of why the workers' struggles in Spain had not given rise to workers' councils and were doomed to defeat can only be explained with reference to the international situatince to the international situation. The workers' councils in Russia, in Germany and central Europe which arose at the end of the first world war, the comrades argued, proved that the proletarian revolution was on the agenda, not locally but on a world scale.
The comrades in Berlin subjected Brendel's position to another important criticism: the fact that the revolutionary struggle ended in defeat does not in itself mean that the proletarian revolution is not on the historical agenda. There cannot be a proletarian revolution without the objective conditions for it being ripe. But objective conditions alone are not enough to guarantee its success. By underestimating the question of the development of revolutionary consciousness within the working class - a consciousness which in 1917-18 was on the rise but then clearly went into retreat (this was the reason why the Spanish workers could relatively easily be mobilised onto the terrain of bourgeois democracy) - Cajo Brendel, in our opinion, is the victim of a determinist conception.
At this public meeting, the ICC declared itself to be in agreement with the former Social Revolution comrades. In fact, the council communist branch of the communist left, as defended by Cajo Brendel, had, on the question of the Russian ree question of the Russian revolution, fallen into the old conception of Kautsky and the Mensheviks, according to which, owing to the backward state of Russia in 1917, only a bourgeois revolution was on the agenda at the time. But all the revolutionaries of that period, whether Lenin and Luxemburg or Bordiga and Pannekoek, knew that the only possible revolution was the world proletarian revolution.
At the public meeting entitled 'Council communism against Bolshevism', held in Berlin, one participant rightly criticised the theory of 'the collapse of capitalism' which, in the 1920s, led a part of the German-Dutch left to wait for a sudden and objective paralysis of capitalist economic activity on such a scale that the proletariat would be more or less forced to make the revolution. This conception also underestimates the role of class consciousness.
The events in Spain and the decadence of capitalism
The ICC's intervention at the public meeting on the war in Spain focused on the defence of the attitude of the Italian and Dutch left communists towards these events. Both the Italian Fraction in exile around the review Bilan, and the Gruppe Internationale Kommunisten in Holland explained that both the fascist explained that both the fascists under Franco and the Popular Front of the bourgeois left were enemies of the proletariat, and that the contribution of the Stalinists and of the anarchists of the CNT to this defeat was considerable. Bilan and the GIK agreed on the fact that it was no longer the bourgeois revolution that was on the agenda but a bourgeois counter-revolution.
But even Cajo Brendel's group at that time, which published the review Proletarier in the Hague, strictly refused to support the anti-fascist Popular Front. These were the political foundations for the defence of proletarian internationalism - in continuity with Lenin, Liebknecht and Luxemburg - by the communist left during the second world war. We asked Cajo Brendel to take a position on our presentation on the attitude of the left communists. He replied, without going into details, that the starting point of these currents had not been the struggle against both fronts but how to fight fascism in the most effective way. In a letter in which he took position on the first draft of this article dealing with his visit to Germany, Cajo Brendel was more precise about his attitude towards the role of the anarchists in Spain: "It was not the CNT which abandoned the working class but certain anarcho-syndicalist ministers".
Because of this it seems to us that Brendel's view represents a step backwards, not only in relation to the GIK but also to his own position at the time. For us, this political weakness is linked to the rejection of the theory of decadence. When the Communist International was founded in 1919, all the marxists shared the conception that capitalism had entered into its period of decline since 1914. With the victory of the counter-revolution, and above all after the second world war, parts of the communist left - Bordigists as well as council communists - abandoned the theory of decadence.The question of class consciousness
At the meeting on councilism and Bolshevism, Brendel encountered lively opposition to his assertion that the more workers become conscious, the more they move away from their material interests. Such conceptions, in our view, show the degree to which council communism today has distanced itself from the basic approach of Pannekoek, for whom class consciousness and self-organisation were the only weapons of the working class. And, while the original German-Dutch left passionately supported the necessity for an organised and centralised intervention by revolutionaries, the contemporary viaries, the contemporary view of council communism is that class consciousness only appears and develops in a local, immediate way in day-to-day struggles(1). In this conception, while the unification of revolutionaries in a particular organisation is not excluded, neither is it seen as being very important.
A positive balance sheet
For us, the balance sheet of this series of public meetings organised by Brendel is a positive one. It succeeded it bringing the positions of the communist left to a wider public. Moreover, an authentic image of proletarian discussion was given in these meetings, totally different from the Stalinist and Trotskyist policy of manoeuvring and sabotaging debate. Cajo Brendel, the ICC, the former Social Revolution members, and other sympathisers of the proletarian political milieu, were able to make a common defence of the positions of the communist left. Cajo Brendel's attitude to the discussion was open, polemical, fraternal, and thus profitable to political clarification.
These public meetings not only provided a focus for clarification, but also for political combat. The ruling class followed attentively Brendel's visit to Germany and was prepared for it. Representatives of the lefr it. Representatives of the left wing of capital were present in numbers, but for the most part did not openly intervene under their bourgeois flags. Instead they did all they could to prevent discussion on the historic significance of the political positions of the communist left by diverting attention towards the errors of council communism today.
This fact was a determining element in all the interventions by our organisation. There are of course numerous disagreements between the ICC and Brendel's group Daad en Gedachte; we have debated them publicly in the past and we will continue to do so in the future. But for us what was essential at this meeting was to proclaim and defend together our common political heritage. For us, Cajo Brendel is a part of the proletarian political milieu, a comrade of the communist left. It was thus vital to stand together against the bourgeoisie's attacks and slanders, its attempts to stifle debate. It was vital to prevent the bourgeoisie from hijacking the left communist tradition in order to distort it and emasculate it.
Up till recently the German bourgeoisie has tended to present the German-Dutch left as a radical curiosity of the past, a museum piece of merely academic interest. Recently however the ruling class has identified the ruling class has identified the communist left as a major political enemy. Only a few years ago big European dailies such as Le Monde or the Zeitung Frankfurter Allgemeine put out whole pages of slanders against Amadeo Bordiga's internationalist attitude towards the second world war. And indeed, the resolute defence of internationalism during the war in Spain and the second world war, when anarchism and Trotskyism betrayed the proletarian cause, is the primordial and common characteristic of our tradition - whether we are talking about the 'Dutch', 'Italian' or 'French' left.
And as the events in Iraq and the Balkans show, capitalism today is plunging deeper and deeper into militarism and war. As always in such periods, the 'comrades without a country', the consistent proletarian internationalists, are the most dangerous enemies of the bourgeoisie. We are proud of it.
(from Weltrevolution 92, ICC paper in Germany)
(1) We sent the draft of this article to comrade Brendel so he could make sure that his positions had been accurately represented. It was important for us to avoid any misunderstandings which could only take the debate in a false direction. As regards his position on class consciousness at this series of meetings, comrade Brendel wrote to as follows: "It is really ridiculous to say that 'the question of revolutionary class consciousness within the working class' was omitted. I discussed this the first evening with one of the young women present. I again raised it another evening. Perhaps the ICC people were not present. But it is necessary to avoid such affirmations".
But these events are also the product of the collapse of the eastern bloc ten years ago, which ended the period of the two imperialist blocs around the USA and the USSR. They are a new manifestation of the tendency towards chaos and 'every man for himself' which has grown more and more marked since then, and has given rise to an explosion of nationalism across the globe.
Indonesia's place in the period of the blocs and after
Up until the last decade, Indonesia was a strategic bastion of the western bloc in this region, against the USSR but also against China. Despite the ferocious repression against the pro-Chinese Indonesian Communist Party in 1965 (which left 500,000 dead), the west's fear that general Sukharno (who had proclaimed himself "president for life" in 1963) would succumb to Chinese pressure led to him being replaced by another bloody dictator, Suharto, in 1966, through a coup d'Etat engineered by the USA. This was also the reason why, in 1975, at the time of Indonesia's brutal invasion of East Timor in 1975 - a real bloodbath which claimed 200,000 victims, and which had the aim of preventing the accession to power of the Moscow-backed movement for the independence of Timor (Freitilin) - not one state in the western camp objected, even if the UN refused to formally recognise the annexation.
Since the disappearance of the Russian threat, Indonesia can no longer play the same role of gendarme for the western bloc in the region. But it is a huge archipelago which remains at the heart of a highly important strategic zone, linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans. This is why the USA still aims to maintain its control over this country. To do tcontrol over this country. To do this it was necessary for the US to allow the departure of Suharto following the riots of 1998. These were the consequence of the financial crash which shook the so-called 'emerging economies' of east Asia in the autumn of 1997; more particularly they were the product of the drastic austerity plan imposed by the IMF in exchange for emergency aid to save Indonesia from bankruptcy. It soon became clear that the democratic halo around Suharto's successor Habibie is just a bluff.
In Indonesia, the same old mafia-type clique, still dominated by Suharto's cronies, continues to hold power via the army. When you consider for example that over 40% of the land in East Timor is the property of Indonesian generals, and that they have held onto this land through a real reign of terror, you can appreciate the level of corruption that is the norm in this and similar countries.
Imperialist gangsters large and small
But it's not simply because Indonesia is run by a bunch of gangsters that its government has unleashed such a level of violence in East Timor. This behaviour is dictated by the simple need to defend national imperialist interests, because if the Indonesian state lets part of Timor go, the whole of Int of Timor go, the whole of Indonesia would face the threat of implosion. Its fragile unity is based on a patchwork quilt of islands that host different ethnic groups, different religions and different cultures, with different colonial histories. The secession of East Timor would be a big encouragement for other islands or provinces where pro-independence 'troubles' have already broken out, notably Aceh, Riau and Irian-Jaya. This is why Indonesian imperialism has carried out this ruthless massacre: to discourage the others.
But neighbouring Australia, which is heading the anti-Indonesian crusade and which makes up the bulk of the UN intervention force in East Timor, is not animated by any nobler intentions. When we recall that Australia is the only state to have recognised the annexation of East Timor in 1975, we can see the real meaning of this sudden change of tune. It's simply that Australia is taking advantage of the situation and the difficulties of its imperialist rival Indonesia to try and take its place as the new regional overlord. By playing on the fact that it has up till now been a faithful ally of the US, the Australian state is making sure that its own national interests are being advanced, even if its intervention through the UN has been blessed by the White House.
But these mafia methods don't end there. All the great powers who are presenting themselves as the champions of democracy and human rights have once again revealed their duplicity. After a period of almost total silence by the main protagonists of the murderous intervention in Yugoslavia, the first statements of position were in favour of non-intervention. The US defence secretary, William Cohen, declared on 8 September:
"We must be selective about the places where we commit our forces and in the current circumstances this is not a place where we are prepared to commit our troops". As for the British foreign secretary Robin Cook, one of the most ardent war-mongers over Kosovo, he was saying on 5 September that "no one in the world is ready to land in force in East Timor".
All the great powers were unanimous: military intervention was "too dangerous". What hypocrisy! We only have to think back to the rapid dispatch of US marines to Somalia in 1992, a country completely riven by civil war between rival gangs, to see that this argument is just an alibi.
The real reason for their equivocation is that most of them have no interest in the break-up of Ino interest in the break-up of Indonesia, especially the US. On the contrary, their deliberate policy faced with the well-planned and predictable massacres was to let the Indonesian government do the dirty work of crushing the Timorese in order to issue a warning to other islands in the archipelago and dissuade other independence movements. The long-delayed intervention by the UN, two weeks after the battle, aimed at bolstering the great powers' image as defenders of democracy and peace, was a real illustration of their cynicism. What's more, while much of East Timor is in ruins and deserted by its inhabitants, the UN has left intact the armed bases of the militias in West Timor, a legal Indonesian territory, where these armed gangs continue to terrorise the population, above all because so many people were pushed into the trap of fleeing to the western part of the island.
The USA was not able to prevent the UN - and behind it, the USA's European rivals - from taking the initiative for the 'peacekeeping' force in Kosovo. It was the UN which took the initiative last May in organising the referendum on the independence of East Timor, which was a real provocation for Indonesia. It is again the UN which has taken responsibility for the intervention in East Timor. And if we have seen European states like France using ropean states like France using UN flags to proclaim "the inalienable right of the Timorese people to self-determination and independence", it is because, behind this humanitarian blather, they are out to challenge and destabilise American domination in a region which was for many years in the colonial orbit of the European states.
All the speeches and promises made ten years ago about the opening of a new era of peace have been proven to be nothing but lies. We saw this with the Gulf war, then with the successive conflicts which tore Yugoslavia to shreds, or with the genocides on the African continent. In all the strategic areas of the planet - and now this is also the case around the Asian continent, as the intervention in East Timor shows - the great powers are compelled to step in, each one to ensure the defence of their own imperialist interests. All their humanitarian language is just a pretext for this, and it is an increasing number of local populations who are paying the bloody price.
CB
Rwanda, the Congo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Kosovo and now East Timor. As the world watches, yet another carefully pre-planned mass slaughter is enacted, even before the blood is dry at the site of the last one. Thousands -perhaps tens of thousands- have been butchered. This time, however, it is not happening 'far away', but right on Australia's doorstep, and in a place where Australian capitalism has long, intimate connections.
Australia will lead the multinational military force to intervene in East Timor. This will be a long and bloody affair. "On long and bloody affair. "Once the commitment has been made, it will be years before all the Australians can come home", a defence official has warned (The Age, 9 Sept. 1999). But it will all be worth it, we are assured: this crusade would "restore peace and security in East Timor" (The Australian, 13 Sept.).
The Labor Party, the trade unions and the leftist groups have been even more vociferous in their support for such intervention. And the media relentlessly reminds us that more East Timorese are being murdered daily. Democratic Australia is opposing the butchers of Jakarta, and for once was unafraid to stand up to even the united states. So what's wrong?
Canberra's bloody Jakarta connection
There can be no doubt that thousands of East Timorese civilians have been slaughtered by Jakarta's armed gangs. But Canberra is not the innocent bystander it claims to be. As with all capitalist war drives, this one is also based on convenient memory lapses, not to mention outright lies. 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 Wa="-1" face="Arial">During World War II, Australian imperialism fought part of its war with Japan using 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. It has done the same to the current gang of Habibie, Alatas and Wiranto. When you're on a winner, stick to it!
The fraud of 'democracy'
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. Indeed, since that time, military tensions, genocidal massacres and wars have only multiplied.
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 can only bring more bloodshed with its plans to lead an international force of 'peacekeepers'.
Yet not only the Liberal/National Party Coalition, but also the Labor Party and the Democrats, the ACTU [Australian Confederation of Trade Unions] and the leftist groups say the opposite. Can the capitalist leopard really change its spots?
East Timor's misery - Canberra's opportunity!
The tThe 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 has caused a major embarrassment to an over-stretched US on this issue, not to mention severely disturbed Washington's cosy relationship with Jakarta.
The stakes are big for Australia. Indonesia is the world's forth 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 who never asked to be there, workers and peasants in uniform. And that is without reckoning on the chilling possibility of an escalating conflict which spreads to other Indonesian territories. Like all wars this century, the major casualties will be civilians.
Once again capitalism is showing us its real face: an endless barbarism, good only for death and destruction. Wars are not caused by 'bad' or 'weak' world leaders. 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 seeminglynations, pushing them to seemingly endless military confrontations. The more the crisis deepens -as we are seeing right now- the more capitalism will wallow in blood, and the closer war will come to the developed countries.
Kosovo repeats itself
The countries who recently made war against Yugoslavia hypocritically claim that this was urgently necessary to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Kosovars. This lie relied upon 'forgetting' that it was the NATO invasion itself which provided Belgrade with the best excuse - and practical opportunity - to do this.
Similarly, in East Timor, it is much the same powers who helped create the conditions for the present massacre. 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 this year, 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 admiYet, as PM Howard has since admitted, Australian troops have 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.
What can be done?
The purpose of the media campaign is to make the workers feel helpless in the face of the ferocity of the massacres, and to create active support for an armed Australian intervention. It also wants to make us feel grateful that we live in such an enclave of capitalist democracy, surrounded by countless bloodthirsty Third World despots.
The ACTU, the Labor Party and others have taken up the government's campaign for military intervention in East Timor. They have picked up the media's theme of 'helplessness', with their own hopeless slogan of 'do something'. Meanwhile, the so-called 'revolutionary left' intones its usual theme of 'no confidence' in such an intervention - while fundamentally supporting it. The leftists also work to divert away from a working class solution, by pushing the deadly illusion of an 'independent East Timor' - as if any country can be independent of the machinations of the great powers today.
It is a convenient distribution of labour: the mainstream political forces seek to recruit the ordinary workers, while the leftists sing the same tune in a more militant octave, to attempt to draw in those militant elements who might otherwise have misgivings. It is a blood-soaked, capitalist campaign on all sides.
Fixing a problem requires going to its roots. The cause of war is capitalism. Only independent working class action can stop massacres and genocide in country after country. All workers must firmly resist being dragged on board the capitalist's war machine. Workers should not forget that, while our class has certainly been battered by the economic crisis, it has successfully prevented the capitalists from following the logic of their inhuman system, and unleashing World War III.
Workers everywhere need to defend their own independent interests. That is the only way to weaken the capitalist war machine. By refusing to accept the sacrifices that the ruling class wants to impose in order to finance its wars, by refusing to bear the brunt of the system's economic crisis, the workers can gain the collective strength to refuse the ultimate sacrifice: that of their lives in imperialist war - and in the process regain confidence in their own ability to play a decisive role in the future of humanity. Only when the workers in every country can put an end to capitalism will capitalist barbarism cease.
Communist Left Discussion Circle, 13.9.99.
To contact the circle write to GPO Box 1729P, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
Four days after the Paddington rail crash, the death toll is still uncertain, but will probably be well over 120.
The "public" has grown intelligent about such disasters. Alongside the horror at the carnage in the wrecked carriages, alongside the shock and grief of the bereaved, there has bee the shock and grief of the bereaved, there has been a powerful groundswell of anger. It is widely understood that an event like this cannot be explained away as an "accident". It is widely understood that this is part of a pattern.
A pattern on the railways: Clapham, Southall. A pattern in other transport systems: Kings Cross, Herald of Free Enterprise. A pattern in industry: Piper Alpha, the explosion at the JCO nuclear plant in Japan. And a pattern that is worldwide: it is also widely understood that the huge death tolls from the growing number of "natural" disasters - earthquakes in Turkey, Athens and Taiwan, floods in China, Bangla Desh and Mexico - are not "natural" at all.
The most idiotic tabloids may now be spitting on the memory of the "novice" driver who is supposed to have driven through the red light at Paddington. But there are too many simple facts which show that we are not just dealing with human error here:
And this is why there is so much anger: it is widely understood that lives have once again been sacrificed on the altar of profit. Just as in Japan, where corners were cut in the most blatant manner in response to increasing economic competition. Just as in Turkey, where houses built s in Turkey, where houses built cheap to boost profits collapsed like matchstick models.
There are those - especially the Labour left, the unions, the SWP etc - who blame privatisation for the Paddington crash, and say the answer is to "re-nationalise the railways". But this false solution can only prevent people from understanding:
It’s the same frenzied competition of each against all which that drives capitalism to pollute the air and the water, to devastate the rain forests, to disrupt the whole planet’s climate. And in the final analysis it’s the same struggle of each against all which sharpens old ethnic hatreds, pushes more d ethnic hatreds, pushes more and more local and regional powers to make war on neighbouring states, and compels the world’s biggest powers to engage in more and more military adventures, like the bloodbaths in Iraq and Yugoslavia.
In brief: this whole society is itself a runaway train pulling humanity towards catastrophe. But the red light has not been passed. It is still possible to change direction if. those who have built the train with their labour realise their power - if the world working class fights for its interests, gathers its forces, and revives its old project of a society based on production for human need. And despite Blair’s proclamation that "the class war is over", it continues to smoulder. Not only that: the workers are more and more faced with the need to struggle over issues which affect the common welfare: like the Tower Hamlets housing workers who struck over the council’s attempts to close neighbourhood housing offices; like the Paris metro workers who struck against physical attacks on their colleagues; like the 1300 Ford workers, Asian, black and white, who walked out in response to management racism; like the train drivers who are prepared to take action for increased safety.
These are small but significant signs that the working class can use its collective strength to oppose the sacrifices that capitalism demands. And if it can do this on a local scale, then it can do it on a world scale, because the working class everywhere has the same interests in the face of this system of death and disaster.
International Communist Current
8.10.99
Supplement to World Revolution number 228. World Revolution is the ICC’s paper in Britain. For contact, write to BM Box 869, London WC1N 3XX.
Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/13/marxism-theory-revolution
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/29/class-consciousness
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/communist-left
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/council-communism
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/128/historic-course
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/50/united-states
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/australasia
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/asia
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/186/imperialism
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/intervention
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/15/decadence-capitalism
[12] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/economic-crisis