Joint Statement: Escalation of Imperialist Tensions - Capitalism Means War!

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Internationalis...
Joint Statement: Escalation of Imperialist Tensions - Capitalism Means War!
Printer-friendly version

Joint Statement: Escalation of Imperialist Tensions - Capitalism Means War!

                                             Gulf Coast Communist Fraction

                                                  Internationalist Voice

                                                       Download as PDF

In recent months, we witnessed the rise of imperialist tensions between Iranian and American gangsters in the Persian Gulf region. On the one hand, the US announced that it has received clear evidence that Iran is preparing itself to attack US forces in the Middle East. The US has been sending out USS Abraham Lincoln and at the same time deploying several B-52 bombers (the most feared bomber of history) in Qatar, sending new troops to the area and ... on the other hand we witnessed numerous attacks in the region. Attacking Katyusha near the US embassy in the protected and green area in Baghdad, a mortar attack on the al-Balad Air Base, and American forces stationed for training Iraqi forces, an attack on Katyusha in western Basra, which houses international oil companies. There is sabotage on four ships in Fujairah port, an attack on two tankers in the Oman Sea, and this list was completed by shooting down a super-advanced US spy Drone by Iran on June 20 2019.

Both Trump and supreme leader of the Islamic bourgeois have emphasized that no war will take shape (notably with Trump’s decision to call off a strike). However, the irrefutable fact is that war is not the decision of the ignorant leaders, but the last resort of capitalism for its crisis. The economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s was the rebuilding of World War II devastation. The Metropolitan Capital first attempts to transfer the consequences of the crisis to peripheral capitalism or to rivals, and in the next step, it will resort to its last solution (warfare). Since conditions are not currently available for the global war, wars take the form of regional wars. All this is due to the fact that the working class retreats as a global class of its class identity.

Following the victory of democracy over state capitalism, the US was no longer able to apply its hegemony as it had during the Cold War. Therefore, it launched the wars in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, in order to preserve its hegemony in the new world order and to weaken its rivals. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the nuclear crisis in the Korean Peninsula is moving in this direction. The US departure from JCPOA is in keeping with its desire to preserve its hegemony, which is further underlined as the US re-emphasizes and reminds its rivals the European Union, China and Russia of its hegemony.

The confrontation and warfare between large and small gangsters is rooted in the upside-down capitalist system. In the era of capitalist decadence, the era of imperialism, the era of crisis and war, the effect of this rivalry between gangsters is to weaken each other. The bourgeoisie, through the fragmentation of our class and by encircling us with national borders, has persuaded us to line up behind them under the headings of America first, Iran first, France first, Russia first, China first, thus enabling them to continue to rule us. Of greater importance than a national identity is the fundamental property that is common across the globe, a common property of capitalist barbarism, that is, we belong to the working class and our property is being exploited and the production of surplus value is being extracted for capital accumulation. We belong to the exploited camp, we are siblings, whether we are in Tehran, in New York, in Jerusalem or in London. Our enemy is the bourgeoisie in our home.

This is why we condemn leftists (the left wing of capital) who cannot help but support national factions in imperialist conflicts under the guise of proletarian interests. We proletarian communists have nothing in common with those of the leftist milieu who participate in activist social events rallying in support of the Iranian bourgeoisie in the name of farcical “anti-imperialism.” There is no “anti-imperialist” underdog that can undermine the capitalist order in the epoch of imperialism as a world system.

Only the intensification of the class struggle can bring about an improvement in our living conditions and, by expanding the class struggle to other countries, can challenge the capitalist system. Only the advancement of the working class towards a communist revolution aimed at pulling down the miserable system of capitalism will deliver a world without imperialist tensions and without its wars around the world; a world free of nuclear weapons. This would be a world without war, class and wage slavery; a world that humanity deserves.

Down with the war!

Down with capitalism!

Long live the class struggle from Tehran to Jerusalem, from London to New York!

 

Gulf Coast Communist Fraction

Internationalist Voice

22 June 2019

Gulf Coast Communist Fraction:

Internationalist Voice:

 

baboon
I agree with the joint

I agree with the joint statement and its sentiments and welcome its expression as an intervention of the communist left. It denounces all sides while emphasising capitalism's intrinsic and irrational drive to war.  There's also a clear denunciation of the left of capital's "anti-imperialist underdog".

The difficulties in reading US foreign policy are fundamentally linked to the difficulties facing US imperialism and Trump and his team represent this. There's been a classic squeeze on Iran by the US which could be seen as a forerunner to a shooting war. As the text says, the Iranian bourgeoisie has responded in its own way through rockets in Iraq, mines in the Straits of Hormuz and shooting down the drone just to indicate to the US its ability to target various areas. The situation is not without its dangers and in the meantime the class struggle likely becomes weaker due to the strengthening of nationalism.

While, generally speaking, the proletariat is divided by nationalism and overwhelmed by democracy in the main centres and is in a generally weakened position, it is not ready to bear the sacrifices of war which means that these explosions are restricted to the peripheral countries during this impasse.

A couple of points for discussion and clarification:
- the text talks about the "victory of democracy over state capitalism" (collapse of the eastern bloc). It was rather the victory of one superior form of state capitalism over another much more inefficient effort. Like the tendency to imperialist war, state capitalism has been a development of the whole of the system since the First World War, expressed during the war, relaxed just afterwards and back with a vengence in the 1930's.
- the text reinforces the position that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were military-strategic in order to defend US hegemony  both in the face of its "allies" and "adversaries". Though economics play a part the weight of these wars came from the imperialist necessities of the United States. So I very much agree with that. But just a point here; it didn't launch a war in the Balkans - that was precipitated directly by the centrifugal tendencies in the US bloc. Germany, through political, diplomatic and military means, kicked-off the war in the volatile ex-Yugoslavia and immediately the French, British and Russians got involved and turned it into a conflagration which the US had to deal with.

 

Amir1
Iran has no choice but to be

Iran has no choice but to be able to respond to the current crisis by war

Amir1
In the case of this writing,

In the case of this writing, two issues attracted my point: one is about state capitalism and the next, centrifugal tendencies in the US bloc

My question is this: I know icc has different concept of state capitalism. The wiew of Marxist-Humanist tendency with ict is about state capitalism is one?

You can further explain the concept of centrifugal tendency in the US bloc and the origin of this concept?

baboon
I don't know what's meant by

I don't know what's meant by the "Marxist Humanist Tendency" but on state capitalism and and centrifugal tendencies in the western bloc, the first is an expression of capitalist decadence and the second an expression of its decomposition.

The development of state capitalism, already a tendency of its ascendent phase, became a dominating characteristic of capitalism up to, during and just after the First World War. The system "relaxed" somewhat after that with a return to "laissez-faire" but this short-lived experiment ended with a bang by the end of the 1920's with the developments in "Soviet" Russia, expressions of fascism and the strengthening of the state and its control in all the major democracies. The decadence of capitalism demands instruments at the highest level that are able to deal with the contradictions that are piling up and the all-powerful state was it.  Everything, more or less, has to be controlled at the economic, military and social levels - as far as the latter is concerned the full integration of the trade unions into the state is an integral part of this process. None of this is a "rational" process but an "expression of an element of decay" (ICC Platform), a sort of adaption to its decay and deepening it still further.

The question of centrifugal tendencies in the western bloc is the other side of the collapse of the east and the "Soviet Union" in that this tendency of "each for themselves" is nevertheless a global one going in the same direction. The wars in the Gulf and Afghanistan underline this development after the collapse of the eastern bloc and so do the USA's attempts to maintain its domination over its "partners" through displays of overwhelming force.

The joint statement above raises the question of the war in the Balkans and this is a good example of these centrifugal tendencies at work very quickly after the collapse of the Russian bloc. Just a few years prior to the break-up of Yugoslavia there were significant strikes gaining ground across the country involving many workers from many different sectors which also tended, given their rigid Stalinist structures, to come up against the unions. The movement was stopped dead as the country fell to pieces not as a "natural" consequence (partly that) but as part of an imperialist free-for-all. Germany interferred first, then to counter it, Britain, France and Russia defending their own interests with the US coming in later and even China getting involved. These tendencies and their consequences underlined and strengthened the irrationality of the system giving a further impulse to its decomposition.

The ICC's 14th Congress Text, "Resolution on the International Situation, 2002" examines elements of both these issues.

 

KT
The Issue of Centrifugal Tendencies

As I understand the ICC's position....

The division of the world under the hegemony of two imperialist blocs (western and eastern) was eclipsed with the disintegration, under the pressure of social decomposition and imperialist pressure, of the Stalinist bloc in 1989 and subsequently. As we know, The Wall came down, the 'Soviet Union' collapsed and individual nation states in its orbit claimed their 'independence' (Poland, Hungary, etc, etc). This did not occur at once, nor without a struggle, but it was the 'centrifugal tendency' ripping apart the bloc.

So what happened to the western bloc? With a different dynamic, and with alternate expressions, the same thing. 

Those countries (France, Britain, Germany, etc), each with their own imperialist appetites (which never disappeared), that were once sheltered behind the US shield (and had been since the end of WW2) in the face of the (very real) Soviet 'threat' had less and less reason to support the US's imperialist aims after 1989. This is the epoch of 'every many for himself', and of attempts by the US to halt this tendency and preserve its position as 'world cop'.

It was to counter this centrifugal tendency of 'every man for himself' that the US first invited Saddam's Iraq to invade Kuwait (1990), and then, having done so, obliged its allies to form a 'coalition' to invade Iraq (forcing France, Germany and Britain, among others, to tow the US line and pay for the slaughter into the bargain - 1991). 

This, however did not halt the centrifugal tendency. Indeed, as Baboon says above, the encouragement given by German imperialism to the independence claims of Croatia (Germany seeking, eventually, outlets to the Adriatic and the Black Sea) was at the heart of the destabilisation of Yugoslavia and the origins of the Balkans war (1991). This was a destabilisation of the former US bloc, not a ploy by it. The 2nd Gulf War (post 9-11, 2001) saw far fewer allies join or support the US.

For further reading, see Theses on Decomposition, reproduced just after 9/11 here:

https://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_decomposition