Assessment of the discussions at the meeting of the Transnational Social Strike Platform

Submitted by ICConline on

Printer-friendly version

On Saturday, 28 February, a meeting of the Transnational Social Strike Platform took place in Cologne[1], which focused on two main questions:

- the reality and effects of the rapidly increasing militarisation in Europe (Europe at War was the key message): how is this perceived? And, of course, the question: what can be done?

After a brief introduction by the organisers, in which they rightly insisted, in our view, that one must not support either side in a war (the organisers' keyword was “campism”), the ICC raised the question of whether the focus on “Europe at War” would not limit the view of the dynamics of war too much to Europe. Of course, there have been enormous steps towards militarisation in Europe since the start of the war in Ukraine (in Germany, the then Chancellor Scholz spoke of a turning point and quickly doubled military spending); shortly after the start of Trump 2.0's reign, the EU decided on an arms package of €800 billion to build its own war economy that is much more independent of the US; and with the reintroduction of conscription in many countries (e.g. France, Germany, whether gradually or directly), new levels of remilitarisation are being reached. It was also rightly mentioned that this whole development is accompanied by militarisation at the borders, the deportation of refugees and repressive measures within the countries themselves.

A spiral of war worldwide or limited to Europe?

The ICC raised the question of whether we need to broaden our view to include the confrontation between the US and China, which plays a major role in many conflicts (e.g. US intervention in Venezuela, among other things, with the aim of pushing back China's influence there), or in Iran, where China, among others, is also to be ‘robbed’ of an ally. At the same time, there is a chain of wars in Africa and the Middle East, and rearmament in Japan and East Asia. In short, does the prism of “Europe at War” underestimate the true phenomenon of militarism, whose destructive power can be seen all over the world? The meeting took place on the day that the US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran, and shortly afterwards Pakistan bombed the Afghan capital and refugee stronghold of Kabul. We emphasised that militarism and its spiral of destruction are escalating everywhere around the world – accompanied by ever more devastating environmental destruction. By focusing primarily on Europe at war, are we not underestimating the danger to all of humanity?

The IC's statement was intended to make it clear that we cannot limit our view to one region (the role of the US machinery of destruction, the policies of Russian imperialism, China's rearmament, India's military ambitions, etc.), but that this is a global, historical phenomenon and therefore raises the question of the capitalist system, which is at an impasse and can only survive through destruction and terror – making it necessary to address the need to overcome it worldwide.

The question of assessing the balance of class forces was not raised

When discussing the impact and perceptions of participants who had come from many European countries, the entire campaign of intimidation of the population and the attempt to recruit soldiers with completely misleading advertising slogans were rightly highlighted, as was the fact that this will in reality force cuts and austerity budgets. But in view of the fact that the EU has approved the above-mentioned war package of €800 billion, the unlimited financing of the German armed forces, the increase in military spending to 5% in line with NATO requirements, and the increase in US military spending from the current $900 billion to $1.5 trillion, it was difficult to ask the question clearly: who will pay the bill for all this? In a statement by the ICC, we emphasised that it will be the working class in particular who will foot the bill – whether through demands for longer working hours (whether weekly working hours or the length of working lives), cuts in health and education, increases in energy costs, rents, etc. – and all this in addition to the other hardships resulting from the economic crisis, such as job cuts, layoffs, intensification of work rhythms, etc. The central question – whether the ruling class can pass on all these costs to the working class, whether the working class is prepared to tighten its belt and ultimately even give its life for the war machine – was not sufficiently addressed. But by not asking whether the ruling class will succeed in getting the working class on their side and behind the capitalist class, and whether the working class is actually prepared to participate in the killing machine and sacrifice their own lives, the crucial question of assessing the balance of forces between capital and labour was avoided.

Although mention was made of how cunning and clumsy the attempts are to recruit cannon fodder and delude soldiers through advertising campaigns for the Bundeswehr or the armies of other countries, the fact that the majority of young people and other generations are opposed to war was not really assessed in depth.

However, because the needs of the war economy and the associated austerity measures will present the working class with new challenges, in which the connection between war and crisis must be addressed in the defensive struggles against these decisions, and because we must prepare ourselves for this necessity and take a stand against it, there was a great danger at the meeting of not preparing for the real needs of the struggle.

For example, one participant regretted that IG Metall welcomed and fully supported the arms orders in the metal industry and that the trade unions could not really be relied upon, but no one mentioned that the trade unions – especially in Germany, where they were pioneers – passionately supported the entire war machine of German capital when they declared a truce in August 1914 and, four years later, when workers and soldiers rose up in Germany, worked side by side with the military and the SPD to crush the workers.

Activism, or where should the lever be applied?

In the last part of the event, when the question of what to do was raised, the whole dilemma of the approach became clear. After several participants had reported on ‘action after action’, on numerous initiatives, and although the impression emerged that no real successes could be achieved in terms of effectiveness, except for the fact that a network of activists had been established, people were, in a sense, reluctant to ask the question: who can actually build up the pressure to force governments and capital to give in? How can we succeed in establishing a balance of forces that paralyses the destructive arm of the ruling class, indeed the entire machinery of war? Is this actually possible without overcoming the system as such? In other words, can war be eliminated without eliminating the system? Although many – as mentioned above – had thrown themselves into numerous initiatives with great energy, the search for the truly central force, the working class, had not been undertaken.

Yet, as we mentioned in this part of the discussion, the working class has proven throughout history that only it – and not pacifists, etc. – can end war, but that ultimately the system as a whole must be overcome. In short, that nothing less than a revolution, a world revolution, is necessary to achieve this.

Although the initiators rightly rejected “campism” (taking sides with one or the other warring party) in the invitation, the word “internationalism” was not even mentioned during the entire event. But how is it possible to face the challenges of the struggle against the capitalist system if we fail to focus on the necessity of the working class fighting together across all the boundaries that divide it? Accordingly, our statement ended with the call that we cannot rush headlong into activism, but must ask ourselves what force is capable of overcoming capitalism, even if this may seem unlikely in view of the undeniable difficulties currently facing the working class. But if we do not even ask this question and recognise where and how the lever must be applied and how long and difficult the road to overcoming the system will be, then we run the risk of sinking and ultimately becoming demoralised... and, of course, the system will remain untouched. As long as we do not take a fearless look at the pitfalls of activism, the greatest drive to resist this system will dry up without any prospects. Clarifying these questions is unavoidable.

International Communist Current 02.03.2026,

 

Rubric: 

The struggle against war