Further thoughts on the ICC public meeting of 28th June 2025

ICC Introduction We welcome the contribution of the comrade on the June international public meeting of the ICC on the significance of the election of Trump in the USA. After Baboon's letter (Reflections on the ICC international online public meeting, 28.6.25) this is the second contribution by a close contact of the ICC. 

We agree with most of what the cormade ahs developed in this text. The only point that raised certain questions is the relationship between the drive twoards world war and the tendency towards 'every man for himself' in inter-imperialst relations. 

The comrade writes for instance that a new global confrontation is not emerging, since the formation of military blocs is still held back. At the same time he writes that we should nonetheless “not underestimate the risk of a new global confrontation emerging”.

But in the present phase of decomposition of capitalism the greatest danger for revolutionaries is underestimating not the risk of an organised march to world war, but the generalisation of barbarism towards all corners of the world, which the comrade explains in the beginning of his contribution. The final outcome of such a generalisation implies the destruction of humanity.

At the source of this generalisation lies the stalemate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, allowing neither class to push through its own perspective. So, the bourgeoisie, trapped in a dead-end, is no longer able to offer a perspective for society as a whole. This fact sets the door wide open for the blossoming of ‘every man for himself’. The recognition of this phenomenon is crucial for our understanding of the intensification of wars between nations as well as within nations.

In this framework it would be helpful if the comrade could develops his position on the basic question of decomposition, as outlined in our Theses on decomposition, International Review 107

 

 

I attended this online meeting but did not make an intervention. Since the meeting I have gradually drafted the following in an attempt to clarify my own position and possibly contribute to the wider discussion.

I have followed the structure of the discussion at the meeting.

 

1. Do you share our view of the assessment of the gravity of the situation and the drive towards war and chaos behind it,  and linked to this what are the perspective of imperialist conflicts - towards increasingly chaotic wars rather than the reformation of blocs and a course towards World War Three?

Overall, I share the view that the international situation is growing worse with conflicts accumulating. A ceasefire in one place seems to be promptly followed by the start or resumption of firing in another. Like a wildfire where as soon as one flare up is dampened another erupts.

However, I agree that currently this remains a period of chaotic wars rather than a movement towards a world war between blocs of nations. The current developments are the consequence of both the objective conditions and of the deliberate actions of subjective actors.

Both the tendency towards unfettered competition, be it at the economic or strategic level, and towards its containment, flow from the central contradictions of the capitalist economy and its resultant geopolitical structures. At the same time the situation favours the actions of individual nations and would-be nations. The war in Gaza and the West Bank exemplifies this. The growing instability offers the opportunity for the more extreme and irrational parts of the bourgeoisie to come to the fore, who then create further instability.

Hamas seized an opportunity to lunch a murderous assault to slaughter Israelis without regard to the inevitable equally murderous response of Israel. A response it must have known would happen but which, presumably, it calculated would be to its advantage. Israel helped create this situation through its strategy of strengthening Hamas as an alternative to Fatah. Other factors are the complacency and miscalculations of parts of the Israeli political and military class about the threat posed by Hamas and its allies; the focus of Netanyahu and his clique on retaining power at all costs; and the growth of the messianic aim to drive the Palestinians out of ‘greater Israel’, which itself is an expression of the strengthening of irrational ideologies that is a feature of this period.

However, it is necessary to be cautious and not underestimate the risk of a new global confrontation emerging and leading to war since the speed at which blocs form is not predictable. History does not suggest there is a simple process by which this happens. We have seen these last decades that history can move very rapidly, overturning old certainties and threatening to disorient those too slow to react. Have we not seen an expression of this within the ICC in its difficulties in recognising that the old framework of the waves of struggle and the historic course had changed?

On the process of the formation of blocs I cannot pretend to have the necessary depth of knowledge about the formation of blocs in the periods leading to the two world wars to offer a definite analysis so will restrict myself to a few points.

Before the First World War, the outline of the blocs could be glimpsed within the network of treaties, many with secret clauses promising military assistance, developed in the preceding years. There was also a pattern of confrontations as the powers manoeuvred to defend or advance their interests. The US, then in the process of moving into the front rank of the economic and military powers, stood somewhat apart from this, reflecting partly the recurrent isolationist tendencies with the American bourgeoisie and partly its caution in flexing its muscles. Parts of the workers’ movement grasped the danger of the situation and warned of the risk of global war.

In the years leading up to the Second World War, while the risk of another war was recognised widely at the general level, the alignment of the main players was harder to discern. The reemergence of Germany remained a concern for some, such as France, and Germany’s rearmament prompted powers like Britain to renew their own efforts. But the position of other powers made the situation unclear. America again initially stood aside, in part as a matter of policy. Russia agreed a deal with Germany, dividing parts of Eastern Europe between them, until operation Barbarossa. Of the fascist states, Italy and Germany formally allied but Spain kept at least the pretence of neutrality. There was a general trend towards rearmament, both reflecting and stimulating the growth of tensions and the danger of war. The blocs that warred against each other only consolidated as war became imminent and then reality.

This puts in question the presentation’s argument that China and Russia being unwilling to subordinate themselves to the other is evidence of the weakness of any tendency towards the reformation of blocs in the immediate future. While this unwillingness is undoubtedly true, it is surely the case that any power only subordinates itself to another when it has no choice. Ultimately, it is the balance of power that is determinant. The Suez crisis is one of the more brutal examples of this when Britain’s attempt to continue acting as a major power was slapped down by the US. More typically in the postwar period, the weaker countries recognised reality and submitted more or less quietly, accepting the dominance of the bloc leader as the price for its protection and support. Indeed, one of the reasons the western bloc was stronger than the eastern was that it offered much greater benefits in terms of the economy, political stability and social control. Which is why the western bloc was gradually sundered once the collapse of the eastern reduced America’s hold over its allies.

One of the questions that is particularly relevant today is what holds back the formation of new blocs? A few points can be made. Firstly, the absence of a rival pole of regroupment. While China is the obvious candidate it is still building up its military strength and has more recently encountered economic difficulties. This period has shown that it is more difficult for would-be bloc leaders to accumulate and maintain economic and military power, and that this offers opportunities to second rank powers to play their own games. A second factor is the uncertainty and weakness of many national bourgeoisies. A third is the threat implicitly posed by the working class which, even when it appears dominated by the bourgeoisie, still poses a danger to bourgeois order.

 

1. In the face of the situation and the rising campaign of the Left and Leftists, how do we defend a consistent internationalism in the face of the situation facing the working class and humanity?

Maintaining a consistent internationalism is essential but difficult.

The argument for a humanitarian response is overwhelming, whether in Gaza, Ukraine or Sudan. But Gaza shows clearly that humanitarianism in capitalism will always be subordinated to the national interest, just as was the case in all the ‘humanitarian’ military interventions since 1989. Both Hamas and the ruling faction in Israel barely bother to conceal their genocidal goals.

As was argued at the meeting, the position of the communist left of denouncing the barbarism of all the parties is likely to be met with charges of indifference to the suffering being inflicted. Against this we can take encouragement from the response of genuine revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg to the First World War: we have to be able to look at the reality of the situation and not rush for quick and superficial solutions, avoiding the trap of choosing between the  aggressor and the aggressed, the  oppressor and the oppressed, and keep a clear class position that it is the working class and other exploited classes on both sides who are the victims. This applies even if parts of the working class in the combatant states have lost sight of the class perspective and side with ‘their’ bourgeoise. This was generally the situation during the world wars and is largely the case currently in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank (even if the ruling cliques in all three are widely despised). The leftists make much of the disparity in forces between the Israeli state and the ‘resistance’. The disparity is true but is due to material factors not to intent. Israel is a modern state with a military equipped with the most modern weapons and backed by the greatest military power on earth. Hamas is a would-be state whose backers are second and third rank forces such as Iran. The brutality shown on October 7th showed it would match Israel atrocity for atrocity if it could. Their barbarism is equal but their weapons are not. As ever, both sides broadcast the barbarism of the other while denying their own.

A consistent internationalism means basing ourselves on the marxist analysis of the class nature of capitalist society and remembering how that analysis has been applied and developed by the communist left. It includes especially Luxemburg’s analysis of the reactionary nature of each and every nationalism, and the inevitable subordination of nationalist movements to the interests of the more powerful imperialist states.

It is essential to be clear about what can be done in the current circumstances and what cannot. The proletariat cannot directly prevent the conflicts currently wracking the earth but it can set limits through its struggle to defend its day- to- day interests since this obstructs the ruling class’ attempts to dominate every part of the world and all life and struggle within it.

It is the leftists who are indifferent to human suffering because they only recognise the suffering of part of humanity, justifying or dismissing that of another part; because they tell the working class that this situation has to be put up with at the moment, delaying and preventing the development of a direct confrontation between proletariat and bourgeoise. Thus, we are told to side not only with the working class being slaughtered in Gaza, but also with Hamas, the ‘resistance’ that helps to oppress it; not only with the working class in Iran but with the Iranian regime that oppresses it.

Feeling powerless is understandable since it reflects our inability to directly address the current barbarism. Working to understand the reality of the situation and sharing our conclusions remains a worthwhile endeavour since it is the best contribution we can make to the development of class consciousness and the class struggle, which are the only truly effective response to today’s barbarism.

 

1. Our emphasis is also that this struggle is long! Yes, it will require great confidence in the future, an ability to resist the fear and despair that the bourgeoisie wants to instil in us. But it is the only way forward.

The starting point of combating fear and despair is to understand that the working class is objectively the antithesis of capitalism. The interests of the working class are fundamentally and permanently opposed to those of the bourgeoisie. As long as capitalism exists that confrontation will continue and from the confrontation revolution and a classless society can emerge. This fundamental understanding must not only be maintained without compromise but also must be developed to recognise how it is expressed in the reality of capitalism in each given period.

We should avoid setting tests for the working class about how it develops its struggle and consciousness. Time and again the working class has shown itself ahead of would-be leaders and their analysis, whether that be the Paris Commune, 1905 or 1917, or indeed, 1968. While not all at the same level, they all took some revolutionaries by surprise. Can one say the same of 2022? I would like to say yes but, honestly, I don’t know.

There can and should be a critique made of each struggle, of its weaknesses and strengths; not from a position of judging from on high but from one of honest solidarity. 2022 has been compared unfavourably with 1968 in terms of its scale and politicisation. It is true that ‘68 saw a plethora of groups emerge, but these often carried the weight of the defeat and the confusions of newly politicised elements. In short, those struggles were of their time. Those of 2022 are likewise of their time and must be understood in that context: the extended economic crisis; the deepening mortal environmental crisis; decades of material and ideological attacks; the growing dislocation of civil society and the atomisation of human relations (much of what the ICC includes within decomposition). Revolutionaries, like generals, should avoid re-fighting yesterday’s battles.

It seems true that the current situation has not given rise to new revolutionary organisations and grouplets a la ‘68. If in ‘68 talk of revolution flowed easily, today it is much harder. In the movements of the current period such as the Indignados and the Occupy movement, the struggle for clarity seems more fleeting and ephemeral but, nonetheless, still real.

The ICC’s position that class consciousness develops through both participation in the immediate struggles of the working class and in the more or less organised moments of reflection - as argued in Communist Organisations and Class Consciousness - remains valid.

Confidence in the future is not a passive belief that all will somehow turn out okay, but an understanding of the objective possibilities that continue to exist: the reality of the working class as a class and its struggle; the continuing possibility this contains of confronting and overcoming capitalism and the fact that a society that meets human needs of every kind, including the maintenance and restoration of the natural world, is a real, achievable outcome. It is true that environmental tipping points have already been surpassed, but the creativity that humanity has shown itself capable of throughout its history contains the promise that it can rise to this challenge. It is true that nothing is certain. But an immense amount is still possible.

 

 AL, 26/07/25