The ICC's section in Britain recently held its 16th Congress. One of the responsibilities of any territorial section is to discuss the national situation. It has to look at the economic crisis, the struggle between the classes, and the national capital in the framework of inter-imperialist antagonisms. The following article is based on part of a report presented to the Congress and concerns the current position of British imperialism. As a marxist analysis it looks at the situation with a historical perspective rather than taking a quick snapshot of the latest events. We will publish further material from the Congress in future issues.

The historical framework and the situation after 1989

In 1998, in World Revolution 216 and 217, we published a text on the history of British imperialism...

"While the long term retreat of British imperialism from its 19th century position of pre-eminence is incomparable, it can't be understood in its own terms. It has to be seen in the context of the ascendance and decadence of capitalism and the different phases within that overall framework.

Specifically, in the period up to 1914, as Britain's main competitors were beginning to catch up and overtake her, we can identify a period in which the imperialist powers began to form alliances with a view to the re-division of the world market.

From 1914 to 1945 we see the emergence of the US and Germany as the main powers, in relation to which Britain could only have a secondary role.

From 1945 to 1989 there is the period of the blocs with British imperialism under the domination of the US, while still not abandoning the attempt to defend its specific interests.

Since 1989 we have seen the end of the blocs and a period of growing instability where alliances are constantly changing and where the main orientation of the British bourgeoisie is for an independent imperialist policy based on a pragmatic appreciation of how best to achieve its interests" (WR 216).

The second part went into more detail on the situation of British imperialism in the period since the collapse of the Blocs and on the development of its strategy:

"The collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989 took the bourgeoisie, in Britain as elsewhere, by surprise...The Thatcher government of the 1980s clearly represented the interests of British imperialism in the period of the relative certainties of its place in the US bloc against the 'Evil Empire' of the Russian bloc. But the new realities at the level of global imperialism that derived from the events of 1989 forced the British bourgeoisie to adapt to the uncertainties and dangers of the period of 'every man for himself' [...]

The conservative government of Major could not survive the tensions within itself... The new orientation caused difficulties for a bourgeoisie used to the certainties of the Cold War period... In this framework it is possible to see how the British bourgeoisie is divided over the appropriate imperialist orientation. There is still a minority fraction that is more emphatically anti-German and therefore more likely to see the benefits in resurrecting the 'alliance' with the US. Often described as 'Eurosceptics', they have a particular weight in the divided Conservative party [...].

But the main faction of the British bourgeoisie has appreciated that the best defence of its imperialist interests lies in pursuing an independent policy. There will be times when this necessitates alliances with other powers, but these will tend to be short-lived and unstable... The Labour government of Tony Blair will speak of its 'ethical' arms policy and insist on its desire for 'peace' throughout the world, but above all it will seek to pursue an independent course for British imperialism" (WR 217).

The Resolution on the National Situation adopted at the 14th Congress of World Revolution in 2000 reaffirmed this framework and examined the way the independent policy had been implemented in the preceding period...even though the resolution acknowledges that a temporary alliance with the US is possible, going so far as to argue that "there are areas where Britain has particular influence, and the US can see it needs to draw on this", the independent policy is presented as one that must necessarily challenge the US...

The impact of 9/11

The attack on the World Trade Centre marked a qualitative change in the imperialist situation that had developed since 1989. "After 11th September 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...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 in the backyard of China and Japan" (15th Congress of the ICC, Resolution on the international situation, IR 113). [...] The attack on New York gave the US the pretext to assert itself forcefully around the globe, momentarily silencing even its most determined opponents and allowing it to escalate its global strategy.

British imperialism, like every other power, was put under pressure by the US offensive and found that its attempt to pursue an independent line was rapidly turning into a serious dilemma: "The crisis of US leadership has placed British imperialism in an increasingly contradictory position. With the end of the 'special relationship', the defence of Britain's interests requires it to play a 'mediating' role between America and the main European powers, and between the latter powers themselves [...] (IR 113, p.18).

The response of the British bourgeoisie

In the immediate aftermath of the attack in New York, we argued that the British bourgeoisie was seeking to advance its own interests through its display of support for the US: "The British bourgeoisie is hoping, by running alongside the American military juggernaut, to limit the scope of the latter's impact on its own imperialist prestige and grab for itself more of the kudos out of the coming carnage than its rivals like France and Germany" (WR 248 "Britain defends its own imperialist interests"). This argument was developed in the analysis of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Concerning, the first, we wrote in November 2001: "Today, as in the Gulf War, the British bourgeoisie has every interest in positioning itself as the best ally of the United States, with an armed force of 25,000 stationed close to the military theatre. This closeness to the United States is explained by a convergence of imperialist interests as well as by antagonistic interests to France in this region. The region of Afghanistan, like Iraq, is part of the traditional zone of domination by British imperialism... It believes it has a better chance to preserve its part of the spoils than at the time of the Gulf War, where its aid to the US brought it nothing. The resentment that resulted from this contributes to the UK distancing itself from the US in the following years. But the British bourgeoisie is lucid enough to see that today its interests lie in the game of 'loyal co-operation' with the American bourgeoisie" (WR 249, "The anti-terrorist crusade will worsen global chaos"). In fact, the US had no interest in British 'help' and seized the opportunity to teach its loyal ally a lesson, ignoring its diplomatic offensive and spoiling its attempt to take the military initiative... The British bourgeoisie had no option but to swallow its pride and keep up the pretence of being the faithful ally in order to continue in the game.

The British bourgeoisie's response to the war in Iraq was to continue to talk of the importance of using international bodies while ensuring it remained close to the US: "As the likelihood of a new war against Iraq has grown, differences have appeared within the British government. Blair and his senior colleagues have maintained the line that Iraq and Saddam Hussein pose a major threat, although they have downplayed Washington's central argument that Iraq is at the centre of the 'axis of evil'. Junior ministers and leftwing backbenchers have been more openly critical... Such critical voices have long been part of Britain's overall strategy, allowing it to face two ways at once, but this time such voices extend beyond the left-wingers into the centre of the Labour Party, the Liberals and even the Tories who talked of their 'concern' and the 'foolhardy' nature of the proposed attacks. This is not a clash over policy - the pro-US faction formerly led by Margaret Thatcher is largely marginalised - but a difference over tactics in this period. In the military storm being whipped up by the US, every state has to run with the wind to some extent. The question for British imperialism is how best to ride out the storm, it is never a question of abandoning its interests" (WR 253, "Is Britain America's poodle?"). This is a fundamental point that helps to explain both the form taken by British imperialist policy since the 11th September 2001 and the nature of the differences within the ruling class that found expression in the Hutton and Butler inquiries.

Faced with the US offensive, Britain was pushed to move towards either the US or Europe and, in doing so antagonising one or the other. In making its decision, a number of factors had to be considered. Firstly, the US, as the greatest power in the world, was quite capable of punishing Britain, as it had in Ireland in the early and mid 1990s and in Afghanistan a few months earlier. Europe, in contrast, did not have that capacity for the simple reason that there is no such thing as 'Europe' at the imperialist and military level but merely a number of lesser powers pursuing their own interests under a fictitious unity. While moving towards the US might increase tensions with France and Germany, it could reinforce relations with others, such as Spain (at the time) and Poland and so allow Britain to maintain influence in Europe. It also gave Britain more room to manoeuvre, both diplomatically through its attempts to 'influence' the US towards international bodies such as the UN, and militarily through its involvement, whether in reality or just rhetorically, in initiatives such as the European Rapid Reaction force. In short, British policy has continued to be to position itself between the US and the European powers but, today, the point of equilibrium has moved... The tack to the US is the adaptation of the existing policy to new conditions. This is evident if we consider other areas of British policy.

British imperialist strategy since 9/11

At the start of 2002, during his sixth international mission since September 11th Blair affirmed the determination of the British ruling class to continue to defend its interests: "We do not have an empire, we are not a superpower but we do have a role and in playing it properly we benefit Britain and the wider world...That role is to be a pivotal player. It is to use the strengths of our history, our geography, our language, the unique set of links with the US, Europe, the Commonwealth, our position within the UN, the skill and reputation of our armed forces, our contribution to debt and development issues...to be a force for good for our own nation and the wider world" (quoted in WR 251 "British imperialism is not a 'force for good'")... In pursuing this policy Britain has found itself under intense pressure for much of the time, but it continues to pursue its aims, putting up with insults and humiliations.

In Iran Britain sided with Europe against the US over the question of Iran's non-compliance with the UN. Washington's proposal to refer Iran to UN Security Council was opposed by Britain, Germany and France... Following the US election, when speculation about a military offensive against Iran surfaced, the British bourgeoisie was quick to distance itself from such talk.

In the Middle East Britain's efforts to pursue its own interests have come up against both the determination of the US to maintain its dominant influence in the region and the capacity of Israel to manipulate the situation to its advantage. In the summer of 2002 Britain defended the right of Palestinians to choose their own leaders when the US was calling for the replacement of Arafat... However, in April 2004 Blair was confronted with Bush's backing for Sharon: "As for the question of Palestine, Bush's declaration of support for Sharon's proposals to withdraw from the Gaza strip whilst maintaining settlements in the West Bank, basically tears up the 'road map' for peace in the Middle East, which Blair used as one of the main arguments in the war" (WR 274 "Contradictions pile up for British imperialism"). His public agreement with the US led to a protest by 52 former diplomats who published an open letter to Blair in which they wrote "We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related matters (Iraq and Palestine), and exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure". This was an expression of the unease within the major faction of the bourgeoisie.

In the dispute between India and Pakistan Britain tried to maintain influence with both, not least by selling them arms...

In Africa in early 2002 Britain took part in a joint initiative with France to the countries involved in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, despite the fact that their rivalry had helped to fuel the war in the first place. Elsewhere the erstwhile allies went in different directions; in Zimbabwe Britain gave its support to the Movement for Democratic Change while France was better disposed towards Mugabe.

In early 2004 Britain launched its own initiative in North Africa, Blair visiting Libya to renew relations with Gadaffi after the latter renounced his nuclear ambitions...This was part of the effort by Blair to "win back the confidence of those who defend the main orientations of the British bourgeoisie" following the Madrid bombings and the withdrawal of the new Spanish government from the 'coalition' in Iraq (WR 273 'The Madrid bombs and the response of the British bourgeoisie').

In Ireland Britain has used its alliance with the US to try and regain the initiative it was forced to surrender with the Good Friday agreement. In October 2002 the Stormont power-sharing government was suspended following raids of Sinn Fein offices that found material 'likely to be useful to terrorists'...In May 2003 the new elections were postponed, supposedly because of lack of progress in decommissioning IRA weapons.

Even in Iraq, where it is frequently suggested that Britain is just doing the US' bidding, Britain has not given up the defence of its interests for one moment and, consequently, there have been repeated strains in the 'special relationship'. In the period leading to the war Britain adopted a two-faced policy:

"It hopes that getting rid of Saddam will allow it to regain some of the influence it used to have in the region and thereby counter the complete domination of the US. It is similar to the strategy in Kosovo, where, through a display of overt loyalty to the US, it was able to occupy important strategic positions, implicitly denying them to the US. In Afghanistan the US replied by humiliating Britain, sending their soldiers on a wild goose chase to find bin Laden in various unlikely nooks and crannies. This is the background to the decision to send a major part of Britain's armed forces to the region and to be so vocal in support of the war: London is determined to play a role and thereby stake a claim. (WR 262 "Imperialist rivalries between the great powers are coming into the open")

The efforts to draw the US into the UN were ignored by Washington and led to attacks on the 'old Europe'. When the war started the criticism was maintained: "There are reports of Americans killing 'our boys' in 'friendly fire' incidents, the US killing more 'Brits' than Iraq was able to do. There are all the comparisons between the incompetent, trigger-happy, ignorant yanks with the professional, disciplined 'Brits'...It has also not gone unnoticed that US orders meant that British troops were tied down in Basra...and were allocated thankless tasks such as the supervision of prisoners of war" (WR 263 "British imperialism - caught between Germany and the US"). [...]

In April 2004 there was criticism from the military at the suggestion that more troops might be sent to compensate for the withdrawal of Spain after the Madrid bombings. This criticism has recently been renewed following the dispatch of troops to replace US forces required for the assault on Fallugah. Despite the protestations that the request was a purely 'military' one it is clear that it is another riposte by the US, determined to draw Britain into the worst of the fighting, principally in order to maintain the alliance but also to punish the pretence of the greater 'professionalism' of British forces, who, it is suggested never engage in the sort of atrocities exposed at the Abu Ghraib prison

The dispute within the bourgeoisie

This analysis makes it possible to understand the real nature of the divisions in the ruling class...the dispute is within the main faction of the ruling class. Neither the more overtly anti or pro-American factions, embodied in the likes of Cook and Short on the one hand and the dominant part of the Tories on the other, currently have any great weight. This is why the two inquiries after much posturing ended up firing blanks. Their purpose was never to directly oppose or humiliate Blair but to raise concerns about the tactics he was following and to nudge him back on course. One aspect we have not emphasised is the uniqueness of the situation the British bourgeoisie finds itself in. Certainly there is a continuity in its efforts to play Europe off against the US but it is also a requirement newly imposed by the situation that has developed over the last few years. The period of 'every man for himself' presents a situation to the bourgeoisie that it is still working to understand...

What this suggests is a future of even greater instability and even greater pressure on the bourgeoisie of middling powers like Britain. There is, at this point, no apparent release from this, only a more or less successful adaptation and, despite all of the pressure, the British bourgeoisie is showing an ability to do this.

WR, 8/11/04.

With the death of Yasser Arafat, the bourgeoisie has lost one of its own. This is why the media and political leaders all over the world have been paying homage to him, even though he was never actually a head of state.

Arafat, a ferocious enemy of the proletariat

Arafat has been presented as a great man, a hero of the Arab world for fifty years. For the proletariat he was a ferocious enemy, a great supplier of cannon fodder for imperialist war.
By selling the mythology of a future Palestinian state, Arafat has sent generations of proletarians to their slaughter for a bourgeois cause par excellence: nationalism. He was a pioneer of recruiting street children and adolescents to the ranks of the ‘Fedayeen’ of Fatah and to the squads of suicide bombers. He encouraged even younger children to join in the Intifada. The defence of the Palestinian cause to which he devoted his life won Arafat the support of important factions of the bourgeoisie. This was symbolised by the official admission of the PLO to the UN in 1974, where he was greeted with rapturous applause even though at the time he was being supported by the USSR. In 1994 he was honoured again, this time under the patronage of the American bourgeoisie when he and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their part in the Oslo Accords of September 1993. He has won the admiring support of politicians of right and left, and above all the extreme left for being a tireless champion of the mystification of the ‘struggle for national liberation’.

Arafat arose as a gang leader, and made his name as the commander of blind and particularly bloody terrorist attacks on the ‘Israeli enemy’. He pushed himself forward as a war chief and then as leader of the PLO through bribes, blackmail and the settling of scores, through the pitiless and often bloody liquidation of his main rivals. Despotic, consumed by ambition, drunk with power, swimming in a milieu of total corruption, surrounded by flunkeys who could at any moment become traitors or rivals, his mafia-like behaviour was the product of the decadent capitalist system which gave birth to him. Taking upon himself the functions of political leader and commander of the armed forces and the forces of repression run by the Palestinian Authority (PA), he never hesitated to imprison, kill, or open fire on the very ‘Palestinian people’ he claimed to defend. This is why he never stopped sharpening all the tools for the oppression and exploitation of the Palestinian masses. His essential role was to take charge of any attempted rebellion or protest by a desperate, muzzled, half-starved population whose misery is worsened every day by Israeli bombs and shells, by the heavy tribute demanded by the Intifada. And to a large extent he maintained ‘order’ hand in hand with the Israeli army.

Towards a worsening of military chaos

The death of Arafat also represents a real earthquake for the bourgeoisie, not only with regard to the situation in the Middle East, but on a wider international level.
Thus, under the pretext of defending the Palestinian cause and strengthening its ties of friendship with the Arab world, France pushed itself to the forefront of the drama of Arafat’s last days. On the diplomatic level it was a great coup to have brought Arafat to a military hospital in the Paris region, where he died. Chirac also drew in a whole queue of PLO and PA leaders, running all kinds of bargaining sessions with them and with other Arab leaders. France also supplied a plane to take Arafat’s body back to Cairo and then Ramallah, according him the full military honours due to a head of state. In Palestine, at the time of the funeral, the world could see French flags flying alongside Palestinian flags, while the crowds carried portraits of Chirac as well as Arafat. Acting in the name of peace, France is simply throwing oil on the fire by attempting to obstruct the interests of the USA in the region.
At the same time, these events will bring definite advantages to the Sharon regime in Israel, whose main stated aim in recent months had been to eliminate the Palestinian leader, even physically. It is hardly surprising that rumours about Arafat being poisoned by the Israeli secret services have been circulating among Palestinian leaders and are shared by 80% of Palestinian public opinion. The elimination of Arafat will divide and weaken the Palestinian camp and this can only bring comfort to Sharon and his plan to accelerate the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza strip the better to encircle the West Bank and isolate it through the construction of the ‘anti-terrorist’ wall. The Israeli bourgeoisie knows that it will be in a better position to enforce its diktats. All this is an encouragement to Sharon’s aggressively militarist policies, which is aimed at the complete crushing of the Palestinians by the Israeli state.
Arafat’s death also suits the American bourgeoisie because in recent months the Israelis have been calling for his departure from the scene as a precondition for resuming negotiations. Arafat thus symbolised the blockage of the situation in the Middle East. The White House is hoping that the disarray and divisions in the Palestinian camp will help it to regain control of the situation.
However, all the optimistic declarations about the ‘unblocking’ of negotiations being issued by the Israelis, the USA and a good part of the European press should not give rise to any illusions. The perspective opened up by Arafat’s death is not at one of peace but a new accentuation of imperialist tensions. There is no doubt that Israel and the US will now pile the pressure on the disoriented Palestinians.
This is a serious weakening of the Palestinian camp. With Arafat’s burial goes the definitive burial of the Oslo Accords of 1993. It’s the end of hope in the constitution of a Palestinian state as envisaged in these accords.
The procession of Palestinian leaders to Arafat’s bedside in Paris during his lingering death has not resolved the ticklish problem of his succession. It’s clear that despite the divisions and rivalries within the Palestinian camp, despite all the weight of corruption and repression under his rule, he was a historic ‘chief’ who held all the keys to the power of this mini-state (PA, PLO, the armed wing of the movement). He was a symbol of unity. His demise will open a Pandora’s box and a bitter struggle between the different Palestinian factions. But none of these clans is strong enough to outweigh the rest. Even if the ‘old guard’ has momentarily papered over its divisions to nominate a provisional directorate and to decide on elections for a new president in January, none of these bureaucrats have any real charisma and will be unable to control either the population as a whole or the military organisations, which are totally divided and splintered, and could only have a semblance of cohesion under the authority of Arafat. As for the numerous petty warlords, their authority rarely goes further than a neighbourhood or a village. Three examples suffice to show how unmanageable the situation is: less than 48 hours after Arafat died and Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazan) was nominated as the new leader of the PLO, Abbas tried to carry out an assassination which resulted in two people dying at a ceremony of condolence held by Palestinian leaders in Gaza. Another example: the first speech given by the acting president of the PA, Rawhi Fattouh, was inaudible due to his lack of experience, and most of the commentaries were along the lines of ‘who is he and where does he come from?’. Finally, and above all, two of the most influential military formations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, immediately announced that they would boycott elections for the PA presidential elections in January. These military gangs are totally at odds with each other, as can be seen from the frequent clashes and latent imperialist rivalries between Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (now renamed the Yasser Arafat Brigades), Fatah, etc, as well as the rivalries between the political leaders - Abbas, the Authority’s current prime minister Ahmed Qorei who controls the security forces, the most popular Fatah leader, currently in an Israeli jail, Marwan Baghouti, the Fatah boss Farouk Kaddoumi or the former Interior Minister Mohammed Dahlan.
Not only is the situation ripe with bloody score-settling for Arafat’s succession; it will also give a new impetus to further murderous suicide bombings, with ‘martyrs’ supplied by an increasingly desperate Palestinian population only too vulnerable to fanatical hatred and nationalist hysteria. This increasingly uncontrollable spiral of violence is threatening to cover more and more of the Middle East region. Wm, 5/12/04. 

The re-election of George Bush in the USA has led many commentators, especially in Europe, to warn about the danger of new military adventures by the US superpower. And it's quite true that while the ruins of Fallujah are still smoking, the mouthpieces of the Bush administration are already making threatening noises about Iran. The replacement of the 'moderate' Colin Powell as Secretary of State by the 'hawk' Condoleeza Rice is another indication that the US war machine is going to grind forward remorselessly in the period ahead.

We are also told, usually by the same commentators, that if only Kerry had won the election, the world would be a much safer place, and that there would be some hope of healing the rift between the USA and its former allies in Europe. This is not true.

The ultra-aggressive policies of the US state today are not the product of one man or a particular administration. Bush's attack on Afghanistan, for example, was prepared by Clinton's Democratic administration, which only two years before had rained bombs on Serbia. Kerry had no criticisms of these imperialist onslaughts and claimed only that he would be better at waging the war on terrorism than Bush. Neither did his election campaign offer any alternative to the current US policy in Iraq.

Had Kerry been elected, his rhetoric would have been a little different. He may have dealt with the UN or the European powers less crudely than Bush. He may have used different pretexts for defending US interests, replacing Bush's overt use of religious imagery with appeals to 'humanitarian' causes. This is why substantial sectors of the US bourgeoisie would have preferred Kerry to Bush. The final result is the same because US imperialism has no alternative but to throw its weight about on the world arena.

The USA's imperialist offensive

This is not because America is a particularly 'evil' empire. It is simply the world's leading empire, and it is compelled to defend its dominant world position against the challenge from other empires, other imperialist powers. For over forty years it confronted a second superpower, the USSR, for control of the world. The collapse of its opponent in 1989 led some to proclaim the End of History and a New World Order of peace and prosperity. Instead we have had a world of growing instability marked by endless and increasingly chaotic wars. Released from their fear of the Russian bear, the USA's former allies - France, Germany, Japan, the UK - immediately began to assert their own imperialist interests against their former master. The US responded with its first major demonstration of power in the new situation: the Gulf War of 1991, which was aimed not so much at Saddam Hussein but at America's great power rivals, who were forced to march behind it. But they didn't stay in line for long. Within a year German imperialism's eastward push had provoked the Balkans war and to this day the US has not succeeded in maintaining a firm foothold in this region. And while Germany and France were press-ganged into supporting the 1991 attack on Iraq, by 2003 they were openly opposing the second one, along with Russia and numerous other states.

In sum: faced with a growing challenge to its authority, the US has again and again resorted to its military might to reimpose it. But each time it has only magnified its problems by provoking further hostility and resistance to its domination. And no faction of the American ruling class has an alternative to this increasingly irrational spiral.

Iraq is the world

The present situation in Iraq symbolises the impasse facing the US. Following 9/11 (carried out in all likelihood with the complicity of the American state), the USA stepped up its global offensive, aiming not only at full control of the Middle East with its huge oil reserves, but also at encircling its imperialist rivals in Europe and Russia. But far from achieving what the neo-con theorists call 'Full Spectrum Dominance', the US has plunged Iraq into chaos. Far from laying the bases for a stable Middle Eastern democracy, the US invasion has turned Iraq into a theatre for international terrorism, where each military 'victory' (such as the flattening of Fallujah) only serves to deepen the USA's political discredit and recruit more 'martyrs' to the anti-US jihad. Not only is it now questionable whether the January 30 elections will take place; whether they do or don't, there is now a real danger that Iraq will start to disintegrate as various bourgeois gangs - Shia, Sunni, pro-and anti-US, Kurdish nationalists, etc - battle for control of their respective spheres of influence. And having reduced Iraq to the status of 'failed state', US imperialism's answer is to debate where the next Iraq will be: Iran, Sudan, North Korea....?

Capitalism is war

All this is increasingly obvious and America's rivals don't miss a chance to whip up anti-American prejudices, blaming the slide into war on the USA and presenting themselves as lovers of peace and international cooperation. These are also lies, as a brief recall of the events of the last decade will soon establish: France stood behind the Rwanda genocide of 1994 and is now being pulled into a quagmire of its own on the Ivory Coast; Germany sparked off the Balkans war by backing the separatist claims of Croatia and Slovenia; Russia is conducting a murderous war in Chechnya and has ambitions to control all the countries of the former USSR, such as Georgia and Ukraine. As for Britain, it supports the USA in the Gulf, but opposes it in the Balkans and in Ireland, and no less than the other great powers, it acts only to defend its sordid imperialist interests (see the report on British imperialism, also in this issue).

The problem facing humanity is not George Bush, nor US imperialism on its own. The problem is a social system that has outlived its usefulness to humanity, and which, in its senility, has nothing to offer but growing military competition and war. Two world wars, the Cold War, the 'war of each against all' which followed the break-up of the eastern and western blocs - this catalogue of destruction cannot be blamed on particular countries, still less on this or that 'madman' in power. It would be much more accurate to say that the entire social system has become mad. In its youth, capitalism made use of wars to spread the profit system across the world; in its period of dementia, war has become an end in itself, bringing not profits but economic ruin and the potential destruction of humanity.

The alternative is revolution

But humanity, as Marx said, does not pose itself problems which it cannot solve. There is an alternative to capitalism: a communist society founded on solidarity, not exploitation. There is an alternative to war: a world commune without national frontiers. And there is a social force which has an objective interest in creating such a world: the exploited class in capitalism, the proletariat.

Capitalism today is providing a mounting body of evidence that it is historically bankrupt, whether through the economic crisis which leads it to attack proletarian living standards, or through the march to war which demands the ultimate sacrifice from the exploited. The more the evidence piles up in the eyes of those who are the principal victims of capitalism's decline, the more the possibility grows of a conscious revolt against the very logic of this system.

Faced with the collapse of this system, with the barbarism of war, the proletariat in every country will need to rediscover the methods of struggle that halted the first imperialist world war and terrified the bourgeoisie with the threat of world revolution: the mass strike, the workers' councils, the formation of a world communist party. We still have a very long way to go before this can take place, but the signs are that workers in many countries are more and more willing to return to the struggle in defence of their living standards; and this is the only starting point for a struggle that, in the future, will have to confront the ruling class in every country of the world.

WR, 4/12/04.

The announcement by Ford in September that it intends to close the Jaguar factory in Coventry by September 2005, with the loss of some 1,150 jobs, has once again posed the question of how workers can respond to such attacks and defend their working and living conditions. The logic of capital continues to impose itself. The chairman of Jaguar was quite blunt: "The fact is despite significant sales growth and excellent levels of quality in recent years, we have not been able to keep pace with significantly larger competitors. We have too much capacity and this is our underlying structural problem." ('Plan Announced to Put Jaguar Back on Track', www.jaguar.co.uk [7], 17/9/04). The Ford motor company is not unique in facing such a chronic problem. In September GM Europe announced plans to cut 12,000 jobs because of overcapacity, which led to a 6-day walkout at its Bochum plant in Germany (see below). Indeed, the Austrian automotive analysts Autopolis estimate that "The world as a whole has about 30% more [car] factories than it needs. That's about 170 factories around the world, and most of these, quite frankly, are surplus to requirements" (BBC Online, 14/10/04).

These problems are not just restricted to the car industry in Europe. Swathes of jobs are being cut across Europe and the US: 2,000 at Deutsche Bank; train maker Bombardier axes 2,200 jobs in Canada, Germany and the UK; mobile phone operator Cingular announces 7,000 job cuts in the US; school watchdog OFSTED cuts 500 jobs - part of the Labour government's plans to axe more than 104,000 civil service jobs across the UK; 15,000 Kodak jobs cut worldwide, with 1,150 in the UK going in the past two months; Marsh & McLennan, the troubled US insurance broker cuts 3,000 jobs. Finally, the attacks are not just limited to employment, but also the 'social wage': unemployment benefits, pensions, health care etc. As the ICC has stressed, "All workers, whether at work or on the dole, whether still active or retired, whether they are in the private sector or the public sector, will from now on be confronted with these attacks on a permanent basis." ('A turning point in the class struggle [8]', International Review 119).

Unions reinforce the logic of capitalism

In response to their growing anger and combativity workers are now regularly faced with the increasingly militant language of the trade unions - who are openly encouraging a vote in favour of strike action in the case of the Jaguar workers in Coventry. The unions - Amicus and the TGWU - were quick to respond to Ford's plans. According to the T&G, "Following Ford's betrayal of Jaguar's West Midlands plants with this announcement to effectively sack 1,150 workers, the joint unions have today called for an organised and co-ordinated fight back, beginning with a ballot for industrial action!" (www.tgwu.org.uk [9]). Likewise, the leadership of the Amicus union claimed that "[the] decision could lead to further closures in the future and that they intend to draw a line in the sand. In a strong message to the company Tony Woodley, General Secretary of the T&G, and Amicus General Secretary Derek Simpson said they would provide leadership to workers to fight for their plants and jobs" ('Jaguar unions to fight factory closures', www.amicustheunion.org [10]).

The unions then announced a demonstration in Coventry and a strike ballot, which has begun this week. However, the demo was six weeks after the initial announcement of job losses! Clearly enough time to allow the workers' anger to dissipate. In fact, of the 1,500 workers at the plant, 425 are being offered jobs in Birmingham, with a pay rise; 400 are being offered voluntary redundancy, and according to the company the severance package will be Jaguar's most generous ever; 310 jobs will be retained at the Coventry plant making wood veneer finishes for Jaguar and Aston Martin; the remainder are largely white collar agency workers whose contracts will expire 'naturally'. The company has done a good hatchet job, and although the unions have claimed that they knew nothing of the decision to close the plant, it had been mooted a year earlier in the Sunday Times according to a report on the BBC News website ('Jaguar dismisses closure talk', 20/10/03). Derek Simpson of Amicus said in this article that the unions meet with 'very senior management' every fortnight. Can we really be sure the management never mentioned the possibility of job losses?

The demonstration in Coventry on 27th November was much smaller than had been forecast - or more likely 'hyped up' by the unions and media - with at most 500 people present. The media have continued to play up the numbers present: one report on the BBC website begins by saying "Hundreds of people have marched through Coventry" and then three paragraphs later states that "It is estimated 1,500 people attended". The video of the protest on the same page then has an introduction saying that "Thousands of people have attended a rally in Coventry" ('March to support Jaguar workers', BBC Online, 27/11/04). The last sentence is lifted virtually word for word from the T&G's website... Then the SWP wade in with a claim that "The TGWU union said up to 5,000 joined the protest." (Socialist Worker, 4/12/04)! Clear evidence that the media are complicit in helping the unions get over their 'militant' message. Furthermore, the early start time of 9.30am probably also worked against encouraging workers from other towns and plants to join in.

How can workers impose their own logic?

Contrary to what the bosses and the unions say, there is an alternative to the logic of capitalism. As the ICC's section in Germany pointed out in their leaflet on the disputes at Karstadt and Opel, "If you approach things, not as the problem of Opel or of Karstadt, or of Germany, but as a problem of society as a whole, completely different perspectives emerge. If you consider the world, not from the point of view of a single plant or company, but from the point of view of society, from the point of view of human well being, the victims no longer appear as belonging to Opel or Karstadt, but as part of a social class of wage labourers, who are the main victims of the capitalist crisis. Seen from this perspective, it then becomes clear that [all workers] share a common fate and interest - not with their exploiters, but with each other" (Karstadt, Opel, Volkswagen: the need for workers' solidarity [11], web supplement to International Review 119).

In the face of these mass attacks the proletariat has historically unleashed its own weapon: the mass strike of all workers. And while such actions are not yet possible, "Such a defensive action of the whole working class would give the class the self confidence it needs to counter the arrogance of the ruling class. Moreover, such massive mobilisations would be able to change the social climate, promoting the recognition that human needs have to become the guideline of society. This putting in question of capitalism would in turn increase the determination of the employees and the unemployed to defend their interests in the here and now." (ibid.) The walkouts at Bochum, where several thousand workers downed tools for six days, and to a similar extent the recent walkout by workers at Vauxhall's Ellesmere Port plant in Liverpool over the sacking of 47 workers, demonstrate that at one level workers are increasingly willing to show solidarity with those under attack because they know that it could be their jobs to go next.

In the long term the proletariat will come to understand that their sacrifices for the company are in vain: that there is no way out of capitalism's vicious circle. This system is historically bankrupt, not just economically, but at the level of holding any perspective whatsoever for the future of humanity. It is at this point, when the proletariat raises its struggle from the defence of its immediate economic interests to the posing of its political dictatorship over society that it truly begins to reveal its true nature as the only revolutionary class.

Spencer, 3/12/04.

In early November, Ivorian president Ghagbo, impatient to escape the French restrictions which limited his government's authority to the south of the country, bombarded rebel-controlled towns in the north. The French government had for months turned a blind eye to Ghagbo's war plans, until the Ivorian state bombarded positions held by French forces, killing nine French soldiers and one US civilian, and wounding 22 others. French president Chirac ordered the immediate destruction of the 'Ivorian airforce' - two planes and five combat helicopters.

Ghagbo then unleashed a pogrom against the French, inciting patriotic mobs to attack French homes, schools and other buildings in an orgy of rape, arson and pillage. The French army had no hesitation in firing on the crowds. This has further worsened the climate of chaos, violence and terror which now reigns in the capital Abidjan. Hundreds of people have died.

France's real aims

With more than 5200 troops at its disposal, reinforced since July 2004 by 6200 'Blue Helmets' from the UN, France was already in military control of the country, posing as a 'peacekeeping force' standing between the government in the south and the northern rebels. France had pretended that it was playing this role with a mandate from the UN, but the mask has dropped to show France's real aims: the strategic maintenance of its military presence in the Ivory Coast and the attempt to safeguard its imperialist interests in Africa.

As for the UN, the Blue Helmets just serve as a legal cover for the crimes of the great imperialist powers. The UN forces did the same during the slaughter in Rwanda in 1994, in the interests of France. 5000 UN Blue Helmets did the same in May 2003, when they stayed on the sidelines when 60,000 people were massacred in the north east of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

From the Gaullist period, France maintained its imperialist domination of the Ivory Coast by giving unbroken support to the dictator Houphouet between 1960 and 1993. Since Ghagbo was installed, the new president has waged a number of xenophobic campaigns about 'Ivority', aimed at eliminating his main rivals. These resulted in a number of massacres, the best known being in March 2004 when Ghagbo sent tanks and death squads into parts of Abidjan, attacking areas accused of being on the rebels' side. These killings took place with the direct complicity of France, under the eyes of more than 4000 French troops, who didn't raise a finger to help the victims.

Over the last 15 years France has lost a lot of its influence, prestige and strategic advantages in Africa, suffering various set-backs, in particular with the revelations about its involvement in the massacres in Burundi and Rwanda in 1993/4, and with the loss of Zaire from its sphere of influence in 1997. It has also encountered growing opposition from American imperialism.

Since the strategic reorganisation of its military bases in Africa, France has decided to reinforce its military presence in the Ivory Coast and to stay whatever the cost. Along with Senegal, the Ivory Coast is one of the key countries for holding onto its positions in Africa. The confrontations between the rebel forces and the government, and the attempted coup d'etat in 2002, gave France the pretext for implanting a massive military presence and trying to take control at the diplomatic level with the Marcoussis accords of January 2003. Since then, France has posed as an arbitrator and guarantor of peace. But today's climate of instability makes this 'peacemaking' strategy no longer tenable. In fact it has led to a growing loss of control. French imperialism has not been able to impose its orientations either militarily or diplomatically. Both sides have rearmed and prepared their forces for new conflicts. France is in an impasse, obliged it to plunge into an openly military option in order to defend its interests.

A battle between imperialist vultures

France will not allow its military presence to be put into question. It is condemned to the same fate as the USA, throwing aside its hypocritical excuses about 'acting as a peacekeeping force' it has revealed its true imperialist intentions, imposing its authority through brutal military actions. The French bourgeoisie cannot allow itself to give up the Ivory Coast without the risk of being totally ejected from the African continent.

The break between Ghagbo and France, sealed by the destruction of the Ivorian airforce, is now quite deep. Since the beginning of hostilities, a number of Ivorian leaders, such as the president of the National Assembly Koulibaly, have made open declarations of war against France. Since 2002, Ghagbo whipped up the worst kind of xenophobia against the French occupiers and against 'foreign' African ethnic groups like those from Burkina Faso.

The French bourgeoisie has tried to pull together in defence of its interests. The Socialist Party has given unreserved support to Chirac's 'firm' response, going so far as to break publicly with their 'comrade' in the Socialist International, Laurent Ghagbo.

The latter however has found other allies and forged links with Mauritania, Guinea and Togo, countries trying to move away from Burkina Faso which has been accused of destabilising their regimes. The Ivorian president can also count on the more discrete support of Ghana. He also has a lot of capital to pay for professional killers, like the mercenaries who pilot his planes.

As for the rebels, although they have been weakened by bloody internal conflicts, they have been increasing their warlike declarations and have refused to follow UN calls to disarm. They can also rely on support from Burkina Faso, not to mention Libya.

Certain sectors of the French bourgeoisie have pointed out it's no accident that Ghagbo's offensive was carried out just after the re-election of Bush, underlining Ghagbo's attraction to the US and Washington's desire to extend its influence in Africa..

The US has several irons in the fire because while it has let itself be courted by Ghagbo, it also armed the rebels in 2002 and continued to aid them discretely for some time. While officially welcoming France's tough response, several American newspapers close to the Bush government have intensified their anti-French rhetoric, pointing at the incoherence of its policies and its inability to manage 'African affairs'. They can only be pleased to see France getting sucked into a mess and only too willing to push it in deeper. All the conditions are coming together for the situation to slide further towards bloody chaos, with a strong probability of direct French military involvement. This will show the falsity of all the claims that America is the only warmonger in the world.

There is a real risk not only of the 'Iraqisation' of the Ivory Coast, but also of the extension of the conflict to neighbouring states, spreading a civil war to the region as a whole.

The Ivory Coast shows the terrible future that capitalism offers to the African. The population of this country is now being exposed to permanent poverty, famine and war. This is what capitalism has in store for the whole of humanity if its criminal rule is allowed to continue.

W, 14/11/04.

In the last few weeks much has been made of the arrest and trial of Sir Mark Thatcher, son of the former Tory Prime Minister. His involvement was discovered through the arrest of his neighbour and business partner Simon Mann. According to Mann's confession, he held a series of meetings in January with 'potential investors' on how they would benefit from replacing Equatorial Guinea's 'President for Life' Obiang with Spanish-based exiled opposition leader Severo Moto.

The full story of this affair has yet to come to light, but Thatcher and co. aren't just a bunch of maverick mercenaries acting for their own financial gain, and Equatorial Guinea isn't an entirely insignificant country for the major imperialist powers. It has the third largest oil reserves in Africa, and its position, off the coast of Cameroon and Nigeria, makes it important for control over the major oil shipping routes, as well as for future struggles between the major powers.

In August the British government denied having any prior knowledge of an attempted coup. However, recent reports in the media show that the government knew back in January that an attempted coup was being planned in and had begun to draw up plans for the evacuation of British citizens. The fact that it had been informed, and that one of the plotters met with a high ranking US State Department official around the same time, implies that their permission had been sought and given. At this time Spain, under the Popular Party government of Aznar, which was aligned with Britain and the U.S. over the Iraq war, is alleged to have sent two naval warships to provide support for the coup. Now the Zapatero government, which has aligned itself with France and Germany, denies sending any ships, and insists that 'no documents exist' on such a policy.

While the capitalist media are full of propaganda about 'human rights' and the 'instilling of democratic values' throughout the world, these leaks reveal the sordid and nefarious ways in which foreign policy is conducted by all imperialist powers, not least Britain.

Graham, 4/12/04.

Our recent 4-part survey of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on the occasion of this small group's centenary (WR 272 [14], 273 [15], 274 [16], 276 [17]) did not call for a celebration.

We concluded that although this marginal political tendency split from the British part of the Second International in 1904 decrying 'reformism', its outlook and spirit has remained that of the opportunist wing of the workers' movement at that time which tried to revise marxism into a spineless doctrine of peaceful social change. The SPGB has retained the same anti-revolutionary mentality as the majority of the Social Democratic Parties which finally passed in to the camp of capital during the First World War, and proved their reactionary credentials in the revolutionary period that followed it.

The SPGB claims that the working class can develop and realise its socialist consciousness through voting for 'their' parliamentary candidates who can, once in a majority, 'convert' ([1]) the capitalist state into the means for the socialist transformation of society. Because of the peaceful nature of this 'conversion' there will be no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat that Marx and Engels insisted was an essential weapon of the working class struggle, nor would there be a need for a transitional period during which humanity will evolve toward a classless, stateless communist society. Consequently the SPGB, despite some initial enthusiasm, became vehemently opposed to the October Revolution of 1917, where the working class, organised in soviets, overthrew instead of 'converting' the bourgeois state and swept aside its rotten parliamentary facade.

During the First World War the SPGB, along with the opportunists and centrists in Social Democracy, rejected the international, revolutionary position of the marxist left that the working class must seize the occasion to destroy world capitalism. It took a centrist attitude, similar to Karl Kautsky's, of platonically opposing the war and waiting for a return to 'normal'.

However the distinguishing feature of the SPGB is that although it believes that capitalism can overcome its crises and that therefore reforms are still possible, it refuses to fight for them, and consequently refuses to adopt a political programme of reforming capitalism, and denies that socialism can evolve gradually in this way. Nor will it fight for bourgeois democracy even though it thinks this form of government remains an important gain for the working class ([2]). Politically the SPGB envisages a conversion of capitalism to socialism through the election of its own party to a position of power with a maximum socialist programme.

An answer criticised.

In the August 2004 Socialist Standard, the monthly magazine of the SPGB ([3]), issued a reply to our survey entitled 'A criticism answered':

"Indeed, since the ICC is rabidly anti-union, sees no difference between political democracy and political dictatorship, and espouses an anarchist stance on elections and parliament, as well as having a penchant for conspiracy theories, we suggest that they are not in a position to give other groups any lessons in how to spread socialist ideas while avoiding the dangers of sectarianism".

This retort is something of an own goal since it does reveal that the SPGB effectively defines non-sectarianism in the same way as the capitalist left as a whole: servility to the sacred agencies of the bourgeois state like the trade unions ([4]), and (attempted) participation in the parliamentary circus that disguises the dictatorship of capital over the working class. Like the entire capitalist left, it defines as sectarian anyone outside the 'broad church' of support for bourgeois democracy. In fact the rejection of this religious belief in the state is an essential precondition for an organisation that wants to be considered part of the revolutionary marxist tradition.

Everybody knows that anarchism, in theory at least, has always in every historical period rejected the state. But the SPGB are wrong to imply that the marxist position is the symmetrical opposite: participation in elections and parliament at all times and proposing the conversion of the capitalist state to socialism. The distinguishing point between marxism and anarchism on the state is not, as the opportunists of the Second International pretended, that marxism is for it, and anarchism against it. Marxism wants the smashing of the state, but unlike anarchism, believes this destruction cannot take place at any time as a result of pure will but only as the consequence of the historic struggle of the working class.

But the SPGB haven't abandoned the 'superstitious reverence' for the state, for which Engels repeatedly castigated the opportunist Social Democracy. And when they discuss "democracy and dictatorship" they have not abandoned the debating tricks and distortions that opportunism used to attack the arguments of the marxist left.

"Whereas the ICC is all in favour of elections, parliaments and 'bourgeois democracy' before 1914, after then all these became anathema to them. In fact, our refusal to denounce political democracy seems to be our worst failing in their eyes.

'Through its defence of the democratic principle', they say of us ' it actually reinforces one of the greatest obstacles facing the working class'.

Excuse us if we disagree, but we don't regard universal suffrage and political democracy within capitalism as 'one of the greatest obstacles facing the working class' The vote is a gain, a potential class weapon, a potential 'instrument of emancipation' as Marx put it. Despite Lenin's distortions quoted by the ICC, Marx and Engels always held that the bourgeois democratic republic was the best political framework for the development and triumph of the socialist movement. This is another pre-1914 socialist position we see no reason to abandon.

Certainly, political democracy under capitalism is not all that it is purported to be by many supporters of the system and it is severely limited, from the point of view of democratic theory, by the very nature of capitalism as an unequal, class-divided society. Certainly 'democracy' has become an ideology used to give capitalist rule a spurious legitimacy and to mobilise working class support for wars.

But it is still sufficient to allow the working class to organise politically and economically without too much state interference and also, we would argue, to allow a future socialist majority to gain control of political power."

It is completely false to say that the ICC was all for bourgeois democracy before 1914 and all against it afterwards. Why allege something that they must know isn't true? The SPGB want to give the impression that they are preserving the traditional marxist attitude to the state against revisionists, when the reverse is true. The SPGB want to fool people that Marx and Engels thought that the working class could achieve political power only in a peaceful way using the mechanisms of the bourgeois democratic republic. They pretend that Marx and Engels believed, as the SPGB does, that socialism could be achieved without overthrowing the bourgeois state and its fraudulent democratic mechanisms.

As Marx and Engels said, and which the SPGB don't say, the most democratic bourgeois republic can only be a dictatorship of capital over the working class. Whatever political form capitalist rule takes, however democratic, it will always be a dictatorship of the capitalist class to hold down the exploited. Authentic marxism has always shown that democracy and dictatorship are not exclusive opposites but complementary, interconnected, weapons of the ruling class to impose its will on the ruled.

The SPGB present the questions of political democracy and dictatorship, in themselves, without reference to their class characteristics in a given society, or to the historic period in which they develop. By presenting democracy and dictatorship as independent forms of government, without reference to their material origins and function in class society, the SPGB play the same game as the bourgeoisie when it tells stories about the superiority of democracy to dictatorship.

It's clear that for the SPGB, despite a few mild criticisms of the shortcomings of democracy within capitalism, this political form can somehow exist separately from its actual class character, that the state can exist independently of the capitalist class. It's not surprising that the SPGB, living in this political la-la land, believe that even today the state can be converted peacefully to the socialist cause.

The SPGB completely undermines the marxist theory of the state. Engels showed in Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, that the state arises historically when human society becomes divided into classes. Whatever form the state takes it is needed to hold down the exploited class in the interests of a given mode of production and in the interests of the exploiting class - using whatever force it can mobilise. The state therefore becomes a parasite on the body of society. This is as true of ancient Greek democracy, which excluded the majority of the population (slaves, women and foreigners) from its deliberations, as it is of modern bourgeois democracy.

Marxism has always approached the question of the state with a method that is concrete, historical and materialist, in order to understand how the working class struggles against the bourgeoisie and its state, and how ultimately it will overthrow it, assume political power and begin the transition to communist society.

This understanding developed according to the historical experience of the working class and was always animated by revolutionary rather than legal or parliamentary considerations. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848 Marx and Engels defined the revolutionary soul of the proletariat:

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

In The Class Struggles in France 1848-50 Marx made this outlook more precise. He completely identified with the Parisian proletariat that took up arms in the June insurrection against the Legislative Assembly and "in place of its demands, exuberant in form, but petty and even bourgeois in content, the concession of which it wanted to wring from the February republic, there appeared the bold slogan of revolutionary struggle: Overthrow of the bourgeoisie! Dictatorship of the working class!". And in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte published in 1852 Marx first established that the successful proletarian revolution could not be effected by redividing the spoils of the state as all previous revolutions had done, but only by concentrating "all its forces of destruction" against the state power.

The Paris Commune of 1871 fully confirmed this lesson and led Marx and Engels to reiterate the need to smash the state and made the famous correction to the Communist Manifesto: "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'"(Preface to the German Edition of 1872).

In the period from the defeat of the Paris Commune to the death of Engels in 1894, both he and Marx had to wage a permanent struggle (in the Critique of the Gotha Programme of 1875, in the critique by Engels of the Erfurt Programme of 1891, as well as much correspondence) to preserve this lesson against the development of opportunism on this question in the German workers' movement and in the Second International as a whole. But the opportunist leadership of the latter did a good job in delaying or suppressing or distorting these texts and articles. It was only the marxist left in the Second International, exemplified by revolutionaries like Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, Amadeo Bordiga and of course Lenin (in State and Revolution) who unearthed these critiques and preserved the authentically revolutionary marxist tradition on the state. It is from this revolutionary tradition that the Communist Left and the ICC descends.

Far from being "all in favour" of bourgeois democracy before 1914 and treating it as "anathema" after, the ICC preserves the authentic revolutionary thread within marxism, clearly expressed in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 on the need for "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie". Against this the SPGB draws its inspiration from opportunists like Bernstein and Kautsky.

The marxist left, during the First World War and the revolutionary wave after it, had to separate from and fundamentally change the political programme of Social Democracy in order to return, in a changed historical period, to the genuinely revolutionary tradition of marxism that opportunism had tried to suppress, first in words and then in blood.

Como, 1/12/04.

 

Notes

1. "The working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic." SPGB Declaration of Principles.

2. "Our position is that political democracy is a gain for the working class but that this does not justify socialists allying themselves with capitalist parties to get it or supporting one side in a war to supposedly defend it." Socialist Standard August 2004.

3. There have been two SPGBs since a split in the early 1990s. There is now a Clapham party which publishes Socialist Standard, and an Ashbourne Grove Party which publishes Socialist Studies . Both defend the SPGB's original Declaration of Principles. The Ashbourne Grovists have yet to comment on our survey. However, an ex-SPGB member has written a 15000 word attack on this survey posted on a web discussion forum, entitled 'Social Democracy versus Left-Wing Communism'. Subsequently he has written to us disavowing some of this critique, in particular its title, because the latter implies, wrongly according to him, that the two are incompatible. In doing so he has abandoned one of the few correct statements in his first critique. Engels criticised, as did the Bolsheviks, the entire Communist International and the Communist Left the name of 'Social Democracy' because it was a theoretically false description of the goal of the proletariat. The ex-SPGBer also makes confused accusations about the ICC making concessions to Blanquism, Bordigism and minority action, which we will return to in a future issue.

4. The SPGB's respect for the trade unions is even more brazen than the 'critical' support of the leftists for these organs of capital against the working class. In the September 2004 Socialist Standard, the 'Acting General Secretary' of the SPGB addressed an open letter to the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union congratulating the union on disaffiliating from the Labour Party. As might be guessed, the letter contains no criticism of the sabotage by the FBU of the recent firefighters' strikes. No doubt the SPGB thinks it can excuse such grovelling to trade union bureaucrats by labelling the ICC's consistent denunciation of the unions as 'rabid'.

The demonstrations that followed November's presidential election in Ukraine have been acclaimed as the latest example of 'people power'. Following the Czech 'velvet revolution' of 1989, and last year's 'rose revolution' in Georgia, the protests in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have been marketed as a new 'chestnut revolution', against a rigged election and Russian influence. Meanwhile, support for Prime Minister Yanukovich is described in the western media as being 'bussed in' from the east of the country, with people provided with free accommodation, food, generous spending money and supplies of vodka.

In reality, whether intoxicated by free alcohol or Ukrainian nationalism and democracy, the people participating in the spectacles in Kiev and elsewhere, whether workers, students or petit-bourgeois, have been drawn into a dispute between factions of the Ukrainian ruling class, each backed by powerful imperialist powers. This is not 'people power' but a conflict over what direction Ukrainian capitalism should go.

Election fraud

The EU, NATO, leaders of European countries, and senior figures in the US all found that the election results that gave an initial victory for Yanukovich were unacceptable and marked by massive fraud. There were no inhibitions about 'interfering in the internal affairs' of another country, although the Russian ambassador in the US was summoned to be told off for Putin's open support for Yanukovich.

The opposition lodged 11,000 complaints about electoral practices that didn't favour them. A team of 563 observers that had been sent by various international and European bodies produced a catalogue of electoral practices that it didn't approve of. These included the role of the media, intimidation, mysterious extra votes appearing so that more than 100% voted in some areas, and votes open to tampering after the election.

The divisions within the Ukrainian ruling class, and its lack of experience in running elections, do seem to have lead to rather inept attempts to ensure a favourable result for Yanukovich. But, for the working class, all capitalist elections are frauds. They can only offer the continuation of exploitation, impoverishment and war, while claiming that bourgeois domination of our lives is given validity through the electoral charade. In the US, for example, we have just witnessed an election where millions of workers (and others) voted for Bush, who has presided over a decline in employment and living standards, while millions others voted for Kerry, despite his clear commitment to advancing the interests of American imperialism. Of course the US election was played as the 'most important of a generation', but that's the sort of spiel you'd expect from any huckster selling you something dodgy.

In Ukraine the hype round Yushchenko is also part of the fraud. Trained as an accountant he made his way to senior posts in the banking system of Ukraine when still part of the USSR. Not long after 1991's Ukrainian independence, he became head of the national bank in 1993, directing monetary policy and having a major role in economic policy until 1999 when President Kuchma made him Prime Minister.

The testimony of a pro-Yanukovich demonstrator is possibly of limited value, but The Times (26/11/04) reported a miner as asking "What did Yushchenko do for us when he was Prime Minister? I'll tell you what - he tried to cut our salaries and pensions, to close the mines, to destroy our lives". It's widely believed that Kuchma was grooming Yushchenko as his successor, and no one doubted the then Prime Minister's loyalty.

In addition to Yushchenko's past, his current backers include a handful of millionaires, even billionaires. They have acquired their fortunes and influence in the period since 1991, but were clearly well placed before the break-up of the USSR. Yuschenko has a 'sweep out corruption' slogan that draws attention to the infighting, corruption and dubious dealing throughout the ruling class. This is only for public consumption as he has every reason to turn a blind eye to the business habits of his friends and allies. Far more important are those outside Ukraine who back his presidency.

Not a 'revolution', but a moment in the conflict between imperialist powers

The French paper Liberation (2/12/04) described events in the Ukraine as "a new illustration of the power of the European dream of liberty and prosperity". But beyond the platitudes about democracy and freedom, Liberation sees a Cold War by proxy between Putin's Russia and Europe. In fact, even the less sophisticated press in Britain has had no problem in seeing the big power vultures circling over Ukraine.

They paint a crude picture of Ukraine divided between a pro-Russian south and east with a pro-European west, based on certain material particularities. The east has heavy industry and mineral resources, and, while Russia has the ports of Taganrog and Novorosiisk, guaranteed access to Black Sea ports such as Odessa and the Crimea is still important. The oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the heart of Europe goes from Odessa to Brody in northwest Ukraine.

However, these details do not explain the insistence from the US and European powers that they can't accept the November election or Russia's complaints about others interfering with its neighbour.

If you look at the actual state of the Ukrainian economy and social infrastructure there is little to covet. In the words of Le Monde Diplomatique (October 04) "The past decade has been disastrous for Ukraine. Between 1990-2000 per capita income dropped by 42%, life expectancy shortened by two and a half years, and the population fell from 51.6 million to 48.2 million." Many serious accidents show the run-down state of the industrial infrastructure. In 1996 Ukraine meekly agreed to hand over its nuclear arsenal to Russia, although in March the Defence Minister had to place an ad in a local newspaper saying "We are looking for several hundred missiles. They have already been decommissioned, but we cannot find them." To get a clear idea of the state of the Ukrainian infrastructure, just recall the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl reactors, 60 miles north of Kiev, and then add on the years of subsequent decline.

The fundamental reason that Russia, the US and various European powers have explicitly stated their positions on Ukraine can only be understood as part of the period that opened up with the end of the two big imperialist blocs dominated by Russia and the US. Since the break up of the American bloc the US has been trying to ensure that no European power emerges as a rival. One of its strategic concerns is the encirclement of Europe. If the US gains a position in Ukraine, as it did last year in Georgia, it will not only have an important piece in its array against Europe, it also has a forward position toward Russia. For the major powers of Europe, as well as Russia, the struggle for the Ukraine is against US attempts to advance its interests. The difficulty for the different imperialist powers promoting Yushchenko is that they use the same democratic propaganda, so the post-election battle is only one step in a conflict that will not be over if the opposition's man becomes president.

The moves toward a breakaway Crimea, which already has a certain amount of autonomy, or the splitting off of south and east Ukraine, maybe with a linkup with Russia, might turn out to be empty threats from elements backed by Putin, but they do show the dominant tendencies in decomposing capitalism. We have, after all, already seen the break-up of Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Yugoslavia. Russia is desperate to combat any threat to its own territorial integrity - most clearly seen in the war in Chechnya - but is implicitly posing the break-up of Ukraine if it can't guarantee the domination of a pro-Russian faction in the country.

There is no 'revolution' in Ukraine. Whoever wins the December 26 election, the bourgeoisie can only offer the perspective of exploitation, disaster and war.

Car, 5/12/04.