Four weeks after unleashing its terrifying war machine over Iraq the US bourgeoisie is getting ready to claim victory. Overmatched and out-gunned by an enemy far superior in every military aspect Iraq’s armed forces have been practically destroyed. Sadam Hussein’s regime has collapsed; all major sate functionaries (included Hussein) have been killed or are in the run. The so-called “coalition” forces have taken military control of all the main strategic areas of the country. Ten of thousands -perhaps hundreds, no body knows exactly or has cared to count, of Iraqi soldiers and civilians have been slaughtered or maimed by the US killing machine. The devastation of basic infrastructure and the destruction of material wealth by the aerial bombardment of the war and the fighting in the ground, is being compound by the destruction caused by mobs acts of revenge against perceived symbols of the fallen Iraq’s regime, the settling of accounts between ethnic and religious groups and the mass looting undertaken by some sectors of the “liberated” Iraqi population.

The main phase of the war over, now the American bourgeoisie will have to deal with the political instability and economic ruins of a country ravaged in grand part by the accumulated effects of three major wars in the last two decades. Accordingly the bourgeois media is already phasing out its high pitch war propaganda campaign and switching over to a peacetime “war reconstruction” theme.

And while the American bourgeoisie parades in front of the noses of friends and enemies the prowess of its military muscle and prepares itself to celebrate its war victory by a new barrage of lies aimed to justify the conquest of Iraq, revolutionaries have the duty to reveal the real reasons for this war and thus to unmask the false explanations that the ruling class is using to make the working class identify itself with the imperialist interest of American state.

The Bush administration has given over the last months many “praiseworthy” explanations for this new military adventure. It has said, attempting still to exploit the patriotic feelings awaken in the American population after the terrorist attacks of September 11 to the cities of New York and Washington, that this war is a war against terrorism. It has said that this war is a pre-emptive action to disarm Iraq of “weapons of mass destruction” that could have been used in the future against American interest. It has said that this war has the goal of changing Iraq’s regime and the overthrowing of a bloody dictator that threatened its neighbors and oppressed its own people. It has said –and this is the prefer theme lately- that this is a war aimed to liberate the Iraqi population, a war meant to bring prosperity, peace and the democratic panacea to the Iraqis and the Middle East region at large.

These explanations are cynical lies. The use of the weapon of terrorism, the possession of “weapons of mass destruction”, the oppression of its “own population” was not the sole attribute of Hussein’s regime, but the share characteristic of all capitalist states in the world nor matter how democratic or dictatorial their political regime. The US is not exception to this rule, historically its dominant class has not hesitated either to use terrorism or “weapons of mass destruction” when its suited its political interests. Lets not forget that the US posses a military arsenal able to destroy the world several times over. However there is nothing out of the ordinary about the dishonesty of the bourgeoisie. The dominant class can’t just tell the exploited class –the one that has always bared one way or the other the brunt of the military adventure of its exploiters- that a military action is needed in order to advance or defend the political, economic or military strategic needs of the State. In order to convince that killing and being killed is a worthy cause, the dominant class has to ideologically mystify the population and in particular the working class. The imperialist WWI, and WWII and the none less imperialist various local wars in which the Western and the Stalinist blocs confronted each other for decades had always been justified with one or other ideological them. The “anti-terrorism” and democratic banner that the US is today waving to justify its world-wide war campaign is nothing but a façade behind which stand the desperate efforts of a frightening imperial power determined to defend its hegemony over the world.

The Crisis of American leadership:

The collapse of the Stalinist bloc and its leader the USSR at the end of 1989-90 left the US as the hegemonic imperialist superpower in the world. Thanks to its unsurpassed military apparatus, its powerful economy and its privileged geographic position the American bourgeoisie set for a moment at the top of the world gloating on its political leadership. However this dominant position was challenged immediately by major and minor imperialist powers, included the states that during the cold war period have been American’s closest allies. The end of the “cold war”, rather than putting an end to military confrontations and brining in “peace and prosperity”, opened up a period of increasing violent confrontations between national states that are plunging the whole world into a growing state of barbarism. This drive to war is not due to “bloody” dictators or particularly bellicose bourgeois fractions, but to the fact that in the epoch of capitalist decadence all sates are obliged to wage a life or death imperialist struggle in order to maintain their economic and political viability. This is the underlying dynamic at work behind the first Gulf war at the beginning of the 90’s, the wars in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Africa, the menace of nuclear war between the Pakistan and India, the September 11 events, the war in Afghanistan, the ongoing massacres in the war between Israel and Palestine and today’s US conquest of Iraq.

US imperialism, at the center of this war dynamic, has for over a decade followed a coherent strategy designed to defend its hegemonic world power. This strategic orientation has at its core a political, economic and military policy aim to prevent the arising of a new superpower –in reality an imperialist bloc- that could pose a serious challenge to the American worldwide dominance. The massive American display of military power during “desert storm” in 91, just after the disappearance of the bloc system that dominated the world since after WWII, was already meant to send a message to the US would be challengers. The diverse political-military initiatives of the US bourgeoisie during the last decade, ranging from the revival of the “star wars” program, the relocation of troops around the world under the cover of “peace-keeping” and “antiterrorism” slogans and the direct territorial control of strategic zones of the world, are all elements of this strategy aim to defend American hegemony.

In the last year, after the events of September 11, the US bourgeoisie has ratchet up its campaign against its would be challengers. Under the cover of the war against terrorism it has through a more massive military intervention started an offensive directed to the encirclement of Europe and Russia by gaining direct control of Central Asia and the Middle East. This is the real explanation of the war in Afghanistan, the present conquest of Iraq and the declared intention of the Bush administration to deal with Iran. Thus the aims of this intervention are beyond the question of oil considered as a source of capitalist profit. In reality to the extent that the question of oil plays a role in these events this due to the strategic importance that the control of this raw material has in the over all imperialist chessboard game being play in the international arena between the US and its challengers.

The US new offensive has called forth a corresponding response by its rivals. France led the efforts to resist the American intervention in Iraq plunging the UN into crisis and obliging the US to go to war without the “legal” coverage of this organization and thus undermining its credibility. But even more important is the open Germany’s challenge to the US policy, which has brought unquestionable to the open the opposition between America and the only other power which could pose as the candidate to lead a new anti-US imperialist bloc.

The divisions between the great powers over Iraq has also exposed the fiction of the NATO alliance and at the same time has also reveled the great divergences that exist in Europe over inter-imperialist relations and the nonexistence of a European bloc for the moment.

The military victory of the US in Iraq, despite the fact that it has allowed once again to show-case the US enormous military superiority will not stop its rivals from continuing challenging its world hegemony. On the contrary this war will have the immediate effect of adding fuel to imperialist tensions and chaos all around the world.

--Eduardo S .

One step ahead in the strengthening of the revolutionary organization in the Americas

On November 30 and December 1 2002 an event of great importance took place for the working class, and particularly for its bastions in North, Central, and South America, as well as in the Caribbean area. The ICC held its first Pan-American Conference, which brought together the sections in the USA (Internationalism), Mexico (Revolucion Mundial), and Venezuela (Internacionalismo). This assessment is not an expression of arrogance. Instead, its importance is a historical fact.

The ICC statutes set down that each of its territorial sections must hold a conference every year. The aim of these conferences is to make a balance of the activities and give the perspectives for intervention for the following year, within the context of the agreements reached at the International Congresses, held every two years. In the last few years, the ICC central organs have encouraged the holding of regional meetings for those sections which intervene in a common geographical area. In this way the international and centralized character of the central organs is reaffirmed, the collective character of the organization is strengthened, and possible localist tendencies within each section are counterbalanced. In addition, the tendency toward ‘each for themselves’, characteristic of decomposition, are also counterbalanced.

The regional conferences are not a sum of each section’s representatives. Instead, their objective is to make common balances of activities, national situations, and intervention, as well as tracing perspectives in a collective manner, without neglecting the discussions around the most relevant aspects of each section involved. This is why the task of the first ICC Pan-American Conference was to make a collective balance of the activities of the American sections of the ICC, and a balance of the economic, political, geopolitical, and social situation in a region that traditionally has been the US bourgeoisie’s backyard. One of the myths that this conference tore down is that of the separation between the proletariat in the US and that in the rest of the continent, a separation drawn by the left, the leftists and their new version, the ‘anti-globalists.’ It portrays the US working class as ‘privileged’ or as ‘working class aristocracy,’ when in reality they are being affected by unemployment and a significant increase in the level of poverty.

The defense of the organization: axis of the Conference

The dominant aspect of the Pan-American Conference was the balance of our activities, especially as they relate to the functioning of the sections concerned, which had been particularly affected by an internal crisis, which led to the formation of a clan within the organization. This clan in turn constituted a supposed ‘internal fraction’ which today is a parasitic group. It is made up of ex-militants who had violated our organizational principles, (see the article Extraordinary Conference of the ICC: The struggle for the defense of organizational principles, International Review 110).

The Conference has deepened on the root causes that made the formation of this new clan possible within the organization. It based itself on the orientation texts generated by the central organs for the internal discussion. The discussion brought to light the fact that affinitarian-type relationships made it possible for the clan to have an influence on the American sections, and particularly on the Mexican section, where a number of its militants have been co-opted by the ‘internal fraction.’ The Conference has also highlighted the vestiges of leftism in organizational matters which facilitated the penetration of alien ideologies within the sections, as an expression of the ideology of the petty bourgeoisie. The Conference resolved that the aspects of the weight of affinitarism and leftism will have to be deepened by each one of the sections.

After extending the invitation to the four comrades co-opted by the ‘internal fraction’ in Mexico, the Conference has once more witnessed its disrespect for the organization. Instead of making use of this regional event to defend its positions and try and convince the militants of the correctness of their positions, these comrades opted for political ostracism. In this way, these comrades (like the ones in the Paris ‘fraction’, who rejected our invitation to the Extraordinary Conference of the beginning of this year) have placed themselves outside of the organization, by consistently violating organizational principles.

The Conference reaffirmed the priority of the defense of the organization for our intervention. The deepening of the understanding of the causes of the crisis, along with the open yet firm and sustained attitude toward our organizational principles, which we have held vis-à-vis the attacks by the parasitic internal ‘fraction’, are conceived as a process of decantation. During this process the expressions of the penetration within our ranks of ideologies that are alien to the working class are rejected.

In this sense, the balance made by the Conference is very positive. A concrete demonstration is that at the time of the Conference, a new section of Revolucion Mundial in the north of Mexico was integrated. This shows the vitality of the ICC and the strengthening of our section in Mexico. In this way, the basis for the future proletarian party in the region are strengthened.

Strengthening of the collective intervention in the region

The situation in the proletarian political milieu is another aspect discussed at the Conference. We observed that a number of organizations show a tendency toward opportunism. We can see this, for instance, in the positions taken by several groups in the milieu on events that happened in the region. These groups have posed the question of the existence of the combativeness of the proletariat at the time of the events in Argentina. In reality, the working class was actually integrated in the masses of the unemployed, the ‘piqueteros’, who live in the cities’ slums, trapped in inter-bourgeois struggles. In the case of Venezuela, they identified the political crisis as a struggle of the big bourgeoisie against Chavez’s ‘reformist’ government. But it was really a conflict between fractions of capital, which are decomposing rapidly, and where the Venezuelan proletariat is trapped between the options offered by either fraction of the bourgeoisie. The ICC, in particular its sections in the Americas, takes the responsibility to intervene in a coordinated fashion to arrest the opportunist expressions of the milieu, which at times get to the point of flirting with the positions of the left and the leftists in the region. This works against the process of development of class consciousness which we see in elements in search of political clarification, even though they are a minority.

In order to strengthen our intervention, the Conference discussed and laid out the orientations to make a more efficient use of our press. We need to integrate global analyses on the political crises of the regional bourgeoisies as well as the analysis of the geopolitical situation. Above all, we aim at generating analyses on the class struggle in the region, tracing the perspectives that open up for the proletariat, and confronting the tricks laid by capital against the proletariat. One of the central aspects we need to develop in our press is how decadent capitalism, in the face of its inability to present humanity with solutions, accelerates the pauperization of the proletariat and the poorest strata in the region. In particular, we need to analyze further on the living conditions of the proletariat in the US, because there exists a belief that the US working class lives in a ‘heaven’. The left, the leftists, and ‘globalists’ are mainly responsible for this mystification, when the very statistics of the bourgeoisie show the acceleration of the conditions of misery and poverty in the world’s greatest economy.

Because the Conference prioritized the questions of organizational functioning, it could not develop on the national situations, where we deal with the economic, political, and geopolitical aspects and the class struggle. Given the importance of these aspects, the Conference decided that each section should develop them. We will then publish the analyses in our press and report upon them at public meetings.

Strengthening of the revolutionary minorities in the region

As we said in the Resolutions on activities drawn at the Conference: ìThe conference has marked a positive dynamic as to the capacity to diagnose, to deepen, while also showing a great will to take on the struggle. That is, not only has there been a connection with the rest of the ICC, but also the Pan-American Conference has marked a moment in the enrichment of the international politics of the ICC.î

This ‘political enrichment’ is the basis to strengthen the development and intervention of the revolutionary minorities in the region and to counteract the effects of capitalism’s decomposition on the militants. ìÖWe canít, however, fall into fatalistic attitudes which are nothing but the expression of decomposition (giving up, passivity, let things passÖ) We have to take up this struggle collectively. In this sense:

-we must take individual responsibility as militants of an organization of combat;

-we must make an effort in theoretical deepening. While it is an antidote against the erosion of militantism, theoretical deepening is also a weapon against clannism, and affinitarism, and the loss of acquisitions;

-we must strengthen the political and fraternal ties between militants (idem)

We are today witnessing an acceleration of history at every level, particularly a forward movement of the decomposition of a decadent system that has nothing to give other than pauperization and war, that is to say, barbarism. Notwithstanding the fact that the proletariat in the different countries of the region is entangled in the inter-bourgeois confrontations, it also makes efforts to develop its struggles of resistance against the attacks of capital. This shows that the proletariat continues to push for the perspective of class confrontations. Today more than ever the revolutionary minorities of the region have a very important role to play in the intervention toward the elements and groups in search of a class perspective. The Pan-American Conference is an effort, albeit modest, fully inscribed within the efforts our organization makes on a world level to strengthen the perspective of the only possible solution to this barbarism: communism.

Internationalism

Revolucion Mundial

Internacionalismo/ December 2002

The war in Iraq is being used by the American ruling class as a pretext to ram austerity measures down the throats of the working class. The attacks on the workers’ standard of living were actually initiated by the Bush administration last year, and have escalated sharply this year, constituting the most significant degradation of working class living conditions in more than twenty years. Patriotism and war propaganda are being used to push through these cuts with only minimal opposition. Not only is the working class paying for the war with the lives and physical well being of its young men and women in uniform on the battlefield, but it is being forced to endure a permanent decline in its standard of living to finance US imperialism’s war mongering policies.

Military costs are escalating at a feverish pace for American capitalism, which more and more feels compelled to employ brute force to defend its imperialist hegemony throughout the world. Forty-seven percent of federal spending goes to military related costs. The $2.2 trillion federal budget proposed by the Bush administration for the next fiscal year increases military spending yet again, while at the same time introducing drastic cuts in spending on social programs, through sharp cuts in funds turned back to the state and local governments. According to the Los Angeles Times, measured in real dollars, Bush is spending more on the military than Johnson did during the Vietnam war. “In 2003 dollars, defense spending would peak at $451.9 billion, compared with the peak during the Vietnam buildup of $439.9 billion, according to analysis of administration figures by the generally liberal Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (LAT March 12, 2003). And these figures do not include the costs incurred in waging the war in Iraq, occupying that country for at least six months, and reconstructing the Iraqi infrastructure, which has originally been estimated at $80-100 billion, but which many expect will run even higher. As we go to press, the war in Iraq is costing $12,000 per second, $366,000,000 per 8-hours, or a staggering $1.1. billion per day!!! (Figures computed by War Resisters League, based on published federal budgetary data.)

The cuts in social programs proposed by the Bush administration are planned as long-term measures to permanently shrink the social wage – that portion of the cost of the reproduction of the working class provided by the state in the form of social services rather than in money wages paid directly by employers to workers. For example, over the next ten years, the budget plan will cut $470 billion from medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and student loans. On the immediate level, “federal spending on poverty alleviation, science, environmental protection, transportation and health care would be cut below current levels” (Washington Post, March 13, 2003).

One of the remarkable strengths of American state capitalism is its ability to mask the imposition of austerity by means of its federal structure, and apparently decentralized power. Rather than announce a uniform national austerity program imposed by the central government in Washington that might risk provoking a working class uproar, the American ruling class uses its federal structure to decentralize the attacks. A key element in this sophisticated approach is the control of tax levy funds that are distributed to the state governments, and through them the distribution of these funds to municipal level governments. The cutoff of federal funding puts pressure on local governments to slash programs, raise taxes, or a combination of the two – any of which constitutes an attack on the workers’ standard of living. Each state and municipality cobbles together its own spending plans, producing all manner of diverse austerity measures, which obscure the fact that austerity is a direct result of national policy decisions made in Washington, and foster a climate that encourages useless local struggles against this or that particular program cutback in this or that locality, rather than against the attacks at the national level.

So for example, the New York State government will be cut 12.7 billion in funding for Medicaid programs over the next ten years, $2 billion for Supplemental Security Income, $1 billion in Earned Income Tax Credit, $1.8 billion for food stamps, and $1.2 billion for welfare. New York Gov. George Pataki has proposed cutting public education funds by $2.1 billion next year alone. In Cleveland, Ohio school officials have proposed canceling summer school sessions. Portland, Oregon school officials plan to raise the student-teacher ratio from 30 to 1 to 42 to 1. California state officials warn that they may have to lay off 30,000 teachers. In Massachusetts, where the 180-day school year has been in place for generations, officials are considering cutting the school week to four-days.

New York City, site of the Twin Towers disaster, is particularly hard hit by the austerity program. The city government faces a $4 billion budget deficit, and has already announced 5400 public sector layoffs, and these are expected to eventually reach 15,000. At the same time, property taxes have soared by 27 percent, public transit fares will increase by 33%, and the city will begin charging tolls on bridges across the East River that bring traffic into Manhattan from Brooklyn and Queens, which have always been free since they were constructed a century ago.

The impact of these layoffs and austerity measures on the working class standard of living is devastating. These layoffs don’t simply signify the number of people being thrown out of work – which is devastating in itself – but they also represent a degradation in the standard of living. On the economic level, these layoffs will have a cascading effect, as unemployed workers reduced to surviving on unemployment benefits will spend less on goods and services in the areas where they used to work, and where they live, and will eventually lead to layoffs in businesses that depend upon their patronage. Workers lucky enough not to be laid off will face pressure to work harder and produce more. On the level of social conditions for the entire working class, these attacks will mean a deterioration in fire protection, education, sanitation, health services, and the physical infrastructure – which means a degeneration in the health, safety and future of the working class. But in the meantime, as the suffering of the working class increases, the government will have no difficulty or compunctions about appropriating more and more funds to finance its imperialist military operations abroad. — JG

The leading representatives of the US dominant class have followed up their victorious war against Iraq and the military occupation of that country with a flurry of political and diplomatic activity. Mr. Bush, Colin Powell and D. Rumsfeld, among others, have been busy visiting the capitals of Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, trumpeting the US dream of a world under Americaís unquestioned imperial dominance. Meanwhile, contrasting with the US bouorgeoisieís fine speeches about the gains in the war against terrorism, the bright future of Iraq, and the prospects of a peaceful Middle East, the sinister reality of capitalism is in full display in this region and on worldwide scale

Cashing In On the War Victory

There is no doubt that through the display of its overwhelming military muscle and political will in its quasi-solo war against Iraq the US has created a favorable momentum in the defense of its world imperialist hegemony. For the moment Americaís most vociferous critics have quieted down, waiting for a better opportunity to challenge their suffocating imperialist rival. This was clear in the last meeting of the G-8 group at the beginning of June, where in on apparent show of unity the leaders of major industrialized countries including Germany, France and Russia óthe noisiest opponents of the US war against Iraq ó declared that their present common objective was a ìfully sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq.î France has tried to accommodate itself to the new situation in the Middle East by appealing to the US to share the spoils of war, recalling that while the US might have been able to win the war alone, it cannot secure the peace without help. Nonetheless this plea by French President Chirac has fallen on deaf ears. The reality is that the American bourgeoisie has no intention to loosen its recently acquired grip over Iraq; with the exception of Great Britain, no major imperialist power is being allowed to meddle in its ìreconstructionî. The new international military force that the US is putting together to help police post-war Iraq ñ which include such ìpowersî as Albania, Portugal, Rumania aandPoland ñ is nothing but a political cover to legitimize American military occupation and political control of this country.

On another front, after the ìnear death experience for NATOî during the debacle over Iraq, the US is trying to breathe some life back into this cold-war relic. In early June, NATOís current 19 members made headlines by deciding to include 7 more countries, and by agreeing on the shape of a new NATO ìresponse force,î a US idea aimed at counteracting the European Unionís similar sounding military outfit already in the making. Thus although the US knows that NATOís fate had been decided long ago when the reason for its existence disappeared with the collapse of the Stalinist military bloc, it does not want to accelerate its demise. On the contrary it will continue to use this pretence of ìmilitary allianceî to, on the one hand, supplement its military activity as it did in Kosovo and post-war Afghanistan, and on the other, to sow trouble in the attempts of its European rivals to escape American imperialist tutelage.

Beyond Europe, in the Middle East region, exploiting its success in the Iraq war, the US is pushing hard to reshape to its own advantage the balance of forces between the local bourgeoisies. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, and Israel are all under various degrees of pressure to play the imperialist game according to the rules of its bullyish new ìneighbor.î In particular Iran, which seems next on Washingtonís list of ìundesirable regimes,î is getting a lot of US attention lately. There is no doubt that the Bush administration wants to complement its political control of Iraq and Afghanistan with the conquest of Iran, a move that would put under its hand a large belt of land stretching almost from the Mediterranean sea (Syria would still be in the way) to the borders of China and Pakistan. In fact a case for Iranís ìregime changeî is already being built and excuses are mounting to justify the toppling of the ayatollahs. Pretexts are not lacking, from Iranís lack of ìdemocracy,î mistreatment of women, terrorism sponsoring and nuclear weapons ambitions. Already the US-inspired student democracy protests are causing trouble for the regime. However, once again, as was the case with the propaganda leading up to the war against with Iraq, these issues are nothing but a smoke screen to mask the real imperialist motivations of the US bourgeoisie. Lets not forget that the present Iranian theocratic regime rose up after the toppling of the US sponsored autocratic regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi. Regarding the question of backing terrorism, the US has no reason to envy the Iranian dominant class. With the cynicism typical of a decadent class the American bourgeoisie is today rehabilitating the so-called ìPeopleís Mujahideenî, an armed Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq that was just a few months ago the instrument of Saddam Hussein in its imperialist squabble with the Iranian State.

No Peace Under Capitalism

On May 1st the Bush administration announced the beginning of a new period in its conquest of Iraq. With the war now over, the emphasis was now going to be put on ìnation building,î on the reconstruction of the economy and on the creation of a fix-all-ills democratic political system. Peace and prosperity were supposed to be for the first time in the future of the beleaguered population of this country thanks to its humanitarian liberation by the US war machine. What cynicism! As if the economic disaster of this country, the misery, the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the battle fields and by illnesses caused by unsanitary conditions and lack of medicine were not in large part the responsibility of the US dominant class. Even though Saddam Hussein and his clique combined political dictatorship with a ruthless economic exploitation, the two US led wars against this country in just over a decade and the economic sanctions that followed the first one, have not been a blessing for the working class and impoverished masses of Iraq. Today the material situation of the Iraqi masses is by all accounts worse than before their ìliberation.î Unemployment is rampant, sanitary conditions worse than during the Saddam regime, and widespread famine is only being avoided by the US restoration of Saddamís old food handout system. The discontent about this situation is growing as exemplified by the demonstrations in mid-June by the demobilized soldiers of Iraqís army asking for payments of pensions and owed salaries. Moreover the nearly two hundred thousand strong American and ìalliedî occupying forces and the US ìcivilian administratorsî have not been able yet to create a semblance of a functioning society in Iraq. Lately the American military is having a lot more to worry than the rampant looting that followed the first days of the collapse of Husseinís regime. In the last few weeks increasing guerrilla military activity by remnants of the overthrown system have kept the numbers of American soldiers killed growing every day. At this level the situation of Iraq resembles very much that of post-war Afghanistan, in which stability has not been forthcoming. In Afghanistan on June 7 a suicide bomber killed 7 German soldiers and injured 29 others, while a resurgent Taliban is waging a guerrilla war against the American and ìinternational peacekeepersî in the Pushtun region and east of Afghanistan with incursions from its bases in Pakistan.

In the Middle East itself the continuing carnage between Israel and the Palestinians make a mockery of the US promises of peace and prosperity in the region in the post Saddam Hussein era. The ìroad map to peaceî announced with such fanfare during the Aqaba summit between Bush, Sharon and the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has been followed by a new descent into bloodshed. In mid-June Israel attempted to assassinate Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, a top Hamas political leader, then a Palestinian bomber slaughtered a bus-full of people in Jerusalem, which in turned provoked a new round of killings by Israel. And the common slaughter goes on as usual. The reality is that neither the American bourgeoisie nor the Israelis have a solution to the Palestinian question. The State terror of Israel is once and again unable to stop the terrorist attacks of the Palestinian cliques. The carrot offered by the Americans in the form of some sort of Palestinian State very likely will also fail.

The US launched its war against Iraq with the excuse of eliminating Husseinís weapons of mass destruction. That this was a lie is proven by the fact that almost two months after the war ended those weapons are no where to be found. However neither was this war fought for humanitarian reason or to get rid of terrorism. This was an imperialist war aimed to bolster the US world hegemony and to weaken its European imperialist competitors ñGermany and France in particular. And like all wars in the 20th and 21st century, it will generate more war and political instability. This is the logic of decadent capitalism. Only the international working class through its proletarian revolution can offer a different future to humanity.

ES

In our last issue, we reported how the American bourgeoisie is making full use of the pretext of the "war on terrorism" to ram through unprecedented attacks on the working class' living and working conditions (see "War is a Pretext for Austerity," Internationalism #125). Utilizing the federal structure of its state apparatus, the American ruling class seeks to obscure its policy of generalized austerity at the level of the national capital itself by portraying the measures as the result of particular local and state officials' policy choices.

We are seeing this logic play itself out spectacularly in America's largest locality: New York City, the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Recently, city and state officials in New York have been compelled to enact a whole series of unprecedented austerity measures. Public sector lay-offs and givebacks on the shop-floor have been accompanied by a 33% hike in the subway fare, toll hikes on bridges and tunnels, a rise in the already high sales tax, property and income tax increases, a sharp rent hike for rent stabilized tenants, fire station closures, tuition increases at city universities, and, in an attempt to raise revenue, an aggressive police enforcement of a number of obscure city ordinances. For most workers, whatever increase in take home pay that results from the Bush administration's policy of federal tax cuts, which is likely to be meager at best, is quickly eaten up by the local austerity measures.

The American bourgeoisie is employing a sophisticated strategy to divert the working class away from responding to these austerity measures on its own class terrain and calling upon it to mobilize behind bourgeois democracy, bourgeois legalism and the unions.

In New York, the media has portrayed the measures as self-contained policy choices of the particular official or agency with the responsibility for implementing them, and never as part and parcel of an overall concerted austerity campaign at the national level. For example, the recent subway fare hikes were the subject of intense media coverage as the "Straphangers Campaign," a leftist inspired "consumer interest" lobby, along with a number of local and state politicians, launched a legal challenge to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) decision to raise the fare by 33%.

According to the Straphangers’ legal complaint, the public hearings the MTA sponsored on the fare increase were held under "false pretenses," such that the "democratic process" was subverted by lack of "informed debate, because the authorities presented the public with a set of fake financial records showing a budget deficit. In mid-May, the court had decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and subway fares would be rolled-back after all! However, with the media still celebrating this supposed "victory for the public interest," the MTA appealed the decision, was granted a stay and now "the public," i.e. the working class, will be paying the increased fare, at least until the conclusion of the legal process at some undetermined future date

Similar campaigns have been launched around the bridge and tunnel toll hikes; the pending closure of firehouses in a number of the city's poorer neighborhoods; as well as the strict police enforcement of city ordinances evidenced by a media blitz surrounding the ticketing of a man for "unauthorized use of a milk crate" for using the latter as stool on a public street and a pregnant woman cited for illegally resting in the stairway of a subway platform. The latter episode has even witnessed the local police union take out a radio commercial urging citizens to petition city hall in an effort to alleviate the pressure on beat cops to write as many citations as possible!

Moreover, a number of consumer groups, in particular the Metropolitan Council on Housing (METCOUNCIL) together once again with a number of city council members and state assemblymen launched a campaign opposing sharp rent hikes for rent-subsidized housing, calling on renters to attend all meetings of the Rent Guidelines Board. In the end, despite the campaign, the RGB voted to raise rents 8.5% for a two-year lease and 5.5% for a one-year lease, figures that were very close to the landlords' actual proposal of 12% and 9% increases respectively. Clearly, this was a process with a pre-determined outcome, as many observers believe Mayor Bloomberg had previously hinted to landlords that the burden of their property tax increases could be shifted to their mostly working-class tenants. In a city where rents are already high, where the average rent-stabilized family makes $32,000 a year and pays 1/3 of its pre-tax income on rent, and where 1/4 of tenants pay 50% of this income (cited in Tenant/Inquilino, April 2003), this rent hike constitutes a serious blow, a blow against which the democratic and legalistic route of the bourgeois state proved no defense for the working-class.

In still another example, recent city lay-offs have been the target of yet another lawsuit, this time by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), claiming that the lay-offs have unfairly targeted minority workers, because most of the teachers aides being laid off are blacks and Latinos. The union legal campaign does not challenge the logic of austerity and lay-offs; it only asks that people be thrown out of work in a more racially sensitive manner. The union campaign not only serves to trap workers behind the dead-end of race-based litigation and but actually seeks to divide workers against themselves on the basis of race and ethnicity -- one more example of the "divide and conquer" strategy the American bourgeoisie has always played, and which the unions have historically been on the front line in implementing.

The lesson of the recent media campaigns in New York City, emphasizing legalistic campaigns based on our "democratic rights as citizens," is that in struggling to resist the austerity measures being taken against it, the working class must not fall for the dead-end of bourgeois legalism and democracy. Filing lawsuits in court, petitioning city hall or testifying at administrative hearings will not halt the current austerity drive that capitalism is compelled to launch against the proletariat. On the contrary, workers must resist the call of the bourgeoisie to bury its struggle in the inter-classist stew of democracy and legality. It must struggle on its own class terrain in defense of its living and working conditions. In this, it must come to see that all factions and levels of the bourgeoisie have the same policy: faced with the insolubility of capitalism's permanent crisis, faced with the senility of its entire system, it has no choice but to attack the working-class. The working-class must take its fate into its own hands, develop its own organs to coordinate its struggle outside of the state's legal and democratic arena, including its union apparatus.

--Henk

Frank Girard, publisher and editor of the Discussion Bulletin, the independent but decidedly De Leonist-leaning journal devoted to political debate and discussion among "non-market socialists," libertarians, and anarchists, has announced his intention to cease publication with the July-August issue. It is appropriate at this moment to reflect back on the contributions of Discussion Bulletin over the past two decades, assessing its strengths and weaknesses.

Girard for many years had been an activist in the Socialist Labor Party and Internationalism frequently polemicized with Discussion Bulletin on the De Leonist legacy, especially its tendency to embrace bourgeois democratic ideas (revolution at the ballot box; rejection of the necessity of a violent revolution; rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Russian Revolution, the Third International), and also its ossified position on the union question. While the debate sometimes got heated, it was clear that Girard was committed to open debate, often publishing our polemics with his rejoinders in DB's pages. In the early days we had the impression that DB was a group project, despite Girard's insistence that it was essentially a one-man operation. In large measure our disbelief resulted from DB's record of regular publication, appearing every two months like clockwork. In a milieu too often characterized by dilletantishness, a failure to understand the need for regular publication, and a tendency towards sporadic publication schedules by often short-lived groups, this was a remarkable achievement, a reflection of Girard's seriousness and dedication to proletarian discussion. It is difficult to avoid talking about DB and Girard as being somthing other than synonymous.

DB was unique in that it specialized in publishing disparate points of view. It became a place where different groups and individual militants searching for political clarification could discover each other's existence. On many occasions, for example, when DB published one of the ICC's polemics, we would receive queries from militants interested in learning more about our politics. Similarly, we learned about the existence of certain organizations that might never have known about through reading their contributions in DB. In a country which is as geographically far-flung as the US, with a dispersed and disorganized political landscape, this function was a tremendous political contribution.

There were of course a number of serious shortcomings. For one, despite his openness to political discussion, Girard personally never was able to surpass the democratist confusions of De Leonism, and basically stayed mired in the perspectives of the Second International, cutting his political evolution from a Marxist understanding of the most important proletarian event of the 20th century: the Russian Revolution. Too often Girard's polemics against the ICC fell into the De Leonist practice of equating anyone who saw the proletarian nature of the Russian Revolution as a Stalinist. On a number of occasions Girard repeated slanderous accusations that the ICC defended substitutionism and sought to establish regimes like those in Cuba and China. It is to Girard's shame that he could never acknowledge the utter falsity of these outrageous charges, which were more akin to the red-baiting of the bourgeois than fraternal debate.

Another shortcoming was the failure to have any formal criteria for publication in DB. While we appreciate the effort to create an open forum, the magazine sometimes published contributions by openly bourgeois elements, such as an environmental activist who once called upon readers to write their Congressmen! More importantly DB too often was mired in fulminations about De Leon's outmoded sentiments, and failed to address burning conjunctural questions facing the workers movement. In particular, there was a failure to publish contributions about American imperialist policies, and military adventurism. Also it would have been interesting to read Girard's own critique of the SLP; after all there must have been a reason for his departure from an organization in which he had spent three decades of his political life.

Perhaps the greatest weakness was Girard's failure to build a group. Regular publications that address significant theoretical questions are important acquisitions for the working class, and their disappearance is a real loss. We appreciate that Girard would like spend his retirement years "on other projects", but we disagree that a publication like DB is anachronistic in the age of internet discussion boards. There is a qualitative difference between the "off the top of one's head" jottings that appear on a discussion board and a well-thought out essay or article that was either written for, or reprinted in, DB. In any case, Internationalism salutes the seriousness and efforts of Frank Girard to maintain publication of DB for these 20 years, and wishes him good health in the years to come. We of course invite him to continue to debate with us. - J. Grevin

For more than a month the prestigious New York Times, and the media in general, have been shaken by the Jayson Blair scandal, which has put into question the veracity of the mass media that the ruling class relies upon to manipulate and mold mass consciousness in contemporary society. Blair was exposed for plagiarizing and even fabricating more than 73 national news stories over the past year. To repair the damage to its credibility, the Times devoted four full pages of its May 11th edition to detailing Blair’s transgressions. This “coming clean” by the self-styled American newspaper of record was supposed to reassure the public that the New York Times was more than capable of cleaning its own house. The whole thing was very reminiscent of the New York police department’s self-investigations of police brutality complaints. Journalists around the country rushed to the defense of the Times, praising the newspaper for confronting the scandal head-on. As one apologist put it, “the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post are dedicated to reporting the truth.”

For revolutionaries the current affair is not particularly shocking. Blair’s misdeeds pale in significance in light of the daily onslaught of propagandistic half truths and outright falsifications perpetuated by the mass media in defense of the state apparatus to which it is attached and which it defends unequivocally. But for the ruling class the scandal is embarrassing because it potentially undermines confidence in the so-called “free press” which is ideologically touted as a foundation stone of democratic society. There is a myth about the media as the fourth estate which asserts that an informed citizenry, capable of participating in the decisions that affect their lives, is the essence of democracy. In reality, all three elements that make up this myth (informed citizenry, participation in decisions, and democracy) are totally groundless.

“An informed citizenry”

The whole idea of an “informed citizenry” is completely fictitious in capitalist society. “Informed” about what, by whom, and for what purpose? A cornerstone of American journalism is the idea of “objectivity” in reporting the news, an idea that developed only in the beginning of the 20th century. The view that journalists can transmit the central elements of what happens in the real world through a formulaic transmission of information that includes the who, what, why, when, where and how of significant events in society free of bias is the linchpin of American journalism’s self-image and by extension, America’s “democratic” self conception. However, the notion that news coverage is not reality, but a story about reality, and it is marked and shaped by a variety of social institutions, codes of behavior, and practices, that make “objectivity” a chimera is generally accepted even by bourgeois academics in media theory. It is not the facts that determine the story that is written, but rather the story that editors have assigned to a reporter that determine the facts that are selected for inclusion.

Modern journalism as it exists in the US is a creation of decadent capitalism, in which the media has become fully integrated into the state capitalist apparatus as a tool to control popular opinion in the interests of the ruling class. During World War I, government information offices were created to manipulate public opinion as part of the war effort, and it was after the war that the first journalism schools were created in the US and the new generations of journalists were inculcated with the notion of objectivity, which facilitated the integration of the media into the state apparatus. Whatever Jayson Blair’s evil deeds, it was the media as a whole which fed the public all the administration’s lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda and Asama bin Laden as a pretext for war.

For marxists, truth is inseparable from class perspective. From the perspective of the ruling class, capitalism is a progressive system, in which the laws of the market determine an equitable distribution of wealth, and workers receive a fair wage for a fair day’s work. This capitalist version of reality, based on the exploiting class’ inability to see itself as the personification of an historically anachronistic mode of production and social relations, is supported by all manner of official and non-official data and evidence to demonstrate its truthfulness. From the perspective of the working class a completely different reality is abundantly apparent: capitalism is a ruthless system of exploitation of labor that offers humanity a stark choice between barbarism or revolution.

“Participating in decisions”

Exactly how do workers, or any individuals in society for that matter participate in the decisions that affect their lives? Any decision we make is totally limited by the circumstances in which we live even on the most personal basis. Sure, we can go to a theater and see any movie we want, but who decides on what films are made and distributed? Sure the capitalist state allows citizens to vote for president, but who decides who runs for president? We can only choose between the limited options the system allows. According to bourgeois propaganda, citizens participate in these decisions of state policy indirectly because their elected representatives make the decisions in the legislature or the executive branch. And in any case, in what way does “choosing” the president have any bearing on the policies that the government pursues?

There are many examples of the farcical nature of this alleged participation in decision making. For example in 1964, Lyndon Johnson won election by portraying the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater as a war monger and promising “no wider war,” but as soon as he was elected, Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam.In 1991, on the eve of the Gulf War, public opinion polls showed a majority of American citizens opposed to war, yet that didn’t stop the elected representatives from launching war. Likewise, a majority of Americans were opposed to war in Iraq, at least without UN sanction, but that had no impact on the decision making in Washington. For a more local example, see the account of the fraudulent financial reports used by the New York Transit Authority to ram through the recent 33 percent fare increase (p. in this issue). While this case is still kicking around in the courts, there is absolutely no one talking about any criminal liability for the board for its fraudulent financial record keeping and willful misleading of the public. Why? Because they didn’t do anything that isn’t part and parcel of the everyday functioning of capitalist government.

The Idea of “Democracy”

This brings us to the third and most pernicious element in this fraudulent myth – the very idea of “democracy” itself. The reason that the bourgeoisie constantly inundates us with propaganda extolling its “democracy” and “freedom” is precisely because the opposite is true. We don’t live in a“democracy” where, by definition the people rule, but in a class dictatorship, where the capitalist class imposes its domination on society, especially on the working class, which produces all the wealth in society, and provides all the services that allow society to function but is totally excluded from the decision making process. The reality of this class dictatorship is covered over by all the trappings of bourgeois democracy: the free press, the electoral circus, clap-trap about inalienable rights, etc.

First of all, there has never been a true “democracy” in all of human social history, which has been characterized always by class rule. The much vaunted Greek democracy was in fact a slave society where democracy was reserved for male citizens only. The democracy established by the American revolution was initially a property owners democracy, with rights denied to workers, women, and slaves. Sure, in the ascendant period of capitalist development the ruling class used its democratic state as a mechanism for determining what policies its class dictatorship would implement, and it was therefore possible during that bygone era for workers to use the parliamentary system to play one faction of the bourgeoisie off against another and wrest certain structural reforms or improvements in the standard of living from the bourgeoisie. But with the passage the capitalist system into its decadent phase at the beginning of the 20th century, that characteristic of the capitalist dictatorship changed, and bourgeois democracy became 100 percent mystification. Real decision making power now resides firmly in the executive branch, and is exercised behind closed doors in the global interests of the national capitalist state, not in the legislature. In decadent capitalism, bourgeois democracy is a massive social swindle.

While the media would like to use Jayson Blair as a scape goat for media shortcomings, it is in fact the nature of journalism in capitalist society that it serves the interests of the ruling class, as a transmission belt for the capitalist propaganda and a central mechanism in manipulating and derailing class consciousness.

– J. Grevin

Earlier this year, Internationalism received copies of two leaflets distributed by the Toronto based Red and Black Notes at the anti-war demonstrations of last winter. In an effort to develop a constructive process of debate and criticism among the various tendencies in the “proletarian political milieu” (PPM) in North America, we have responded to these two leaflets with the letter that we reproduce below. The ICC has always said that the advancement of revolutionary theory can only occur as a result of open and constructive debate within the PPM. We publish our response in an effort to contribute, however modestly, to this process, a process that is an essential precondition for the eventual construction of a proletarian class party. As readers will see, although we salute the internationalist frame of Red and Black Notes’ leaflets and express our agreement on many fundamental points, we also advance some important criticisms and disagreements. This is different from the behavior of some groups in the milieu, who often seem to “flatter” new and emerging groups in order perhaps to curry their favor, rather than point out honestly and unambiguosly their errors and mistakes. If we are upfront in expressing our disagreements with some of the formulations in Red and Black Notes’ leaflets, this not done out of any desire to be sectarian. Rather, debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of the PPM, its dialectical motivation to advance and develop. Nevertheless, even if we ultimately conclude that there is much more that unites our perspectives than divides them, we still have the responsibility as revolutionaries to see that our differences confront one another openely and clearly so that mistaken ideas may be discarded, correct positions may be reaffirmed and new syntheses produced in the light of criticism. We encourage all other groups in the milieu to embrace this work fully as well. This is in the tradition of all the great revolutionaries of the past and is the necessary condition for our success in the future.

Full copies of Red and Black Note’s leaflets may be obtained by contacting them at:

Red and Black Notes

Po Box 47643

Don Mills, ON

M3C 3S7 Canada

[email protected] [9]

https://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/ [10]

Dear Comrade:

We have discussed the two leaflets you prepared and distributed at the Toronto anti-war demonstrations during the lead-up to the recent war in Iraq (“A Plague on Both Your Houses” and “No War But the Class War”). In the spirit of open debate, we would like to take this opportunity to share with you some comments and criticisms.

First, we want to salute the effort you have made to distribute these leaflets at the recent demonstrations. Your intervention was undoubtedly quite out-of-step with the main themes of these demonstrations, which in our analysis were all situated well within the realm of bourgeois politics. Your defense of proletarian internationalism in the face of both the official bourgeois pacifism of the demonstrations, as well as all the accompanying leftist calls to defend one imperialism against another, clearly demonstrate your desire to defend a working-class perspective on war in this historical period. In particular, your denunciations of the Trotskyists and leftists were to the point. For example, in " A Plague on Both Your Houses" you write, "For others on the left, it's about defending imperialism. This has led some, most notable the Trotskyists, to claim opposition to imperialism in this conflict means support to Iraq in the hopes of bloodying the nose of the 'main' imperialist power (…) While sounding radical, the position is essentially a lesser-evilism. (…) Capitalism is a world system, and the wars it generates are wars between the greater and the lesser imperialist powers for the right to exploit and rule. Yesterday's national liberation movements fighting against imperialism are today's exploiters of labour and tomorrow's allies of larger powers. (…) We will not choose between the greater and the lesser powers.

Moreover, your denunciations of all the belligerent parties of World War II, or as you call it the “second imperialist world war,” shows a stern refusal to fall for the bourgeois ideological justification for this war, that of defending “democracy” against fascism, a call that was repeated throughout the twentieth century not only by the official parties of bourgeois order, but also the Stalinists, Trotskyists and many anarchist currents as well; and which is being deployed in full force by the world bourgeoisie today. For us, and—as it would appear from your leaflet—for you as well, the proletariat had no side to choose in this war either. The following passage from " A Plague on Both Your Houses" demonstrates this internationalist commitment particularly well, "The second imperialist world war between 1939 and 1945 claimed tens of millions of lives. But the 'peace' that followed it also claimed untold millions of lives across the globe, as capital has engaged in low level, and sometimes not so low level wars to preserve the imperialist 'peace.' It is the peace of the grave. The only way to stop war is to uproot the capitalist system."

We believe that whether openly fascist or cloaking itself in democratic verbiage, all factions of the ruling class have been equally reactionary since the entry of capitalism into its decadent phase at some point early last century. The rejection of the defense of “democracy” is for us a key component of any attempt to defend a proletarian perspective today. We thus think that your leaflet might have been made stronger if you expressly argued that the proletariat never has any interest in taking sides between different fractions of the bourgeoisie, that there are no circumstances in which a tactical exception should be made to a “united front” policy, no matter what the ideological justification.

Moreover, despite our agreement with your leaflets’ internationalist framework we do find a number of instances in which our analysis of the Iraq war differs from yours to some degree. For example, you seemed to argue that the main reason behind the war is to be found in the US’s failing economy. By going to war, you seem to say, the American bourgeoisie was seeking some sort of “shot in the arm” for its current economic woes. In a Plague on Both Your Houses" you write, for example, "While few in the Bush administration argue that the war will revitalize the sagging US economy, it is precisely that economy which is pushing the US toward war. Trillions of dollars of debt, a stock market bubble that is about to burst and a plunging US dollar, make a war to secure massive oil reserves, and a commodity which is paid for in dollars an irresistible prize."

These assertions seem to go down the same path as the IBRP's, which argues that by taking over Iraq’s vital oil reserves, the American bourgeoisie is seeking to safeguard the international oil trade in dollars against the encroachment of the Euro. While we agree that oil is an important strategic commodity in the world economy and an important pawn on the inter-imperialist chess board, we do not think that the US decided to go to war to gain control of Iraq’s oil reserves out of any immediate intention to improve its economy, to reap super-profits or to combat the challenge of a currency-war between mounted by the European Union.

In our view, the decision to invade Iraq was the latest in a long series of military interventions that the US has been compelled to make stretching back to the First Gulf War and the collapse of the old Eastern bloc. Essentially, since the collapse of its Cold War rival, the Western bloc has ceased to have a raison d’être. Since this time, what we have witnessed are all the second and third-rate imperialisms that used to follow “bloc discipline” challenging more and more the leadership of the old bloc hegemon, the US. Faced with the collapse of bloc discipline, but still the world’s only superpower, the US has since been forced to engage in direct displays of its military power, as an attempt to keep its erstwhile allies in line. What we witnessed in the lead-up to the war in Iraq only confirms this analysis with France, Germany and Russia—the powers with the most to loose from a US take over of Iraq—protesting the loudest. In this sense, the importance of oil in this war is to be found more on the strategic level—with the US now strengthening its military presence in an area of the world upon which Europe and Japan are depended for oil—rather than for any immediate quest to reinvigorate a struggling economy. You seem to hint in the direction of our analysis, for example in "A Plague on Both Your Houses", "While the US's erstwhile European allies are expressing reluctance, it is only because they see the US's actions as a way to strengthen its position relative to their own through the seizure of Iraqi oil and the establishment of a semi-permanent US base in Iraq;" and again in " No War But the Class War!" "For France has its own reasons for opposing the US, and they have little to do concern for the Iraqi people; rather, they concern the French imperialist state's position vis-à-vis the US." Nevertheless, it does seem as if you never quite get away from the idea, mistaken in our view, that this war was about the US economy itself, or a currency rivalry between the US dollar and the Euro.

In fact, as we have shown in our press, the US intervention in Iraq can only have a negative effect on the latter’s economy forcing it to attack the living and working conditions of the working class even harder. We think that your leaflets' analysis of the origins of the war, with its focus on immediate economic factors, leads you towards some false predictions which underestimate the gravity of imperialist rivalries at this historic juncture as well as the primacy of strategic considerations in the international relations between states: i.e. the idea that the European powers would jump in and participate in the war along with the US. For example, in "A Plague on Both Your Houses," you write, "Nevertheless, the reluctant allies will likely get on board because they fear the US will go ahead and they will be left out in the cold."

For the most part, this wasn’t the case, because for countries like France, Germany and Russia had just too much to loose if the US were to strengthen its grip in the Middle East with a direct military presence in Iraq. In fact, as we wrote in our press, part of the American bourgeoisie's strategy in the lead up to the war in Iraq was precisely to raise the ante in its confrontation with its erstwhile allies by picking a fight with which these countries could not even pretend go along, and thus forcing the confrontation between the US and countries like Germany and France into the open. On the other hand, the idea that there is an emerging confrontation between a US led-bloc and a new bloc based on the European Union—a possible conclusion of seeing the war as the result of a confrontation between the dollar and the Euro—is for us a bit premature. While this may appear to be the case on the surface—and this is often how the bourgeois media on both sides of the Atlantic presents it—for the most part, however, we think the EU is little more than a sad fiction when it comes to exhibiting a united foreign policy. This was also confirmed by the lead up to the Iraq war, with a number of European countries supporting the US policy against German and French opposition.

On another level, we also feel that your leaflets tended to overestimate the current balance of class forces on the global level. As such, your calls for workers to engage in direct action tactics like sit downs and go slows against the war seems to us to be both premature and unrealistic. For example, you write in "No War But The Class War!," "And while only a full-scale break with capitalism can create a new world, resistance can be practiced on multiple levels: absenteeism, informal work to rule actions ("go-slows"), even occupations and creative industrial repairs."

While calls for workers to reject the war are perfectly legitimate in the historic sense and perfectly in line with an internationalist denunciation of imperialist war, we think it is important not to fall into the illusion of thinking the "revolution is right around the corner" today, or that a massive working class struggle against the war is likely on the immediate agenda. What we are seeing today is that much of the global proletariat is still struggling to recover its class identity after the collapse of the Soviet-bloc and all the accompanying calls of the “death of communism” and the "disappearance of the working class”. What we are witnessing now is a process of the "subterranean maturation” of consciousness in the class, where through its daily struggles against capitalist exploitation and the intensification of the austerity measures—which the bourgeoisie is compelled to impose faced with a permanent global economic crisis—the proletariat is slowly coming to recognize the connection between the drive to war and the capitalist system itself.

We think it is through these daily struggles at the point of production, on its own class terrain, where the working-class can recover its class identity and come to possess a revolutionary consciousness of the need to destroy the capitalist state and build a new society. That is why in our intervention we called on workers not to abandon their economic struggles in the face of war, not to allow either war or pacifist propaganda to distract them from the class struggle. We felt there was some tendency in your leaflets to call on the working-class to engage in an immediate “political” struggle against the war. For example, you argue in "No War But the Class War!," "If actions against the war were significant and the battle in Iraq does not go smoothly, it could provoke the kind of break down in authority in the armed forces as was seen in Vietnam: desertions, mutinies and a concern for one's own survival over that of the unit. Were these conditions to take shape, the imperialist war might well begin to resemble a civil war."

Once again, while this is a perfectly legitimate call as part of a general internationalist political line, it is, in our view, important not to fall into the trap of endorsing the idea of a "working-class anti-war movement", in today's context. For us, revolutionary class-consciousness can only rise from a unity of the economic and political aspects of the class struggle, and this is a process that unfolds in an historic and political context on the global level. Today, the conditions are not such that we are likely to see the type of movement you seemed to call for in your leaflets, and as such these calls could end up legitimizing the idea of "working class pacifism." This could possibly end up inadvertently reinforcing the bourgeois anti-war movement. Once again, this does not mean that revolutionaries should cease to call on the class to resist the war simply because it is not, at the moment, a realistic prospect; we only mean to point out that it is crucial to avoid the temptation towards an immediatist euphoria based on some isolated instances of workers appearing to struggle against with the war, such as demoralized troops criticizing their commanders or workers refusing to load trains and ships with war supplies. Many of these actions occurred on the terrain of the capitalist unions, while others were perfectly in line with the policy of certain fractions of the national bourgeoisie. While we would be among the first to salute such actions, were they to take place on the class's own terrain, we think it crucial to always keep the historic context in mind, avoid any temptation towards immediatism and try to analyze such events with a critical eye to situating them in a global context. We do not think there is a difference of principle between Red and Black Notes and ourselves on the internationalist and revolutionary defeatist framework of our intervention towards the class, but we think your leaflets may contain a certain overestimation of the reality of the class struggle at this juncture. While the historic course towards decisive class confrontations remains open, the proletariat still confronts major difficulties in finding its own class terrain in the period ahead.

Despite these differences and criticisms, we nevertheless fully support the internationalist and proletarian basis of your intervention and extend our full solidarity with your effort. We look forward to further correspondence in the future and would welcome any comments or criticisms you may have of the recent issues of Internationalism we have sent you, or correspondence on any other political question.

Communist Greetings,

Internationalism

Six months ago when US imperialism began its invasion of Iraq the ICC predicted that "far from resolving the crisis of American leadership, the current war can only take it to new levels"(Resolution on the International Situation, Point 11, 15th Congress of the ICC, March 2003). We said that the war in Iraq would lead to growing instability in the Middle East - in Iraq and Israel/Palestine in particular, that Iraq would become a quagmire for US imperialism, that far from solving the problems of the challenge to its imperialist hegemony, the US would face increasing difficulties throughout the world, and that the war would aggravate the economic crisis facing the American bourgeoisie at home. Events in Iraq (see Iraq: A Quagmire for US Imperialism, p.4), in Israel/Palestine (see p.5) have amply confirmed these predictions. Because events happen so quickly in the current period, it is critically important to understand the framework in which these events occur. There are perhaps six key elements to keep in mind: the impct of capitalist decomposition on imperialist tensions; the strategic response of US imperialism to the growing challenges to its hegemony; the contradictory impact of this strategy; the irrationality of war in the period of capitalist decadence, particularly in its phase of decomposition; the simultaneous existence of a tendency towards the formation of new blocs and the countervailing tendency of capitalist decomposition hindering the formation of blocs in the current period; and the acceleration of history.

Impact of decomposition on the imperialist terrain

The social impasse in the class struggle caused by the inability of the ruling class to impose its solution to the global economic crisis that emerged in the late 1960s - imperialist world war- and the inability of the proletariat to impose its solution - world revolution-triggered the onset of the decomposition of the capitalist system. One of the central manifestations of this decomposition was the collapse of Russian imperialism at the end of the 1980s.The breakdown of the bloc system in place since the end of World War II, as we have demonstrated often in various texts, ushered in a growing tendency towards chaos on the international level. The cement that had held nations together in the blocs, forcing them to subordinate their own narrow imperialist appetites for the good of the bloc in the confrontation with its rival - to accept the discipline imposed by the bloc leader - crumbled into dust during the 1990s. Each nation, no matter how insignificant its economic, political or military stature, was emboldened to increasingly play its own card on the imperialist terrain, to scheme for expansion at the expense of rivals, in a way that was unheard of for half a century during the cold war.

This tendency of "each for himself" on the imperialist level had drastic consequences for American imperialism, the nominal victor in the cold war, when Russian imperialism imploded in the beginning of the 1990s, because it signaled the emergence of a general tendency towards unprecedented challenges to US domination and hegemony emanating from its erstwhile allies. For half a century, US imperialist policy makers expected and received general obedience from its bloc members, even for decisions that were taken unilaterally in Washington. US imperialism became accustomed to blowing the whistle and everyone would fall in line, but now US imperialism would blow the whistle and its old allies would fall into line reluctantly, petulantly, or increasingly would not even listen. The American triumph in the cold war increasingly seemed to be a hollow victory. one that had opened a period of serious difficulties for American imperialism.

American imperialism's strategic response to its leadership crisis

The response to this growing crisis of US leadership led to a readjustment of American imperialist strategy during the 1990s. "Faced with the collapse of the rival Russian bloc at the end of the 80s, and with the rapid unraveling of its own Western bloc, US imperialism formulated a strategic plan which has, in the ensuing decade, revealed itself more and more openly. Confirmed as the only remaining superpower, the USA would do everything in its power to ensure that no new superpower - in reality no new imperialist bloc - could arise to challenge its 'New World Order'.(Resolution on the International Situation, Point 4, 15th Congress of the ICC, March 2003)

The Gulf War of 1991, triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a development which resulted from a cynical US manipulation of Saddam Hussein, in which the American ambassador to Iraq induced Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait by giving an apparent green light to the invasion with an assurance that the US would not intervene in a border conflict "between Arab brothers," was designed by Washington to warn those who would challenge its hegemony in the post-cold war epoch and press-gang other powers into endorsing its military action, shouldering considerable financial burden of the war, and at the same time reminding those powers that the US was the world's only superpower and would call the shots in the "New World Order."

Contradictory Impact of US Policy

Illustrating another central characteristic of the current period, this successful imperialist offensive by US imperialism proved to be short-lived, provoking increasing resistance from its former allies, as German, French and even British imperialism challenged the US in the Balkans under the umbrella of UN legitimacy. As the Resolution pointed out:

"the more it sought to discipline its former allies, the more it provoked resistance and hostility, and the less able it was to recruit them for militaryoperations which they knew were ultimately aimed against them. Thus the phenomenon of the US being increasingly obliged to 'go it alone' in its adventures, relying less and less on 'legal' international structures such as the UN and NATO, which more and more functioned as obstacles to the US's plans."(International Situation Resolution, Point 5)

In this sense, the imperialist terrain is defined by growing chaos in international relations, deepening challenges to American domination, to which the US feels compelled to respond with the exercise of military power, more and more on its own (except with the support of a badly divided British bourgeoisie), which is always successful because of its massive military superiority, but quickly provokes increased resistance, aggravates the international situation and leads to renewed difficulties and challenges to its imperialist power. Whatever victories US imperialism achieves in this epoch, they are temporary and of increasingly short duration, before the onset of a new aggravated crisis.

Irrationality of War

Another important aspect of the framework of the current period is the irrationality of war in decadence, particular in its period of decomposition:

"The period of decomposition shows more clearly than ever the irratioinality of war in decadence - the tendency of its destructive dynamic to become autonomous and increasingly at variance with the logic of profit.The wars of decadence, unlike he wars of ascendancy, do not make economic sense. Contrary to the view that war is 'good' for the health of the economy, war today both expresses and aggravates its incurable sickness..

"War is the ruin of capital - both a product of its decline and a factor in its acceleration. The development of a bloated war economy does not offer a solution to the crisis of capitalism, as certain elements of the Italian Fraction thought in the 1930s. The war economy does not exist for itself but because capitalism in decadence is obliged to go through war after war after war, and to increasingly subsume the entire economy to the needs of war. This creates a tremendous drain on the economy because arms expenditure is fundamentally sterile. In this sense the collapse of the Russian bloc gives us a glimpse into the future of capital since the inability to sustain an ever-accelerating arms race was one of the key factors in its demise. And although this was a result deliberately pursued by the US bloc, today the USA itself is moving towards a comparable situation, even if it is at a slower pace. The present war in the Gulf, and more generally the whole 'war against terror' is linked to a vast increase of arms spending designed to totally eclipse the arms budgets of the rest of the world combined. But the damage that this insane project will inflict on the US economy is incalculable." (Point 20)

This understanding arms us against following prey to vulgar materialist errors of looking for crass economic motives in the unleashing of war in this period, a mistake made by various left communist and libertarian groups who see the war in Iraq as undertaken to boost oil profits of American corporations. In this sense the resolution noted:

"US military action there is not carried out on behalf of the oil companies: the oil companies are only allowed to get their pay off provided they fit in with the overall streategic plan, which includes the ability to shut off oil supplies to America's potetial enemies and thus throttle any military challenge before it begins. Germany and Japan in particular are far more dependent on Middle East oil than the USA."(Point 7)

Even in the short span of the past six months the total falsity of this mistaken view is apparent. The costs of the war is currently running $4 billion a month, and increasing sharply in the months ahead, far outweighs any boost in oil profits imaginable. If American imperialism's decision making policy on war were driven strictly by a crass balance sheet calculation, even Pres. Bush would have the decision to refrain from the invasion. The unfolding of events confirms our position that it is the geopolitical imperialist strategy of the US, which sees oil as a strategic commodity and in which the current US offensive in the Middle East and Central Asia strengthens Washington's ability to put pressure on Japan and especially on Europe, that explains why from the American point of view the disastrous economic costs of the war are worth the risks.

Constitution of New Blocs

Yet another significant element in this framework is the recognition of the constant tension between the tendency towards the constitution of new imperialist blocs and the countervailing tendency for each country to defend its own immediate interest.

"The resistance to US plans by an alliance between France, Germany, Russia and China shows that, faced with the massive superiority of the US, its main rivals have no choice but to band together against it. This confirms that the tendency towards the constitution of new imperialist blocs remains a real factor in the current situation. But it would be a mistake to confuse a tendency with an accomplished fact, above all because in the period of capitalist decomposition, the movement towards the formation of new blocs is being constantly obstructed by the counter-tendency for each country to defend its own immediate national interests above all else-by the tendency towards every man for himself."(Point 9)

Despite the fact that France, Germany, Russia and China could join together with varying degrees of resolve in opposing the US war plan last spring, in no way has this led to any acceleration of the process of bloc formation. With the war a fait accompli, the opponents of US imperialism moderated the venom of the verbal attacks on the US and made themselves open to some form of accommodation. China, for example, cooperated with the US in discussions with North Korea on the question of that country's nuclear program, even if China's position is not identical to the US.

Likewise, while Blair continues to make Britain Washington's strongest ally, the discomfort within the British bourgeoisie and the growing criticism of the Blair administration only confirms the resolution's prediction six months ago that "there is a growing unease with being too closely associated with US adventurism. The quagmire now developing in Iraq can only strengthen this unease." (Point 10)

Acceleration of History

As capitalism's global crisis has deepened in the past three decades, we have witnessed an acceleration of history, a tendency for events to unfold more quickly, for the intervals between open recessions for example to shorten, or between state attacks on the workers standard of living. In regard to US imperialism's difficulties in protecting its domination, this tendency has meant that the length of time between Washington's successes and the new challenges and difficulties it faces appears to shrink, aggravating the sense of crisis of leadership as perceived by the US, and accelerating still further the process by which world capitalism pushes humanity closer and closer to the abyss of barbarism.--JG

Iraq has indeed become a quagmire for American imperialism, perhaps even worse than might have been expected. The relatively quick military victory achieved by the US military has proven impossible to consolidate. More American troops have been killed after an end to hostilities was triumphantly decreed by Pres. Bush in May than during the open warfare itself. US occupying forces have proved incapable of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure or restoring any semblance of security, or vital services such as water, electricity or petroleum supplies to the population. The occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, which was supposed to be funded by profits from the renewed flow of Iraqi oil under American control, now requires an emergency budget allocation of an additional $87 billion that will send the US budget deficit soaring.

Before the war the American propaganda machine cooked up all sorts of fairy tales about links between Saddam's regime and Bin Laden's al Qaeda but these have been demonstrated to be utterly false. However, in the aftermath of the American "victory" there is considerable evidence that al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have now entered Iraq to engage in attacks against US occupation forces. The invasion that was supposedly designed to eliminate an imaginary al Qaeda terrorist threat in Iraq has on the contrary now served to facilitate the emergence of such a threat in that country where it didn't previously exist.

Despite propagandistic predictions that the Iraqi population would welcome US forces with open arms as liberators and heroes, even those segments of the Iraqi population who were opposed to Saddam's regime want the US to leave. Having "won" the war, American military personnel now face guerrilla attacks from a wide range of disparate elements, including forces still loyal to Saddam (who despite American imperialism's infamous deck of playing cards, is still alive and apparently operating within Iraq), from Sunni militants, from Shi'ite activists, from al Qaeda infiltrators, and from independent fundamentalists from neighboring countries. The American military "victory" has thus led to growing chaos on the ground in Iraq.

The funding for these forces is difficult to pinpoint. Clearly, Iranian imperialism, already identified by Washington as part of the "axis of evil," which faced saber-rattling by the US during the war in Iraq, and which feels the pressure from US forces in Iraq on its west and Afghanistan on its east, has an interest in the US being bogged down in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) for as long as possible. Iran also has considerable influence with some shi-ite leaders. Bin Laden's financing from Saudi sources has been amply demonstrated in the aftermath of 9/11.

Loss of Political Authority for US Imperialism

Last spring the ICC noted that US efforts to demonstrate its military superiority and the ideological claptrap that it invented to justify its actions were undermining its political authority:

"Although the US continues to demonstrate its crushing military superiority to all the other major powers, the increasingly open character of its imperialist ambitions is tending to weaken its political authority. While in the immediate aftermath of September 11th the US was still able to some extent to present its action in Afghanistan as an act of legitimate self-defense, the justifications for the current war in Iraq have shown themselves to be completely threadbare, while its rivals have come forward as the best defenders of democratic values in the face of US bullying.(International Situation Resolution, Point 11)

Even in the American media the official Bush administration justifications for the invasion of Iraq have been demonstrated to be outright lies. For example, besides the above mentioned false charges of Saddam's link to al Qaeda, there was a list propaganda charges: Iraq was tied to the events of 9/11; Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but was preparing imminent use of such weapons; Iraq had conspired to have weapons grade plutonium smuggled in from Africa; Iraq was on the verge of developing and even using nuclear weapons

All these excuses for the rush to war against Iraq have all been revealed to be pure fabrications.

The fact that in his February speech to the Security Council, Secretary of State Powell used "evidence" reported in a British intelligence document that was largely plagiarized from outdated information published on the world wide web is now used by university professors in the US as an example of the folly of plagiarizing material from the web.

These revelations undermine US political authority not only in foreign countries but even within the US, where Bush's war-related approval ratings in the public opinion polls have declined sharply, as more and more people recognize that the government lied in order to rush off to war. Within the bourgeoisie itself there is growing criticism of the Bush administration's botching of the ideological campaign to justify the war, not because any bourgeois politician has any qualms about lying, but because getting caught in such a clumsy job will make it more difficult in the future to effectively marshal support at home and abroad for the inevitable further US military adventures. The differences currently voiced within the US bourgeoisie do not correspond to the level of divergences in Britain for example, where certain factions within the British ruling class are uncomfortable with Blair's close adherence to Washington's policies, or in other countries where pro-US and pro-Europe factions advocate different strategic policies.

On the contrary, in the US, the debate within the bourgeoisie is more on the level of tactics, over the best approach to take in advancing the shared strategic goal of assuring American dominance and blocking the rise of a rival power or imperialist bloc. Even former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who has emerged as the most vocal and persistent critic of the Bush administration, is not really opposed to war against Iraq. Albright argues that the war could have been justified on human rights grounds more effectively, and that the administration should have worked more patiently and effectively to drag the European powers into providing legitimacy and financial support to the invasion, and should not have been in such a hurry to invade.

Apparent Retreat from Ultra-Unilateralism

The worsening quagmire has forced even Bush administration diehards to retreat for the moment from their ultra-unilateralism of last February, and their non-compromising rejection of any international involvement in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq under UN auspices as no longer tenable. The growing financial and military burden has led the US to propose a new Security Council resolution to authorize UN peacekeeping forces, under US command of course, which is still being debated and disputed at the security council, with France once again leading opposition to US policy. This retreat from extreme unilateralism by the Bush administration should not be interpreted as being the result of some counter-offensive by Europe, led by France and Germany, to undermine the US, but rather as the result of pressures of decomposition and the characteristics of the current period that have produced difficulties for the US.

The apparent retreat from unilateralism should be seen as a pragmatic, temporary and partial phenomenon - an historical stutter - and not as an abandonment of American imperialism's decision to increasingly go it alone to defend its imperialist interests. The resolution remains correct in its assertion that: The US still sees the UN and NATO as dominated by potential rivals and as institutions to be sidestepped as much as possible, as the US feels compelled to increasingly go it alone in defending its imperialist dominance. One need only remember that in June, Bush added the G-8 Summit to the list of international institutions that the US seems to regard increasingly as irrelevant, when Bush left the Summit early in order to hurry off to visit America's new most-closest ally on the European continent: Poland.

The decision to appeal to the UN Security Council, to put pressure on Europe to shoulder part of the military and financial burden in Iraq is consistent with US imperialism's goal of press-ganging its rivals into begrudgingly supporting and endorsing its imperialism adventures that actually have the aim of subordinating those rivals.

In this sense, the devastating attack in August on UN Headquarters in Iraq must be considered in the context of US imperialism's campaign to get the European powers to take up the financial burden of Iraq, and to send occupation troops under US command. If we ask the question, who benefits from the attack, it is clear that it is US imperialism that gains the most from this "attack on the international community." In fact Pres. Bush himself used precisely this argument in his address to the American nation on Sept 7 in calling for the UN to join the occupation of Iraq, both in sending troops and in taking up financial costs.. While the US may not have been behind the attack, as the occupying power, US forces are responsible for security in Iraq in general, and specifically was responsibility for security at the UN compounded, and permitted the same security personnel from the Saddam period to work at the compound. We certainly have grounds for suspicion.

Impact on the Economic Crisis in the US

Last spring the ICC stated, "the damage that this insane project (invasion of Iraq) will inflict on the US economy is incalculable," (International Situation Resolution, Point 20) and referred to such economic difficulties as "explicitly rising unemployment, a fall in industrial production, a decline in consumer spending, stock market instability, corporate scandals and bankruptcies, and the return of the Federal budget deficit." The so-called two year-old economic recovery without a jobs recovery continues as an economic nightmare. The unemployment rate has momentarily dropped a few tenths of a percentage point, but only because so many discouraged workers have given up looking for jobs that don't exist and officially are no longer counted as members of the workforce (an example of how the American bourgeoisie takes a bad thing and makes it better). "The return of the Federal budget deficit" mentioned in the resolution now stands at an estimated $455 billion, and is expect to reach $600 billion next year. This means a swing of $729 billion in a period of three years, from a $129 budget surplus inherited from the Clinton administration. The annual cost of the war and occupation of Iraq is now equivalent to 163% of what the US government spends on education. Cutbacks on the social wage are proceeding with a vengeance, leading to still further deterioration in the standard of living of the working class. Such economic costs certainly put the lie to the vulgar economic materialist arguments advanced by some groups on the communist left and in the libertarian milieu that the US invasion of Iraq was motivated by a short term desire to boost oil company profits or to revive the ailing American economy. The only thing that can justify such astronomical costs for the American bourgeoisie is the defense of its imperialist interests on the geopolitical strategic level for the long term. The contradiction that confronts it and which it cannot surpass is that the very defense of its imperialist interests creates the circumstances that only further aggravate the challenges to those interests. - JG

The guerrilla myth continues to be a strong attraction for leftist and petty bourgeois elements in the US. We are publishing here the first installment in a series written by our Mexican comrades exposing the bourgeois role of the Zapatista guerrillas in Mexico.

Ever since the appearance of the guerrilla movement known as the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico in 1994, the ICC has warned of its dangerous meaning for the working class. While the left of capital was thrilled and rushed to shout "We are all Marcos!", revolutionaries clearly defined the National Liberation Zapatista Army (EZLN) as counterrevolutionary, both for its typically petty-bourgeois desperate methods, and its bourgeois rhetoric. This became clear when it: called for an individual use of violence bordering on madness when the EZLN said that an irregular army formed by impoverished peasants armed with sticks could march to Mexico City, when it invoked Article 39 of the Constitution to justify its rebellion, while at the same time proclaiming the "defense of national soveregneity" of the "fatherland" as its principle and motto. It even defined "revolutionary" laws, which, with a radical yet fake pretense to justice, do nothing but validate the exploitation of wage labor.

The EZLN thus represents a structure that is both alien to the essence of the working class, and also totally opposed to it. For this reason, it is impossible to find a common ground between this armed group and the historical combat of the working class.

It's clear that Marcos' speeches and his presence, which are used by the bourgeoisie as a commodity, create a large audience. In the same way, the bourgeois press makes comments about Marcos' silence, or invents news about his health and his love affairs, as it does with any personality in the entertainment industry. This is possible because the EZLN is harmless to capital. In fact, it is in capital's interest that the EZLN spread, because its poisonous ideology confuses the working class' consciousness. Because of this, it is important to re-assimilate and deepen with new elements of reflection the arguments that the ICC has been presenting over the past 9 years in opposition to the lies of the bourgeoisie and its left apparatus. Clearly, the aim is not to start a polemic with "zapatismo." Rather, we want to defend Marxism against the EZLN's constant ideological attack, providing elements for reflection and clarification for the working class; particularly the youth, who, in the wake of the bourgeoisie's campaign against Marxism, and tits promotion of empty myths such as that of Marcos, are trapped in sterile and reactionary ideologies that put a damper on their anger against capitalism, and deliver them into the arms of blind activism, without a perspective for the future all the while trapped in the dream of both the “masked hero” and gradual change.

Guerrillas during the Cold War

During the 60's and up until the beginning of the 80's, several guerrilla groups formed which have their roots in the discontent, the desperation, and the romanticism of the petty bourgeoisie, but also in the confusion spread by Stalinist ideology, in its various manifestations from Maoism to guevarism. Some of these groups were even born outside the integral forces of the state apparatuses. Soon, however, they stopped having an autonomous life because they required economic and logistic support by a fraction of the national bourgeoisie, and, of course, by one of the two blocs. In particular, we will refer to the use the ex-USSR and its allies made of guerrilla movements. This, however, does not mean that the USA gave up doing the same, as was clear, for example, with the 'contras' in Nicaragua.

Recent history has shown that the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, the Salvadoran FMLN, or the Guatemalan UNRG received assistance from states that were in the Russian bloc. What resulted from such a practice is nothing the proletariat can claim for itself. Whether these groups succeeded in taking power or were disarmed, their actions were always aimed at strengthening the structures of capitalist rule. On the one hand, we saw the Sandinistas as well as many Castro-backed movements, which, notwithstanding their radical or 'marxist' rhetoric, have done nothing but reinforce the exploitation of wage labor. They have also become more greatly integrated in international conflicts. On the other hand, groups like the Salvadoran FMLN and the Guatemalan UNRG became fused with the state apparatuses which they had said they were fighting against. This grotesque development reached an extreme in El Salvador, where the guerrillas became cops. This is why the tactics, strategy, program, and practice of guerrilla movements are alien to the proletariat and to Marxism. On the contrary, it is a tool which capital needs.

Guerrillas in capitalist decomposition

The world configuration has been affected by the disappearance of the Soviet bloc. Nonetheless, the laws governing capital and imperialist confrontations become highlighted. This explains why the disappearance of the Eastern bloc - a product of the capitalist crisis - did not bring in its wake a new, peaceful order, as the bourgeoisie had promised. Instead, it accelerated imperialist rivalries. The Western nations, formerly disciplined by the USA, released all the suppressed ambitions and tensions because of the absence of a common enemy, and proceeded in a dynamic of each for themselves. This fact, unprecedented in the history of capitalism, is a clear sign that capitalism had entered the last phase of decadence, decomposition.

Under these conditions, the guerrillas have not stopped being a tool used to clear the path for its rivals. On the contrary, it refines its actions. At the time of the blocs, a guerrilla movement could surge with its own force, while today it is marked by the action of an imperialist power from its inception. It is clear that the EZLN defines the way by which, in the present period, guerrillas act as a detonator of conflicts, not only against the Mexican government, but above all against the USA. In this context, it is easy to understand the motivation of the European bourgeoisie behind its "preoccupation" with the zapatista cause. To mention just a few aspects that allow us to see who's behind the EZLN, we will remember the closeness of EZLN to Mrs. Mitterrand, John Paul II's suspicious attitude during his second to last visit to Mexico (when he unexpectedly denounced the murders of Acteal), and Eloriaga's and Marcos' posturing about wanting to sit at the European Parliament (1996) to "denounce" the Mexican government.

In this way, the EZLN is used by European imperialist powers to defy the USA. However, because of its military nothingness, it is utilized as a source of political pressure. In this way, even though the Europeans cannot strike directly against the US, they can still generate troubles in the American backyard. Even though the North American and Mexican bourgeoisies have been able to utilize guerrillas for their own interests - for example, by strengthening their campaigns around democracy while allowing their presence at the legislative bodies, by press coverage and by protecting their marches and speeches - guerrilla movements continue to be a weapon that the German, French, and Italian bourgeoisies continuously wield. MA -to be continued-.

Earlier this year, Internationalism received copies of two leaflets distributed by the Toronto based group Red and Black Notes, who also publish a magazine and maintain a website of the same name, at the anti-war demonstrations of last winter. In an effort to develop a constructive process of debate and criticism among the various groups of the ?proletarian political milieu? (PPM) in North America, we have responded to these two leaflets with the letter that we reproduce below. The ICC has always said that the advancement of revolutionary theory can only occur as a result of open and constructive debate among the various ideas that circulate in the PPM. We publish our response in an effort to contribute, however modestly, to this process, a process that is an essential precondition to the eventual construction of proletarian class party. As readers will see, although we salute the internationalist frame of Red and Black Notes? leaflets, we also advance some important criticisms and disagreements. This is different from the behavior of some groups in the milieu, when they ?flatter? new and emerging groups in order to curry their favor, rather than point out what they may feel are their errors and mistakes. If we are upfront and somewhat insistent in expressing our disagreements with some of the formulations in Red and Black Notes? leaflets, this not done out of any desire to be sectarian. Rather, debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of the PPM, its dialectical motivation to advance and develop. Even if we conclude that there is much more that unites our perspectives than divides them, we have the responsibility as revolutionaries to see that our differences confront one another so that mistaken ideas may be discarded, correct positions may be reaffirmed and new syntheses produced in the light of criticism. We encourage all other groups in the milieu to contribute to this process as well. This is in the tradition of all the great revolutionaries of the past (1).

Dear comrades:

We have discussed the two leaflets you prepared and distributed at the Toronto anti-war demonstrations during the lead-up to the recent war in Iraq (?A Plague on Both Your Houses? and ?No War But the Class War?). In the spirit of open debate, we would like to take this opportunity to share with you some comments and criticisms.

First, we want to salute the effort you have made to distribute these leaflets at the recent demonstrations. Your intervention was undoubtedly quite out-of-step with the main themes of these demonstrations, which in our analysis were all situated well within the realm of bourgeois politics. Your defense of proletarian internationalism in the face of both the official bourgeois pacifism of the demonstrations, as well as all the accompanying leftist calls to defend one imperialism against another, clearly demonstrate your desire to defend a working-class perspective on war in this historical period. In particular, your denunciations of the Trotskyists and leftists were to the point. For example, in ? A Plague on Both Your Houses? you write, "For others on the left, it?s about defending imperialism. This has led some, most notable the Trotskyists, to claim opposition to imperialism in this conflict means support to Iraq in the hopes of bloodying the nose of the ?main? imperialist power (?) While sounding radical, the position is essentially a lesser-evilism. (?) Capitalism is a world system, and the wars it generates are wars between the greater and the lesser imperialist powers for the right to exploit and rule. Yesterday?s national liberation movements fighting against imperialism are today?s exploiters of labour and tomorrow?s allies of larger powers. (?) We will not choose between the greater and the lesser powers."

Moreover, your denunciations of all the belligerent parties of World War II, or as you call it the ?second imperialist world war,? shows a stern refusal to fall for the bourgeois ideological justification for this war, that of defending ?democracy? against fascism, a call that was repeated throughout the twentieth century not only by the official parties of bourgeois order, but also the Stalinists, Trotskyists and many anarchist currents as well; and which is being deployed in full force by the world bourgeoisie today. For us, and?as it would appear from your leaflet?for you as well, the proletariat had no side to choose in this war either. The following passage from ? A Plague on Both Your Houses? demonstrates this internationalist commitment particularly well, ?The second imperialist world war between 1939 and 1945 claimed tens of millions of lives. But the ?peace? that followed it also claimed untold millions of lives across the globe, as capital has engaged in low level, and sometimes not so low level wars to preserve the imperialist ?peace.? It is the peace of the grave. The only way to stop war is to uproot the capitalist system.?

We believe that whether openly fascist or cloaking itself in democratic verbiage, all factions of the ruling class have been equally reactionary since the entry of capitalism into its decadent phase at some point early last century. The rejection of the defense of ?democracy? is for us a key component of any attempt to defend a proletarian perspective today. We thus think that your leaflet might have been made stronger if you expressly argued that the proletariat never has any interest in taking sides between different fractions of the bourgeoisie, that there are no circumstances in which a tactical exception should be made to a ?united front? policy, no matter what the ideological justification.

Moreover, despite our agreement with your leaflets? internationalist framework we do find a number of instances in which our analysis of the Iraq war differs from yours to some degree. For example, you seemed to argue that the main reason behind the war is to be found in the US?s failing economy. By going to war, you seem to say, the American bourgeoisie was seeking some sort of ?shot in the arm? for its current economic woes. In a Plague on Both Your Houses? you write, for example, ?While few in the Bush administration argue that the war will revitalize the sagging US economy, it is precisely that economy which is pushing the US toward war. Trillions of dollars of debt, a stock market bubble that is about to burst and a plunging US dollar, make a war to secure massive oil reserves, and a commodity which is paid for in dollars an irresistible prize.?

These assertions seem to go down the same path as the IBRP?s, which argues that by taking over Iraq?s vital oil reserves, the American bourgeoisie is seeking to safeguard the international oil trade in dollars against the encroachment of the Euro. While we agree that oil is an important strategic commodity in the world economy and an important pawn on the inter-imperialist chess board, we do not think that the US decided to go to war to gain control of Iraq?s oil reserves out of any immediate intention to improve its economy, to reap super-profits or to combat the challenge of a currency-war between mounted by the European Union.

In our view, the decision to invade Iraq was the latest in a long series of military interventions that the US has been compelled to make stretching back to the First Gulf War and the collapse of the old Eastern bloc. Essentially, since the collapse of its Cold War rival, the Western bloc has ceased to have a raison d??tre. Since this time, what we have witnessed are all the second and third-rate imperialisms that used to follow ?bloc discipline? challenging more and more the leadership of the old bloc hegemon, the US. Faced with the collapse of bloc discipline, but still the world?s only superpower, the US has since been forced to engage in direct displays of its military power, as an attempt to keep its erstwhile allies in line. What we witnessed in the lead-up to the war in Iraq only confirms this analysis with France, Germany and Russia?the powers with the most to loose from a US take over of Iraq?protesting the loudest. In this sense, the importance of oil in this war is to be found more on the strategic level?with the US now strengthening its military presence in an area of the world upon which Europe and Japan are depended for oil?rather than for any immediate quest to reinvigorate a struggling economy. You seem to hint in the direction of our analysis, for example in ?A Plague on Both Your Houses?, ?While the US?s erstwhile European allies are expressing reluctance, it is only because they see the US?s actions as a way to strengthen its position relative to their own through the seizure of Iraqi oil and the establishment of a semi-permanent US base in Iraq;? and again in ? No War But the Class War!? ?For France has its own reasons for opposing the US, and they have little to do concern for the Iraqi people; rather, they concern the French imperialist state?s position vis-?-vis the US.? Nevertheless, it does seem as if you never quite get away from the idea, mistaken in our view, that this war was about the US economy itself, or a currency rivalry between the US dollar and the Euro.

In fact, as we have shown in our press, the US intervention in Iraq can only have a negative effect on the latter?s economy forcing it to attack the living and working conditions of the working class even harder. We think that your leaflets? analysis of the origins of the war, with its focus on immediate economic factors, leads you towards some false predictions which underestimate the gravity of imperialist rivalries at this historic juncture as well as the primacy of strategic considerations in the international relations between states: i.e. the idea that the European powers would jump in and participate in the war along with the US. For example, in ?A Plague on Both Your Houses,? you write, ?Nevertheless, the reluctant allies will likely get on board because they fear the US will go ahead and they will be left out in the cold.?

For the most part, this wasn?t the case, because for countries like France, Germany and Russia had just too much to lose if the US were to strengthen its grip in the Middle East with a direct military presence in Iraq. In fact, as we wrote in our press, part of the American bourgeoisie?s strategy in the lead up to the war in Iraq was precisely to raise the ante in its confrontation with its erstwhile allies by picking a fight with which these countries could not even pretend go along, and thus forcing the confrontation between the US and countries like Germany and France into the open. On the other hand, the idea that there is an emerging confrontation between a US led-bloc and a new bloc based on the European Union?a possible conclusion of seeing the war as the result of a confrontation between the dollar and the Euro?is for us a bit premature. While this may appear to be the case on the surface?and this is often how the bourgeois media on both sides of the Atlantic presents it?for the most part, however, we think the EU is little more than a sad fiction when it comes to exhibiting a united foreign policy. This was also confirmed by the lead up to the Iraq war, with a number of European countries supporting the US policy against German and French opposition.

On another level, we also feel that your leaflets tended to overestimate the current balance of class forces on the global level. As such, your calls for workers to engage in direct action tactics like sit downs and go slows against the war seems to us to be both premature and unrealistic. For example, you write in ?No War But The Class War!,? ?And while only a full-scale break with capitalism can create a new world, resistance can be practiced on multiple levels: absenteeism, informal work to rule actions (?go-slows?), even occupations and creative industrial repairs.?

While calls for workers to reject the war are perfectly legitimate in the historic sense and perfectly in line with an internationalist denunciation of imperialist war, we think it is important not to fall into the illusion of thinking the ?revolution is right around the corner? today, or that a massive working class struggle against the war is likely on the immediate agenda. What we are seeing today is that much of the global proletariat is still struggling to recover its class identity after the collapse of the Soviet-bloc and all the accompanying calls of the ?death of communism? and the ?disappearance of the working class?. What we are witnessing now is a process of the ?subterranean maturation? of consciousness in the class, where through its daily struggles against capitalist exploitation and the intensification of the austerity measures?which the bourgeoisie is compelled to impose faced with a permanent global economic crisis?the proletariat is slowly coming to recognize the connection between the drive to war and the capitalist system itself.

We think it is through these daily struggles at the point of production, on its own class terrain, where the working-class can recover its class identity and come to possess a revolutionary consciousness of the need to destroy the capitalist state and build a new society. That is why in our intervention we called on workers not to abandon their economic struggles in the face of war, not to allow either war or pacifist propaganda to distract them from the class struggle. We felt there was some tendency in your leaflets to call on the working-class to engage in an immediate ?political? struggle against the war. For example, you argue in ?No War But the Class War!,? ?If actions against the war were significant and the battle in Iraq does not go smoothly, it could provoke the kind of break down in authority in the armed forces as was seen in Vietnam: desertions, mutinies and a concern for one?s own survival over that of the unit. Were these conditions to take shape, the imperialist war might well begin to resemble a civil war.?

Once again, while this is a perfectly legitimate call as part of a general internationalist political line, it is, in our view, important not to fall into the trap of endorsing the idea of a ?working-class anti-war movement?, in today?s context. For us, revolutionary class-consciousness can only rise from a unity of the economic and political aspects of the class struggle, and this is a process that unfolds in an historic and political context on the global level. Today, the conditions are not such that we are likely to see the type of movement you seemed to call for in your leaflets, and as such these calls could end up legitimizing the idea of ?working class pacifism.? This could possibly end up inadvertently reinforcing the bourgeois anti-war movement. Once again, this does not mean that revolutionaries should cease to call on the class to resist the war simply because it is not, at the moment, a realistic prospect; we only mean to point out that it is crucial to avoid the temptation towards an immediatist euphoria based on some isolated instances of workers appearing to struggle against the war, such as demoralized troops criticizing their commanders or workers refusing to load trains and ships with war supplies. Many of these actions occurred on the terrain of the capitalist unions, while others were perfectly in line with the policy of certain fractions of the national bourgeoisie. While we would be among the first to salute such actions, were they to take place on the class?s own terrain, we think it crucial to always keep the historic context in mind, avoid any temptation towards immediatism and try to analyze such events with a critical eye to situating them in a global context. We do not think there is a difference of principle between Red and Black Notes and ourselves on the internationalist and revolutionary defeatist framework of our intervention towards the class, but we think your leaflets may contain a certain overestimation of the reality of the class struggle at this juncture. While the historic course towards decisive class confrontations remains open, the proletariat still confronts major difficulties in finding its own class terrain in the period ahead.

Despite these differences and criticisms, we nevertheless fully support the internationalist and proletarian basis of your intervention and extend our full solidarity with your effort. We look forward to further correspondence in the future and would welcome any comments or criticisms you may have of the recent issues of Internationalism we have sent you, or correspondence on any other political question.

Communist Greetings,

Internationalism

November, 2003.

On the 1st of May 2003, President George Bush - the cowboy turned fighter pilot-landing on an aircraft carrier under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished", announced with great fanfare the end of the military phase of the war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime, confronted with the overwhelming military superiority of the US war machine, had collapsed in a few weeks of war without presenting any meaningful resistance. In the celebration that followed, the American bourgeoisie, full of itself, announced the beginning of a new era of peace and democracy for the "liberated" Iraqi population and for all the countries of the Middle East. Today, seven months after, there is not much to brag about it. The new free Iraq is so dangerous a place that the man behind the army that liberated it, Mr. Bush, had to sneak into the country in the middle of the night-protected of course by a lot more than just darkness - to share Thanksgiving dinner with his "brave warriors." The Middle East is not much better a place than before the war, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is still very much alive, while the chaos and instability of Iraq are spreading to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where there have been recent brutal terrorist actions that have left dozen dead and hundreds of people wounded. A War Without End

The fine speeches of the Bush administration about the improvement of the situation in Iraq are in sharp contrast with the harsh reality on the ground. The butcher of Baghdad has been out of power for almost eight months, but there is not yet a functioning society in Iraq. The one billion dollars a month being spent by the US bourgeoisie in this political-military adventure have brought neither stability nor reconstruction to this country.

The guerrilla war being waged by a mixture of old regime loyalist and anti-American Islamic fundamentalist groups, far from being over, is getting more devastating as the tactics of these groups grow in determination and effectiveness. The weekend after Mr. Bush's photo-op stunt it was announced that 79 American soldiers have been killed since October 31, making November the deadliest month for US troops in Iraq since the start of the war in March. And the Americans are not he only foreigners dying in Iraq. On mid-November a truck bomb attack took the life of 18 Italian soldiers, and in November 30, seven Spaniards, one Japanese and 2 South Koreans were also killed in different violent incidents.

Moreover, the sabotage by the guerrilla movement of Iraq's oil industry - its highly vulnerable pipelines have been continually bombed - the backbone of this country's economy, is adding to the miseries of the Iraqi population. The shortage of gas and electricity is causing frequent blackouts and long lines at the gasoline pumps fuelling unrest on the street. Last August a riot broke out in the Southern city of Basra over these very issues.

Up to the present, the 150,000 US soldiers, and their foreign and domestic allies, have been unable to roll back this tide of violence. On the contrary, the brutal attempts of the occupation forces to crush their opponents, the killing of innocent civilians, the widespread arrests and the disappearance of thousands of "suspected terrorists" and the destruction of family homes are in turn stirring anti-Americanism and adding fuel to the spiral of violence. Remarkably, one has the impression of seeing in the American military tactics used in Iraq a re-edition of Israeli, Mr. Sharon's, antics in the Palestinian occupied territories. Iraqis looking for missing relatives caught in the frantic American raids against "suspected" terrorists can't help the comparison of Saddam's era with the new democratic paradise of the American occupation: "at least in Saddam's days the police would tell families that they had arrested their people" (Time magazine, 12/8/03). The "No-Exit" Strategy

The Bush administration, pressed to respond to the increasing scepticism among the American population of its Iraq policy, is quick to affirm, "We are going to stay to get the job done". And this job, Mr. Bush candidly explains, is: "to make Iraqi people happy, to return liberty to it, and to build democracy and economic prosperity for it."

This is today the preferred ideological mask with which the US bourgeoisie would like to cover its imperialist policy, particularly after its war mongering justification for invading Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction line - has been shown to be a blatant lie.

However, this ideology of benevolent fatherly imperialism, militarily occupying a country and forcibly reorganizing its society in the best interest of its population is also a pure mystification. Contrary to the new ideology being peddled by some intellectuals of the "right wing" of the American bourgeoisie to justify its military adventures, there are no good imperialist powers, only national states willing to defend, without much concern for the cost in life and material destruction, their narrow political and economic interests. Of course, it is also not the case that the US soldiers in Iraq are valiant heroes, or modern crusaders defending the free world against "the evil doers". This is all ideological rubbish intended to mystify the working class, which is in this instance the one that pays for the military adventures of the dominant classes.

As we have said many times, the US war against Iraq is nothing but an imperialist war, that can only be understood in the broader context of the offensive of the US bourgeoisie against the imperialist powers that are challenging its supremacy at the world level. In this sense, the target of the Iraq invasion was not Saddam Hussein, but the European powers, in particularly Germany and France, which have - since the collapse of the system of imperialist blocs at the beginning of the 90's - attempted to play their own imperialist card at the expense of their former American boss. In fact, it has been in reaction to the expansionist ambitions of these powers that the US has responded with a long-term operation designed to keep their rivals within the confines of Western Europe. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the building of military bases in several former republics and satellites countries of Russia in South East Asia and Eastern Europe, and the present occupation of Iraq, are all part of this strategy of containment and isolation of its imperialist rivals. On this level, the Bush camarilla does not hold exclusive rights to the present American war mongering. In fact, this long-term imperialist policy is designed to deal with the post Cold War world "order" and it has been the lynchpin of both the Democratic and Republican administrations since the one term presidency of Mr. Bush, the father.

It is because there is no possibility of turning back in this offensive, that the Bush administration has a "no exit-strategy" in Iraq. The intransigent defense of the US's global imperialist interests is what determines the nature of the "job" to be done, regardless of the personal qualities of the "commander in chief" of the moment. Towards More Imperialist Confrontations

The determined American unilateral invasion of Iraq and the military occupation of this country against the very vocal opposition of its main imperialist challengers, gives a measure of the overall overwhelming superiority of the US compared with its rivals. However, these countries, despite the humiliation, have not given up their ambitions and have not lost time trying to create new problems for the American bourgeoisie. The US's present difficulties in Iraq, and its relative loss of credibility and political authority, have emboldened its rivals to go on their own offensive. This is the meaning of the energized activity directed at the creation of an autonomous European military force, with Germany and France at its center. Also, it is this same logic of sabotaging American policy that sees Germany, France and Great Britain posing themselves as the mediators between the Iranian regime and the US over the American pressure regarding its nuclear program.

The fact that the whole historical situation-capitalism's decomposition, an undefeated working class and the overwhelming global superiority of the US compared with its rivals is not favorable to the formation new imperialist blocs and thus to a third world war does not make the present situation less dangerous. The wars, chaos and barbarism spreading today all over the planet could destroy the very material possibility for the rebuilding of society on a truly rational basis. Capitalism has no future to offer; only the world working class revolution can give humanity a chance for survival.

ES, 11/25/03.

Since 1994, with the public appearance of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), the editorials of the bourgeois press left and right have used every opportunity to launch their attack against Marxism. The book by B. de la Grange and M. Rico, "Marcos, The Genial Impostor", is structured as if it was the synthesis of police archives. It shows the origins and actions of the EZLN and, even though it seeks to be an offensive against Marcos, it also subtly spreads calumnies and attacks against Marxism, pointing out that all of the authoritarian attitudes of the EZLN are a legacy of its supposed 'marxist' past, which the book says is rooted in the guerrilla group called National Liberation Forces, which were never Marxist, but rather expressions of radical Stalinism with a special cult for Fidel Castro. Marcos himself, while at the beginning of his 'career' cautious, has not missed an opportunity to launch ironic and critical attacks against what he, from his vision of ex-Stalinist, regards as Marxism.

The book by Vasquez Montalban, "Marcos, the Lord of the Mirrors", contains an 'interpretation' of the world events since the fall of the Eastern bloc. It points to a crisis within the left consisting in its "inability to capture today's reality". The followers of this book's author, for example J. Holloway, who wrote "Changing the World Without Taking Power", define the crisis in the left in this way: "the crisis of Marxism is the liberation from dogmas..." which helped to discover (yet again!) that the proletariat is not the subject of change because, by manipulating the concept of 'anti-power' and 'anti-capitalism', it is possible to establish an assessment of history and of the dominant system which is not based in the material comprehension of how this system functions, that is, on the separation between producer and product, labor and capital, value and surplus value, but rather on ambiguous concepts such as 'dignity' ([1]). This makes of each individual oppressed by capital a revolutionary being. Armed with this 'new' reasoning, J. Holloway and his followers can say that pauperized peasants, locked in the traditions of the Indian culture, or any other social entity oppressed by capital, such as the petty bourgeoisie, are capable of transforming the world. By contrast, the role-played by the proletariat in production and the fact that it is the only modern class that has no organic or material ties with capital or other past systems of production are totally ridiculed as simple dogmatic postulates. This argument is a new weapon used to deepen the confusion within the proletariat and further demoralize it.

Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, explain the material bases to recognize the proletariat as the only revolutionary class. They clarify that, "The petty bourgeoisie - the small industrialist, the small businessman, the artisan, the peasant- all of them struggle against the bourgeoisie to safeguard their own existence. For this reason, they are not revolutionary. On the contrary, they are conservative. They will be revolutionary only when they will abandon their own point of view and embrace that of the proletariat." In spite of this, the ideologues of zapatismo want to 'enrich' Marxism and with an impressively entangled ideological argument, they claim a similarity between "the Paris Commune, the workers' councils, and the zapatist town councils [insofar as] these are all experiments in self-determination." (Holloway). Such aberration, beyond being the irresponsible expression of a philistine, or an idiotic statement made out of good intentions, is a conscious attack directly aimed at the proletariat and its weapon of combat, i.e. Marxism.

The negation (and even the death) of the proletariat as a revolutionary class has been proclaimed on several occasions. More recently this has been coupled with affirmations about 'the end of history' and 'the death of communism'. It is precisely this argument, which is spread by Marcos' speeches and those of his 'army of intellectuals'. They justify such an argument by using a marxist verbiage, as it's the case with Holloway & co., who fill the pages of a number of reviews. During his visits to Mexico City, Marcos, always escorted by the Federal Police, expresses his hatred for Marxism when he mocks it at the UNAM, the most important university in Mexico City. He uses a kind of irony which has the clear aim of denigrating the internationalist principle defended by communists when he says, "Forgive me if I bore you. I am here to make you waste your time when I talk to you about an Indian child, instead of talking about the world revolution." Brazenly, Marcos has had the guts to affirm that 'we are the only radicals'. However, such glorified radicalism of zapatismo IS NOT noticeable in its submission to capital's institutions and symbols, such as the House of Representatives, to which it pleads for a chance to have its voice heard. Neither is it noticeable in its defense of the constitution, the flag, or the national anthem. We can't note this supposed radicalism in its critique of the system of exploitation, the destruction of which they don't even dare to pose. On the contrary, they demand that capital give 'a few non-transferrable actions' to its workers when they retire, as the 'zapatist laws' dictate. Zapatismo's true radicalism rests in its constant attack against Marxism. Never before had another guerrilla group gained so much attention by the media, making of each declaration an advertising event. Because of this, each attack against Marxism is exaggerated, reproduced, and justified by the press and its 'intellectuals', as the media are at the same time engaged in capturing the attention of the young generation of workers, who have less experience and a weaker attachment to the Marxist tradition. For all of these reasons, the working class today needs to reflect collectively more than ever before. It needs to re-appropriate the experience of its struggles and its theoretical arsenal. This is the only way for it to recover the confidence in its own strength, while strengthening its consciousness and giving an impulse to its organization. Only the world proletarian revolution can transform the world

The concepts of 'civil society' and 'citizenship of the struggle' are supported by zapatismo and reproduced by the 'anti-globalization' groups to define a movement that calls itself 'transformational' and 'different', a movement by which it is possible 'to change the world without taking power'. This argument, which apparently embraces a vocation to total freedom and an 'inclusive' nature, does nothing but reproduce the bourgeois argument about democracy, with a few more colorful strokes. In fact, it is a direct attack against Marxism. In order to strengthen its 'new' ideas, it has to equal Stalinism with Marxism. For instance, Rodriguez Lascano, in "Rebellion" N.1, in order to conclude that the EZLN is the alternative which humanity has been waiting for centuries, states that there has been a "failure of the experiences in the construction of post-capitalist societies [in the sense that, these experiments have led to a] binding of marxism's conception of emancipation with the bureaucratic mechanism of political dominion." ([2]). It is clear that he does not want to make a critical analysis of history. All he wants to do, in an incorrect manner, is establish an identity between the aberrations of Stalinism with Marxism. A popular practice with the bourgeoisie is to attack Marxism by linking it to Stalinism, and the 'intellectuals of zapatismo' share such practice but revolutionaries know that Stalinism is not a particular expression of Marxism, but rather it exposes the defeat of the world revolution and, with it, the extension of the counterrevolution. Because of this, it is only either ignorance, or the planned attack against the principles of Marxism that can explain the arguments of these 'illustrious' intellectuals.

The real issue here is the insistence on the idea that the taking of political power, as a consequence of the proletarian revolution, implies its being locked within the national borders or the reproduction of the very repressive state apparatus that the revolution was seeking to destroy. Worse still, zapatismo's fiercest attack is the spreading of the idea that the origin of the problem rests in the existence of a proletarian party structure, insofar as it imposes a 'hierarchy of combat' (Holloway). We can see how zapatismo starts by posing that Marxism is a 'coup' by a minority, and ends by ascribing a kind of nationalism to Marxism. In addition, by pointing to a supposed interest by Marxism in gaining state power, it portrays the former as a bourgeois current interested in gaining hegemony over the state structures.

Where do they get these ideas about Marxism? The above mentioned author tells us: "not only from the experience of the Soviet Union and China, but also from the numerous movements of national liberation and from the guerrillas of the 60's and 70's." That is to say, from expressions and experiences that have nothing to do with Marxism.

The bourgeoisie's hatred for Marxism has found an echo in the voices and writings of these 'intellectuals'. The activity of zapatismo and its intellectuals is to denigrate Marxism. We cannot deepen here, but it's important to at least note that the radical transformation of the capitalist mode of production, which is what Marxism proposes, is derived from the material understanding of this mode of production, in which capital itself is conceived as a relation of production, which can be destroyed only by abolishing the exploitation of wage labor. This is why the taking of political power is just the beginning of this process, which must lead not to the perpetuation of the proletariat as a class, but rather to its disappearance. This is why Marx says that for the radical transformation of society what's necessary is both "a violent revolution, and also the destruction of the state's power apparatus, created by the dominant class." A desperate minority cannot accomplish this. It is rather conceived of as a historical process, constructed and conducted by the proletariat, which exposes its revolutionary nature by founding its practice in conscious and massive actions.

Lastly, among the lies dished out by these 'wise' supporters of the 'new style' guerrilla, is the one that portrays marxism as a mystical and rigid structure, which conceives of the revolution and communism as inevitable events. By contrast, Marxism talks about revolutionary combat and the construction of a truly human community (communism) as a possibility based in necessity. This is why it does not need utopian illusions that look backward, nor does it need desperate voluntaryism such as the one embraced by the guerrilla. This is why when communists defend the legacy of the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution and the revolutionary experience of the Communist Left, which fought against the degeneration of the III International, they don't deny the mistakes that were made. What communists do is tread marxism's historic thread to unite in time the experiences of the past with the present, and thus prepare for the future. This means to acquire the METHOD to discuss, to analyze, to struggle, and to organize. It is the same method we use to denounce in front of the working class all those who, like the EZLN, disguise themselves in sheep's clothes the better to launch a systematic attack against the proletariat's program and organization.

MA, 11/25/03.

NOTES

1. If anyone thinks this is just irony, we invite them to read Revista Chiapas #5 (The Revolt of Dignity), in which Holloway himself, after 'explaining' that the principal antagonism in capitalism is not to be found in the struggles between classes and that the proletariat is nothing but an old word used by Marxism, concludes that, "Dignity is therefore the revolutionary subject."

2. Following his trotskyist past, R. Lascano claims that the ex-USSR and its satellite nations are not capitalist societies, and while he previously called them 'degenerated workers' states, now he subtly calls them 'post-capitalist'.

The turn in class struggle discussed in the accompanying article on this page has been echoed here in the US, demonstrating the international character of the struggle between the working class and capitalism.

In the US, the precipitating issue has not been pensions, but medical benefits which have been under severe attack for several years. The struggles that have emerged around this issue are particularly important because they have begun to raise fundamental issues concerning the growing bankruptcy of the capitalist system, as its deepening economic crisis forces it to attack the wages and standard of living of the working class.

The social wage in the US - that part of the cost of reproduction of the working class not paid directly to the workers as cash wages, but paid by the state - is less centralized than in European countries. Medical benefits, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and pensions are not centralized through the state in the same way as they are in many European nations. Instead, the social wage is diffused through a sophisticated web of federal, state, employers and union programs and pension funds. For example, social security, a federal government program which covers all retirees is only a base level pension, providing a fundamentally poverty level subsistence, and must be supplemented for most workers by other pension plans to maintain an acceptable standard of living during their retirement. Some of these plans are administered by unions, some by employers, some by private pension funds. When the ruling class moves to attack pensions, it doesn't do so by announcing a national policy of across-the-board cuts, which, as experience elsewhere amply demonstrates, risks provoking a massive reaction from the working class. Rather, the attacks are diffused through different pension plans in different ways, cutting benefits, increasing the amount workers must contribute, raising the age of retirement, or even plunging some funds into bankruptcy, in which case pensions are entirely lost.

Likewise with medical benefits, which are only funded directly by the federal government for the poor (Medicaid) and for the elderly (Medicare), rather than Washington announcing an outright cut in medical coverage, the attacks are diffused through thousands of employer plans and HMO's and insurance plans. However, in the past three years the attacks on medical benefits have escalated to the extent of increasingly appearing as a generalized attack. Employers and unions have been working hand in glove to slash workers medical benefits. Typically this takes the form of forcing workers to pay higher out of pocket expenses and to pick up larger and larger portions of the insurance premium, which becomes tantamount to a wage cut on the one hand and a slash in quality of medical care for workers and their families on the other.

The era when large companies covered all or most of health care costs is over. In the last two years insurance premiums rose fastest in a decade, at the rate of 14% per year, more than 3 times the official government rate of inflation. In 2003, only 4% of large employers still pay 100% of insurance, down from 21% just 15 years ago in 1988. From 2000 to 2003, there has been a 50% increase in what workers must pay for their medical coverage. The situation in regard to prescription coverage is even worse. The amount that workers must pay for prescription drug coverage jumped 46 to 71% in the same period. A total of 43.6 million people in the richest, most powerful capitalist country in the world have no medical coverage - 15% of the population.

All of this combined has meant a gross deterioration in the real wages and standard of living of the proletariat and has pushed workers inescapably towards the necessity of taking up the class struggle in defense of their class interests.

Earlier this year, there was a strike at General Electric over the issue of medical insurance premiums. But things came to a head in October, when a whole series of struggles erupted over medical benefits. In Chicago it was sanitation workers, in Los Angeles transit workers. Later this was followed by 30,000 grocery store workers in Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, and then by an additional 70,000 grocery workers in California - who are still on strike after seven weeks. Significantly in California truck drivers are now refusing to make deliveries to the struck stores.

These struggles are in stark contrast to other strikes in the 1990s, such as the United Parcel Strike (UPS) in 1997, which was essentially a manoeuvre to strengthen the badly damaged image of the unions in the eyes of the workers. Those strikes did not correspond so much to the genuine combativeness of the workers, as it did to the needs of capitalism to strengthen its shop floor police - the unions. The strikes we have seen in October are not union manoeuvres but a genuine manifestation of growing working class combativeness. In each case, the union involved reached agreement with management on contracts granting cuts in medical benefits and recommended these contracts for ratification by membership vote. However, in each case these agreements were rejected by the workers overwhelmingly, by more than 66% margins. At the beginning of the strike in California the supermarkets ran full page ads reprinting the union president's letter to the members urging ratification of a fair and equitable agreement. "We couldn't agree more," concluded the company's ad. It was only after the resounding rejection of the contracts that the unions scurried to catch up and in order to keep control of the struggle, in order to sabotage it from within.

Powerless to prevent these outbreaks of workers combativeness, the unions role internationally and in the US has been to sabotage these struggles as much as possible, to retard the process of re-appropriation of the lessons of past struggles. How? By keeping struggles isolated, by emphasizing a struggle around specific demands of the particular sector on strike, by insisting that "we are fighting for our benefits," not against a generalized ruling class attack against all workers. This blocks development of consciousness seeing the link between the attack on medical benefits and pensions and the bankruptcy of capitalism. It leads to isolation, rather than active solidarity, and distorts the tendency towards extension into division within the class. In fact the unions limit the struggle to the defense of the medical benefits and abandon any attempt for other gains. So if the company pulls back on the medical benefits cuts in exchange for double-zero wage settlements, the union declares a victory, even though the workers still emerge as losers.

These recent struggles are significant but they should not be exaggerated. The working class does not need cheerleaders who hail any manifestation of combativeness and class struggle uncritically, but revolutionaries who are capable of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the struggle, and can put forth an intervention that can maximize the potentiality contained in the situation, and attack the weaknesses of the struggles. As important as these struggles are, it is abundantly clear that the workers still have difficulty to break free of the unions' grasp. Despite the fact that in each case, the workers rejected the austerity contract agreed to by the union, in each case they were incapable of seeing the fact that the unions' cooperation with management exposed their capitalist class nature. Rather than take the struggle into their own hands, the workers permitted the same union leadership that had been content to sell them out, to lead the strike and continue negotiations.

This difficulty to see the necessity to confront the unions as part of the capitalist class is closely linked to the reflux in consciousness and disorientation that has gripped the international proletariat since the collapse of the Stalinist bloc, which has been characterized by a loss of self-identity as a class, and a consequent lack of self-confidence on the part of workers. The intervention of revolutionaries in these struggles must on the one hand be aimed at exposing the unions' role in sabotaging and isolating the struggles, and on the other hand at helping the class to regain its self identity as a class, and its understanding of active solidarity in struggle.

JG, 11/25/03.