The text published below was written in 1995, 20 years after the founding congress of the International Communist Current in 1975.

We reprint this text in order to give our readers an introduction to the history of our organisation, and an insight into the method which inspired its creation as an international regroupment of local organisations. This remains our method to this day.

Twenty years ago, in January 1975, the International Communist Current was formed. This is a considerable lifespan for a proletarian organisation, when we consider that the IWA only survived 12 years (1864-76), the Socialist International 25 years (1889-1914), and the Communist International 9 years (1919-28). Obviously, we do not pretend that our organisation has played a part comparable to that of the workers' Internationals. Nonetheless, the ICC's 20 years of experience belongs entirely to the proletariat, whence our organisation springs just as did the Internationals of the past, and as do the other organisations which defend communist principles today. In this sense it is our duty, and this anniversary provides us with an opportunity, to pass on to our class some of the lessons which we draw from these two decades of combat.

The comparison between the ICC and the organisations which have marked the history of the workers' movement, especially the Internationals, is disconcerting: whereas the latter organisations included or influenced millions, even tens of millions of workers, the ICC is only known, throughout the world, to a tiny minority of the working class. This situation, which is also the lot of all the other revolutionary organisations, should encourage us to modesty. It should not, however, lead us to underestimate the work we do accomplish, and still less should it discourage us. Ever since the proletariat first appeared as an actor on the social scene a century and a half ago, its historic experience has shown that the periods when revolutionary positions exerted a real influence over the working masses have been relatively limited. And moreover, it is on the basis of this reality that the bourgeoisie's ideologues have claimed that the proletarian revolution is a pure utopia, since most workers do not think it either necessary or possible. This phenomenon, which was already apparent when mass workers' parties existed, at the end of the 20th century, has been further amplified by the defeat of the revolutionary wave which followed World War I.

The working class made the world bourgeoisie tremble, and the latter took its revenge by subjecting its enemy to the longest counter-revolution in its history. And the spearhead of the counter-revolution was precisely those organisations - the socialist and communist parties, and the trades unions - which the working class had founded for its own combat, but which had gone over to the bourgeois camp. The vast majority of the socialist parties were already in the service of the bourgeoisie during the War, calling the on workers for "National Unity", and in some countries even joining the governments which had unleashed the imperialist slaughter. Then, when the revolutionary wave unfurled following the October 1917 revolution in Russia, these same parties played the part of executioners for the bourgeoisie, either by deliberately sabotaging the movement, as in Italy in 1920, or by ordering and organising the murder of workers and revolutionaries in their thousands, as in Germany in 1919. Later on, the communist parties, which had been formed around those socialist party fractions that refused to join the imperialist war effort, and which had taken the lead in the revolutionary wave by rallying around the Communist International (founded in March 1919), went down the same path as their socialist predecessors. Dragged down by the defeat of the world revolution, and by the degeneration of the revolution in Russia, they joined the capitalist camp during the 1930's, to become the most faithful recruiting sergeants for World War II in the name of anti-fascism and "defence of the socialist fatherland". Having been the main architects of the "resistance" movements against the German and Japanese occupying armies, they continued their dirty work by exercising a ferocious control over the workers during the reconstruction of the ruined capitalist economies.

Throughout this period the massive influence that the socialist or "communist" parties were able to have of the working class stifled the consciousness of workers, steeped them in chauvinism and either turned them away from any perspective for the overthrow of capitalism or confused this perspective with the strengthening of the democratic bourgeoisie or subjected them to the lie that the capitalist states of the Eastern bloc were "socialism" incarnate. During this "midnight in the century" the real communist forces who were chased out of the degenerating Communist International were in a situation of extreme isolation when they weren't actually exterminated by Stalinist or fascist agents of the counter-revolution. In the worst conditions in the history of the workers' movement the handful of militants who managed to escape the wreckage of the Communist International worked to defend communist principles in order to prepare the future historic resurgence of the proletariat. Many lost their lives or were worn out to the point that their organisations - the fractions and groups of the communist left - disappeared or else were crippled by sclerosis.

The terrible counter-revolution which crushed the working class following its glorious battles after World War I lasted for nearly forty years. But once the last fires of the reconstruction following the second world war had gone out and capitalism was again faced with the open crisis of its economy at the end of the 60s, the proletariat raised its head once more. May 1968 in France, the "rampant May" in Italy in 1969, workers' struggles in the winter of 1970 in Poland and a whole series of workers' struggles in Europe and on other continents: the counter-revolution was over. The best proof of this fundamental change in the course of history was the appearance and development in various parts of the world of groups who based themselves, often in a confused way, on the traditions and positions of the Communist Left. The ICC was formed in 1975 as a regroupment of some of these formations that the historic resurgence of the proletariat had produced. That fact that since then the ICC has not only continued to exist but has grown, doubling the number of sections is excellent proof of this historic resurgence of the proletariat, an excellent indication that the latter has not been defeated and that the historic course is still towards class confrontations. This is the first lesson to be drawn from the 20 years existence of the ICC against the idea shared by many other groups of the Communist Left who think that the proletariat hasn't yet emerged from the counter-revolution.

In International Review n°40, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the ICC, we drew a number of lessons from our experience in this earlier period. We recall them briefly here to underline some of the points we made about the period that followed. However before making such an assessment we must quickly go back to the history of the ICC. And for readers who are unacquainted with the article of 10 years ago we reprint large extracts from it here which deal with this history.

The constitution of an international pole of regroupment

The "prehistory" of the ICC

"The first organised expression of our Current appeared in Venezuela in 1964. It consisted of very young elements who had begun to evolve towards class positions through discussions with an older comrade who had behind him the experience of being a militant in the Communist International, in the left fractions which were excluded from it at the end of the 1920s - notable the Left Fraction of the Communist Party of Italy - and who was part of the Gauche Communiste de France until its dissolution in 1952. Straight away this small group in Venezuela - which, between 1964 and 1968 published ten issues of its review Internacionalismo - saw itself as being in political continuity with the positions of the Communist Left, especially those of the GCF. This was expressed in particular through a very clear rejection of any policy of supporting so-called "national liberation struggles", a myth that was very prevalent in Latin American countries and that weighed heavily on elements trying to move towards class positions. It was also expressed in an attitude of openness towards, and making contact with, other communist groups - an attitude which had previously characterised the International Communist Left before the war and the GCF after it. Thus the group Internacionalismo established or tried to establish contacts and discussions with the American group News and Letters (...) and in Europe with a whole series of groups who were situated on class positions (...) With the departure of several of its elements for France in '67 and '68, this group interrupted its publication for several years, before Internacionalismo (new series) began in 1974 and the group became a constituent part of the ICC in 1975.

"The second organised expression of our Current appeared in France in the wake of the general strike of May '68 which marked the historic resurgence of the world proletariat after more than 40 years of counter-revolution. A small nucleus was formed in Toulouse around a militant of Internacionalismo. This nucleus participated actively in the animated discussions of Spring '68, adopted a 'declaration of principles' in June and published the first issue of Révolution Internationale (RI) at the end of that year. Straight away, this group continued Internacionalismo's policy of looking for contact and discussion with other groups of the proletarian milieu both nationally and internationally. (...) From 1970 onwards, it established closer links with two groups who managed to swim out of the general decomposition of the councilist milieu after May '68: the 'Organisation Conseilliste de Clermont Ferrand" and "Cahiers du Communisme di Conseils (Marseille)", following an attempted discussion with the GLAT which showed that this group was moving further and further away from marxism. Discussion with the former two groups, however, proved much more fruitful and after a whole series of meetings in which the basic positions of the Communist Left were examined in a systematic manner, RI, the OC of Clermont and CCC came together in 1972 around a platform which was a more detailed and precise version of RI's declaration of principles of 1968. This new group published the Revue Internationale as well as a Bulletin d'Etude at de Discussion and was to be at the centre of a whole work of international contact and discussion in Europe up until the foundation of the ICC two and a half years later.

"On the American continent, the discussions that Internacionalismo had with News and Letters left some traces in the USA and, in 1970, a group was formed in New York (part of which was made up of former members of News and Letters) around an orientation text with the same basic positions as Internacionalismo and RI (...) The new group began to publish Internationalism and like its predecessors set about establishing discussions with other communist groups. Thus it maintained contacts and discussions with Root and Branch in Boston, which was inspired by the councilist ideas of Paul Mattick, but these proved not to be fruitful since the Boston group was more and more turning into a club or marxology. In 1972, Internationalism sent a proposal for international correspondence to twenty groups, in the following terms:

"(...) 'Together with the heightened activity of the working class there has been a dramatic growth in the number of revolutionary groups having an internationalist communist perspective. Unfortunately, contact and correspondence between these groups has largely been haphazard and episodic. Internationalism makes the following proposal with a view towards regularising and expanding contact and correspondence between groups having an internationalist communist perspective (...)

"In its positive response, RI said:

"'Like you we feel the necessity for the like and activities of our groups to have as international a character as the present struggles of the working class. This is why we have maintained contact through letters or directly with a certain number of European groups to whom your proposal was sent. (...) We think that you initiative will make it possible to broaden the scope of these contacts and at the very least, to make our respective positions better known. We also think that the perspective of a future international conference is the logical follow-on from the establishment of this political correspondence (...)

"In its response, RI thus underlined the necessity to work towards international conferences of groups of the Communist Left, without any idea of haste: such a conference should be held after a period of correspondence. This proposal was in continuity with the repeated proposals it had made (in '68, '69 and '71) to the Partito Comunista Internazionalista (Battaglia Comunista - BC) to call such conferences, since at the time this organisation was the most important and serious group in the camp of the Communist Left in Europe (alongside the PCI - Programma Comunista, which was basking in the comfort of its splendid isolation). But despite Battaglia's open and fraternal attitude, these proposals had each time been rejected (...).

"In the end, Internationalism's initiative and RI's proposal did lead, in '73 and '74, to the holding of a series of conferences and meetings in England and France during the course of which a process of clarification and decantation got under way, notably with the evolution of the British group World Revolution (which came out of a split in Solidarity) towards the positions of RI and Internationalism. WR published the first issue of its magazine in May 1974. Above all, this process of clarification and decantation created the bases for the constitution of the ICC in January '75. During this period, RI had continued its work of contact and discussion at an international level, not only with organised groups but also with isolated elements who read its press and sympathised with its positions. This work led to the formation of small nuclei in Spain and Italy around the same positions and who in '74 commences publication of Accion Proletaria and Rivoluzione Internazionale.

"Thus, at the January '75 conference were present Internacionalismo, Révolution Internationale, Internationalism, World Revolution, Accion Proletaria and Rivoluzione Internazionale, who shared the political orientations which had been developed since 1964 with Internacionalismo. Also present were Revolutionary Perspectives (who had participated in the conferences of '73-'74), the Revolutionary Workers' Group of Chicago (with whom RI and Internationalism had begun discussions in '74) and Pour Une Intervention Communiste (which published the review Jeune Taupe and had been formed around comrades who had left RI in '73 (...). As for the group Workers' Voice, which had participated actively in the conferences of the previous years, it had rejected the invitation to this conference because it now considered that RI, WR, etc were bourgeois groups (!) because of the position of the majority of their militants on the question of the state in the period of transition from capitalism to communism (...).

"This question was on the agenda of the January 1975 conference... However it wasn't discussed at the conference which saw the need to devote the maximum of its time and attention to questions that were much more crucial at that point:

• that analysis of the international situation;

• the tasks of revolutionaries within it;

• the organisation of the international current.

"Finally the six groups whose platforms were based on the same orientations decided to unify themselves into a single organisation with an international central organ and publishing a quarterly review in three languages - English, French and Spanish (...) - which took over from RI's Bulletin d'Etude et de Discussion. The ICC had been founded. As the presentation to number 1 of the International Review said, "a great step forward has just been taken". The foundation of the ICC was the culmination of a whole work of contacts, discussions and confrontations between the different groups which had been engendered by the historic awakening of the class struggle. (...) But above all it lay the bases for even more considerable work to come.

The first ten years of the ICC: the consolidation of an international pole

"This work can be seen by the readers of the International Review and of our territorial press and confirms what we wrote in the presentation to International Review n°1:

'Some people will consider that the publication of the Review is a precipitous action. It is nothing of the kind. We have nothing in common with those noisy activists whose activity is based on a voluntarism as frenzied as it is ephemeral' (1) (...)

"Throughout the ten years of its existence, the ICC has obviously encountered numerous difficulties, has had to overcome various weaknesses, most of which are linked to the break in organic continuity with the communist organisations of the past, to the disappearance of sclerosis of the left fractions who detached themselves from the degenerating Communist International. It has also had to combat the deleterious influence of the decomposition and revolt of the intellectual petty bourgeoisie, an influence that was particularly strong after '68 and the period of the student movements. These difficulties and weaknesses have for example expressed themselves in various splits - which we have written about in our press - and especially by the major convulsions which took place in 1981, in the ICC as well as the revolutionary milieu as a whole, and which led to the loss of half our section in Britain. In the face on the difficulties in '81, the ICC was even led to organise an extraordinary conference in January '82 in order to reaffirm and make more precise its programmatic bases, in particular concerning the function and structure of the revolutionary organisation. Also, some of the objectives the ICC set itself have not been attained. For example, the distribution of our press has fallen short of what we had hoped for. (...)

"However, if we draw up an overall balance sheet of the last ten years, it can clearly be seen to be a positive one. This is particularly true if you compare it to that of other communist organisations who existed after 1968. Thus, the groups of the councilist current, even those who tried to open themselves up to international work like ICO, have either disappeared or sunk into lethargy: the GLAT, ICO, the Situationist International, Spartacusbond, Root and Branch, PIC, the councilist groups of the Scandinavian milieu... the list is long and this one is by no means exhaustive. As for the organisations coming from the Italian Left and who all proclaim themselves to be THE PARTY, either they haven't broken out of their provincialism, or have dislocated and degenerated towards leftism like Programma (2), or are today imitating, in a confused and artificial way, what the ICC did ten years ago, as is the case with Battaglia and the CWO. Today, after the so-called International Communist Party has collapsed like a pack of cards, after the failure of the FOR in the USA (the FOCUS group), the ICC remains the only communist organisation that is really implanted on an international scale.

"Since its formation in 1975, the ICC has not only strengthened its original territorial sections but has implanted itself in other countries. The work of contact, discussion and regroupment on an international scale has led to the establishment of new sections of the ICC:

- 1975: the constitution of the section in Belgium which published the review, now a newspaper, Internationalisme, in two languages (French and Dutch), and which fills the gap left by the disappearance in the period after World War II of the Belgian Fraction of the International Communist Left.

- 1977: constitution of the nucleus in Holland, which began publication of the magazine Wereld Revolutie. This was particularly important in a country which has been the stamping ground of councilism.

- 1978: constitution of the section in Germany which began publication of the IR in German and, the following year, of the territorial magazine Weltrevolution. The presence of a communist organisation in Germany is obviously of the highest importance given the place occupied by the German proletariat in the past and the role it is going to play in the future.

- 1980: constitution of the section in Sweden which publishes the magazine Internationell Revolution. (...)

"If we underline the contrast between the relative success of our Current and the failure of other organisations, it's because this demonstrates the validity of the orientations we have put forward in twenty years of work for the regroupment of revolutionaries, for the construction of a communist organisation. It is our responsibility to draw out these orientations for the whole communist milieu.

The main lessons of the first 10 years of the ICC

"The bases on which our Current has carried out this work of regroupment even before its formal constitution are not new. In the past they have always been the pillars of this kind of work. We can summarise them as follows:

- the necessity to base revolutionary activity on the past acquisitions of the class, on the experience of previous communist organisations; to see the present organisation as a link in a chain of past and future organs of the class;

- the necessity to see communist positions and analyses not as a dead dogma but as a living programme which is constatly being enriched and deepened;

- the necessity to be armed with a clear and solid conception of the revolutionary organisation, of its structure and its function within the class."

These lessons that we drew 10 years ago (and which are more developed in International Review n°40 which we recommend our readers to refer to) obviously remain valid today and our organisation has striven constantly to put them into practice. However while during the first 10 years of its existence its central task was to build an international pole of regroupment for revolutionary forces, its main responsibility in the subsequent period has been to confront a series of trials ("trials by fire" in a way) that have come out of the convulsions taking place in the international situation in particular.

Trial by fire

At the 6th Congress of the ICC which was held in November 1985, a few months after the 10 year anniversary of the ICC we said:

"At the beginning of the 80s the ICC characterised them as 'the years of truth'; years in which the main stakes for the whole of society would be revealed in all their terrible breadth. Half way through the decade the evolution of the international situation has fully confirmed this analysis:

- by a further aggravation of the convulsions of the world economy which has been manifested since the beginning of the 80s by the most serious recession since the 30s;

- by an intensification of tensions between the imperialist blocs which occurred in teh same period and was expressed in a considerable increase in military expenditure and through the development of clamorous war campaigns with Reagan as chantre , head of the most powerful bloc;

- by the resurgence of class struggle during the second half of 1983 after its momentary reflux from 1981 to 1983 just before and after the repression of the workers in Poland. This resurgence is characterised by a hitherto unprecedented simultaneity of the struggles especially in the important centres of capitalism and of the working class in western Europe" (Resolution on the international situation, International Review n°44).

This framework proved valid until the end of the 80s even though the bourgeoisie did what it could to present the "recovery" of 1983 to 1990, that was on the basis of the number 1 world power going into huge debt, as the "definitive end" of the crisis. As Lenin said, facts are stubborn and since the beginning of the 90s capitalism's tricks have led to an open recession even more long and brutal than the previous ones; this has been transformed the euphoria of the average bourgeois into a profound moroseness.

Likewise the wave of workers' strikes that began in 1983 continues with moments of reflux and moments of greater intensity up to 1989 which forced the bourgeoisie to bring forward various forms of base unionism (such as coordinations) in order to counteract the growing discredit of the official union structures.

However one aspect of this framework was dramatically put into question in 1989; that of imperialist conflicts. It's not that the marxist theory had been suddenly proved wrong by the "overcoming" of such conflicts but rather that one of the two main protagonists of such conflicts, the eastern bloc, collapsed dramatically. What we called the "years of truth" had proved fatal for an aberrant regime that had been built on the ruins of the 1917 revolution and for the bloc it dominated. An historic event of such breadth that overturned the map of the world created a new situation unprecedented in history in the sphere of imperialist conflicts. The latter took on forms hitherto unknown that revolutionaries have a responsibility to understand and analyse.

At the same time these upheavals that affected those countries that presented themselves as "socialist" dealt a very heavy blow to the consciousness and combativeness of the working class which had to face the most serious reflux since the historic resurgence at the end of the 60s.

So the international situation in the last ten years has compelled the ICC to confront the following challenges:

- to be an active factor in the class combats that took place between 1983 and 1989;

- to understand the significance of the 1989 events and the consequences they would have in the sphere of imperialist conflicts as well as the class struggle;

- more generally to develop a framework to understand the period in the life of capitalism of which the colllapse of the eastern bloc was the first great manifestation.

An active factor in the class struggle

After the 6th Congress of the section in France (the largest in the ICC) held in 1984 the 6th ICC Congress placed this concern at the heart of its agenda. However the effort made by our international organisation over several months to rise to its responsibilities towards the class at the beginning of 11984 came up against the persistence within its ranks of conceptions that underestimated the function of the revolutionary organisation as an active factor in the proletarian struggle. The ICC identified these conceptions as a result of centrist slidings towards councilism. This was mainly a product of the historic conditions in which it was constituted as among the groups and elements who participated in its formation there existed a strong distrust of anything resembling Stalinism. In line with councilism these elements tended to put on the same level Stalinism, the conceptions of Lenin on the organisational question and the very idea of the proletarian party. During the 70s the ICC had made a critique of Stalinist conceptions but it hadn't gone far enough and so these continued to weigh on certain parts of the organisation. When the struggle against the vestiges of councilism began at the end of 1983 a number of comrades refused to see the reality of their councilist weaknesses, fantasising that the ICC was conducting a "witch hunt". To avoid the problem posed; centrism towards councilism, they "discovered" that centrism can no longer exist in the decadent period of capitalism (3). Added to such political incomprehensions these comrades, most of whom were intellectuals unwilling to accept criticism, felt a sense of wounded pride as well as "solidarity" towards their friends whom they deemed to be unfairly "attacked". As we pointed out in the International Review n°45 it was a sort of "remake" of the 2nd Congress of the POSDR in which centrism on the organisational question and the weight of the circle spirit, which meant that links of affinity took priority over political relationships, led the Mensheviks to split. The "tendency" that was formed at the beginning of 1985 was to follow the same pathe and split at the time of the 6th Congress of the ICC to constitute a new organisation, the "External Fraction of the ICC" (FECCI). However there is a big difference between the fraction of the Mensheviks and that of the FECCI. The former was to prosper by gathering together the most opportunist currents of Russian Social Democracy and ended up in the bourgeois camp whereas the FECCI has collapsed, keeping more and more of a low profile and producing its publication, International Perspectives at greater and greater intervals. n the end the FECCI rejected the platform of the ICC although at their formation they gave as their main task the defence of this same platform that the ICC which according to them was "degenerating", was in the process of betraying.

At the same time as the ICC was fighting against the vestiges of councilism within it, it participated actively in the struggle of the working class as our territorial press throughout this period shows. Despite the smallness of its forces our organisation was present in the various struggles. Not only did it distribute its press and leaflets, it also participated directly whenever possible in workers' assemblies to defend the need for the extension of the struggles and workers' control over them outside the various union forms; "official" unionism or "rank-and-file" unionism. So in Italy during the schools' strike in 1987 our comrades' intervention had a not negligible impact within the COBAS (rank and file committees) where they were present before these organisms were recuperated by rank-and-file unionism with the reflux in the movement. During this period one of the best indication that our positions were beginning to have an impact among the workers was the fact that the ICC became a particular object of hatred for some of the leftist groups. This was especially so in France where at the time of the strike on the railways at the end of 86 and of the strike in the hospitals in Autumn 88 the Trotskyist group "Lutte Ouvrière" mobilised its "strong arm men" to prevent our militants from intervening in the assemblies called by the "co-ordinations". At the same time ICC militants actively participated in - and were often the animators of - several struggle groups that drew together workers who felt the need to regroup outside the unions to push the struggle forward.

Obviously we mustn't "exaggerate" the impact that revolutionaries, and our organisation in particular, were able to have on the workers' struggles between 1983 and 1989. Generally the movement remained imprisoned by unionism, its "rank-and-file" variations taking the baton from the official unions where the latter had been too discredited. Our impact was very immediate and was anyway limited by the fact that our forces are still very small. But the lesson that we must learn from this experience is that when struggles develop revolutionaries find an echo when they're present because the positions they defend and the perspectives they put forward answer the questions that workers are asking. And for this to be true there's no need whatever for them to "hide their flag" or make the slightest concession to the illusions that may still weigh on the consciousness of the workers, particularly on the question of unionism. This is a valid lesson for all revolutionary groups which are often paralysed when confronted with struggles because the latter don't yet raise the question of capitalism's overthrow so they feel obliged to work with rank-and-file structures "to be heard" and thus give credibility to these capitalist organs.

Understanding the significance of the 1989 events

Just as it is the responsibility of revolutionaries to be present "on the ground" when there are workers' struggles they must also be able at any moment to give the working class as a whole a clear framework of analysis for what's happening in the world.

An important aspect of this task is the understanding of the economic contradiction that affect the capitalist system. Those revolutionary groups who are unable to demonstrate the insoluble nature of the crisis that the system's drowning in show that they haven't understood the marxist tradition they lay claim to and are of no use to the working class. This is so with a group like "Ferment Ouvrier Révolutionnaire" for example who refused even too acknowledge that there was a crisis. Their eyes were so glued to the specific characteristics of the 1929 crisis that they denied all the evidence over the years... until they disappeared.

It's also up to revolutionaries to be able to evaluate the steps that the movement of the class has accomplished; to recognise the moments when it's going forward and also those when it is in retreat. This task firmly conditions the kind of intervention to make among the workers because then the movement is going forward their responsibility is to push it to its limits and in particular to call for its extension. When it's in retreat to call the workers to struggle is to push them to fight in isolation and to call for extension is to contribute to the extension... of the defeat. It's often precisely at such moments that the unions call for extension.

Finally following and understanding the various imperialist conflicts also constitutes a responsibility of the greatest importance for communists. A mistake in this sphere can have dramatic consequences. For example at the end of the 30s the majority of the Italian Communist Fraction with Vercesi, its main animator, at its head, beleived that the different wars of the period, notably the war in Spain, in no way augured a generalised conflict. The outbreak of world war in September 1939 left the Fraction completely crippled and it was several years before they were able to reconstitute themselves in the south of France and take up militant work again.

As for the present period it was extremely important to be clear on the events taking place during the summer and autumn of 1989 in the eastern bloc countries. For its part the ICC mobilised itself to understand what was happening from the time that Solidarnosc came to power in Poland in the middle of the summer when usually "current affairs" are on holiday." (4) It adopted the position that what was happening in Poland was a sign that all the European Stalinist regimes were entering a crisis of unprecedented depth: "The perspective for all the Stalinist regimes is...by no means a "peaceful democratisation" or a "recovery" of the economy. With the intensification of the world crisis of capitalism these countries entered a period of convulsions of a breadth unknown even in their past that is "rich" in violent upheavals" (International Review n°59, "Capitalist convulsions and workers' struggles"). This idea is developed further in the "Theses on the economic and political crisis in the USSR and in the eastern countries" drafted on 15 September (almost two months before the fall of the Berlin wall) and adopted by the ICC at the beginning of October. In these theses we read (see International Review n°60):

"...since virtually the only cohesive factor in the Russian bloc is that of armed force, any policy which tends to push this into the background threatens to break up the bloc. Already, the Eastern bloc is in a state of growing dislocation. For example, the invective traded between East Germany and Hungary, between "reformist" and "conservative" governments, is not just a sham. It reveals real splits which are building up between different national bourgeoisies. In this zone, the centrifugal tendencies are so strong that they go out of control as soon as they have the opportunity (...)

We find a similar phenomenon in the peripheral republics of the USSR. These regions are more or less colonies of Tsarist or even Stalinist Russia (eg the Baltic countries annexed under the 1939 Germano-Soviet pact). However, unlike the other great powers Russia has never been able to decolonise, since this would have meant losing all control over these regions, some of which are vital economically. The nationalist moevements which today are profiting from a loosening of central control by the Russian party, are developing more than half a century late relative to the movements which hit the British and French empires; their dynamic is towards separation from Russia" (Point 18).

"...however the situation in the Eastern bloc evolves, the events that are shaking it today mean the historic crisis, the definitive collapse of Stalinism (...) In these countries, an unprecedented period of instability, convulsions and chaos has begun, whose implications go far beyond their frontiers. In particular, the weakening, which will continue, of the Russian bloc, opens the gates to a destabilisation of the whole system of international relations and imperialist constellations which emerged from World War II with the Yalta Agreements" (Point 20).

A few months later (January 1990), this last idea was given greater precision:

"The world's geopolitical configuration as it has lasted since World War II has been completely overturned by the events of the second half of 1989. There are no longer two imperialist blocs sharing the world between them. It is obvious (...) that the Eastern bloc has ceased to exist (...).

Does this disappearance of the Eastern bloc mean that capitalism will no longer be subjected to imperialist confrontations? Such a hypothesis would be entirely foreign to marxism (...) Today, the collapse of this bloc can absolutely not given renewed credence to such analyses: this collapse will eventually bring with it the collapse of the Western bloc (...) The disappearance of the Russian imperialist gendarme, and that to come of the American gendarme as far as its one-time "partners" are concerned, opens the door to the unleashing of a whole series of more local rivalries. For the moment, these rivalries and confrontations cannot degenerate into a world war (...) However, with the disappearance of the discipline imposed by the two blocs, these conflicts are liable to become more frequent and more violent, especially of course in those areas where the proletariat is weakest (...)

The disappearance of the two major imperialist constellations which emerged from World War II brings with it the tendency towards the recomposition of two new blocs. Such a situation, however, is not yet on the agenda..." (International Review n°61, "After the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, destabilisation and chaos").

Events since then, especially the crisis and war in the Gulf in 1990-91, have only confirmed our analyses (5). Today, the whole world situation, and notably what is happening in ex-Yugoslavia, is a blinding proof of the complete disappearance of all the imperialist blocs, just as some European countries, France and Germany in particular, are trying with great difficulty to encourage the formation of a new bloc based on the EEC, which would be capable of standing up to the power of the United States.

As far as the evolution of the class struggle is concerned, the Theses of the summer of 1989 also took position:

"Even in its death throes, Stalinism is rendering a last service to the domination of capital: in decomposing, its cadaver continues to pollute the atmosphere that the proletariat breathes (...) We thus have to expect a momentary retreat in the consciousness of the proletariat (...) In particular, reformist ideology will weigh very heavily on the struggle in the period ahead, greatly facilitating the action of the unions.

Given the historic importance of the facts that are determining it, the present retreat of the proletariat - although it doesn't call into question the historic course, the general perspective of class confrontations - is going to be much deeper than the one which accompanied the defeat of 1981 in Poland" (Point 22).

Once again, the last five years have amply confirmed this forecast. Since 1989, we have witnessed the most serious retreat by the working class since historic re-emergence at the end of the 60s. Revolutionaries had to be prepared for this situation in order to adapt their intervention accordingly, and above all, not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by mistaking the long reflux for a definitive incapacity of the proletariat to conduct and develop combats against capitalism. In particular, the signs of renewed workers' combativity, especially autumn 92 in Italy and autumn 93 in Germany (see International Review nos 72 and 75), should neither be overestimated (given the extent of the proletarian retreat), not underestimated, since they are the forerunners of an inevitable recovery in the combat and development of class consciousness throughout the industrialised countries.

Marxism is a scientific method. However, unlike the natural sciences it cannot verify its theories in laboratory conditions, or by improving its recording technology. Marxism's "laboratory" is social reality, and it demonstrates its validity through its ability to forecast that reality's evolution. The fact that the ICC was thus able to forecast, from the first symptoms of the Eastern bloc's collapse, the main events which were to shake the world in the five years that followed should not be put down to an aptitude for reading tea-leaves or astrological charts. It is simply the proof of the ICC's attachment to the marxist method, which is responsible for the success of our forecasts.

This being said, it is not enough to call yourself marxist to be able to use the method successfully. In fact, our ability to understand rapidly what was at stake in the world situation flows from the application of the method which we have taken from Bilan, and which we described ten years ago as one of the main lessons of our own experience: the necessity of attaching oneself firmly to the gains of the past, the necessity of regarding communist positions and analyses as a living programme, not a dead dogma.

The 1989 Theses thus began by recalling, in the first ten points, the framework that our organisation had adopted at the beginning of the 80s, following the events in Poland, for understanding the characteristics of the Eastern bloc countries. It was this analysis that allowed us to demonstrate that the Stalinist régimes of the Eastern bloc were finished. And it was a much older gain of the workers' movement (pointed out in particular by Lenin against Kautsky) - the understanding that there cannot exist only one imperialist bloc - that allowed us to declare that the end of the Eastern bloc opened the way to the disappearance of the Western bloc also.

Similarly, to understand what was happening, we had to call into question a schema which had remained valid for more than forty years: the world's division between a Western bloc led by the USA, and an Eastern bloc led by the USSR. We also had to be capable of understanding that the Russia which had been built little by little since the time of Peter the Great, would not survive the loss of its empire. Once again, there is no special merit in being able to call into question the schemas of the past. We did not invent this approach. It has been taught us by the experience of the workers' movement, and especially by its main fighters: Marx, Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin...

Finally, understanding the upheavals at the end of the 80s meant placing it within a general analysis of the present stage of capitalism's decadence.

The framework for understanding capitalism's present period

This is the work that we began in 1986, with the idea that we had entered a new phase in capitalist decadence: the system's decomposition. This analysis was laid out at the beginning of 1989 in the following terms:

"Up to now, the class combats which have developed in the four corners of the planet have been able to prevent decadent capitalism from providing its own answer to the dead end of its economy: the ultimate form of its barbarity, a new world war. However, the working class is not yet capable of affirming its own perspective through its own revolutionary struggles, nor even of setting before the rest of society the future that it holds within itself.

It is precisely this temporary stalemate, where for the moment neither the bourgeois nor the proletarian alternative can emerge openly, that lies at the origin of capitalism's putrefaction, and which explains the extreme degree of decadent capitalism's barbarity. And this rottenness will get still worse with the inexorable aggravation of the economic crisis" (International Review n°57, "The decomposition of capitalism").

Obviously, as soon as the Eastern bloc's collapse became clear, we placed this event within the framework of decomposition:

"In reality, the present collapse of the Eastern bloc is another sign of the general decomposition of capitalist society, whose origins lie precisely in the bourgeoisie's own inability to give its own answer - imperialist war - to the open crisis of the world economy" (International Review n°60, "Theses...", Point 20).

Similarly, in January 1990, we brought out the implications for the proletariat of the phase of decomposition, and of the new configuration of the imperialist arena:

"Given the world bourgeoisie's loss of control over the situation, it is not certain that its dominant sectors will today be capable of enforcing the discipline and coordination necessary for the reconstitution of military blocs (...) This is why in our analyses, we must clearly highlight the fact that while the proletarian solution - the communist revolution - is alone able to oppose the destruction of humanity (the only answer that the bourgeoisie is capable of giving to the crisis), this destruction need not necessarily be the result of a third World War. It could also come about as a logical and extreme conclusion of the process of decomposition.

(...) the continuing and worsening rot of capitalist society will have still worse effects on class consciousness than during the 1980s. It weighs down the whole of society with a general feeling of despair; the putrid stink of rotting bourgeois ideology poisons the very air that the proletariat breathes. Right up to the pre-revolutionary period, this will sow further difficulties in the way of the development of class consciousness" (International Review n°61, "After the collapse of the Eastern bloc, destabilisation and chaos").

Our analysis of decomposition thus allows us to highlight the extreme gravity of what is at stake in the present historic situation. In particular, it leads us to underline that the proletariat's road towards the communist revolution will be much more difficult that revolutionaries thought in the past. This is another lesson that we must draw from the ICC's experience during the last ten years, and one which recalls Marx's concern last century: that revolutionaries do not have the vocation of consoling the working class, but on the contrary of emphasizing both the absolute necessity and the difficulty of its historic combat. Only with a clear consciousness of this difficulty will the proletariat (and the revolutionaries with it) be able to avoid discouragement in adversity, and find the strength and lucidity to overcome the barriers on the road to the overthrow of this society of exploitation (6).

In this evaluation of the ICC's last ten years, we cannot overlook two important elements of our organisational life.

The first is very positive: it is the extension of the ICC's territorial presence, with the formation in 1989 of a nucleus in India, which publishes Communist Internationalist in Hindi, and of a new section, with its publication Revolucion Mundial, in Mexico, a country of the greatest importance in Latin America.

The second fact is much sadder: it is the death of our comrade Marc, on 20th December 1990. We will not here go back over the vital part he played in the formation of the ICC, and before that in the combat of the left communist fractions during the darkest hours of the counter-revolution. A long article (International Review n°65-66) has already dealt with this. Let us say simply that, while the convulsions of world capitalism since 1989 have been a "test of fire" for the ICC, as for the milieu as a whole, the loss of our comrade has been for us another "test of fire". Many groups of the communist life did not survive the death of their main inspirer. This was the case for the FOR, for example. Some "friends" have also predicted, with deep "concern", that the ICC would not survive without Marc. And yet, the ICC is still there, and it has held its course for four years despite the storms it has encountered.

Here again, we do not ascribe any particular merit to ourselves: the revolutionary organisation does not exist thanks to any one of its militants, however valorous. It is the historic product of the proletariat, and if it fails to survive one of its militants then this is because it has failed to take up correctly the responsibility that the class has given it, and because the militant has himself, in a certain sense, failed. If the ICC has been successful in surmounting the tests it has encountered, this is above all because it has always had the concern to attach itself to the experience of the communist organisations that preceded it, and to see its role as a long term combat rather than one in view of any immediate "success". Since the last century, this has been the approach of the clearest and most solid revolutionary militants: we look back to them, and in large part is our comrade Marc who taught us to do so. He also taught us, by his example, the meaning of militant devotion, without which a revolutionary organisation cannot survive, however clear it may be:

"His greatest pride lay not in the exceptional contribution he made, but in the fact that he had remained faithful in all his being to the combat of the proletariat. This too, is a precious lesson to the new generations of militants who have never had the opportunity to experience the immense devotion to the revolutionary cause of past generations. It is on this level, above all, that we hope to rise to the combat. Though now without his presence, vigilant and clear-sighted, warm and passionate, we are determined to continue" (International Review n°66, "Marc").

Twenty years after the formation of the ICC, we continue the combat.

FM

1) The fact that today we are publishing Interntional Review no 80 shows that it has maintained an unbroken regularity.

2) In the early 80s, the PCI-Programma renamed its publication to Combat. Combat slid rapidly towards leftism. Since then, some elements of the group have renewed the publication of Programma Comunista, which defends classic Bordigist positions.

3) On this subject, see the articles published in International Review n°41 and 45.

4) It should be said that almost all the groups of the proletarian milieu completely failed to understand the events of 1989, as we showed in the articles "The wind from the East and the response of revolutionaries", and "Faced with the upheavals in the East, a vanguard that came late", in International Review n°61-62. The prize goes without any doubt to the EFICC (which had left the ICC on the grounds that the latter was degenerating and incapable of carrying out any theoretical work): the EFICC took TWO YEARS to realise that the Eastern bloc had disappeared (see the article "What use is the EFICC?", in International Review n°70).

5) We have given an account of these events in International Review n°64-65. In particular, even before "Desert Storm", we wrote: "In the new historical period which we have entered, and which the Gulf events have confirmed, the world appears as a vast free-for-all, where the tendency of "every man for himself" will operate to the full, and where the alliances between states will be far from having the stability that characterised the imperialist blocs, but will be dominated by the immediate needs of the moment. A world of bloody chaos, where the American policeman will try to maintain a minimum of order by the increasingly massive and brutal use of military force" ("Militarism and Decomposition", International Review n°64). Similarly, we rejected the idea put about by the leftists, but shared by most of the groups of the proletarian milieu, that the war in the Gulf was a "war for oil" (see "The proletarian political milieu faced with the Gulf war).

6) It is not necessary here to go back over our analysis of decomposition at greater length. It appears in all our texts dealing with the international situation. Let us just add that, through a debate in depth throughout the organisation, this analysis has been made progressively more precise (on this subject, see our texts "Decomposition, the ultimate phase of capitalist decadence", "Militarism and Decomposition", and "Towards the greatest chaos in history", published in International Review n°62, 64, and 68 respectively).

For a quarter of a century, since the end of the 1960s, the scourge of unemployment has continued to extend and intensify throughout the world. This development has been more or less regular, going through more or less violent accelerations and refluxes. But the general upward tendency has been confirmed in recession after recession.

Apparently all the economic statistics are clear: the world economy is finally coming out of the worst recession since the war. Production is increasing, profits are returning. The medicine seems to have worked. And yet no government dares cry victory, all of them are calling for still further sacrifices, all remain extremely prudent, and above all, every one of them says that as far as unemployment is concerned - ie the main issue - there's not a great deal to look forward to[1].

But what kind of recovery is it that doesn't create jobs or only creates precarious ones?

During the last two years, in the Anglo-Saxon countries, which are supposed to be the first to have come out of the open recession which began at the end of the 80s, the 'recovery' has essentially taken the form of an extreme modernization of the productive apparatus in enterprises which survived the disaster. Those who did survive did so at the price of violent restructurations, resulting in massive lay-offs and no less massive expenditure on replacing living labor with dead labor, with machines. The increase in production noted by the statistics in recent months is essentially the result not of an increase in the number of workers reintegrated into employment but of a greater productivity on the part of those who have kept their jobs. This increase in productivity, which for example accounts for 80 % of the rise in production in Canada, one of the countries who have advanced the furthest into the 'recovery', is mainly due to very high investment into the modernization of machinery and communications, into the development of automation - not into the opening of new factories. In the USA it's this investment into equipment, principally computers, which explains the growth of investment in recent years. Investment in non-residential building is virtually stagnant. Which means that existing factories are being modernized but new ones aren't being built.

A Mickey Mouse recovery

In Britain today, while the govermnent never stops singing about the continual fall in unemployment, nearly 6 million people are working an average 14.8 hours a week. It's these kind of precarious and poorly paid jobs which are swelling the employment statistics. The British workers call them "Micky Mouse jobs".

Meanwhile the program of restructuring the big enterprises continues: 1,000 jobs cut in one of Britain's main electricity companies; 2,500 in the second largest telephone company.

In France, the Society Nationale des Chemins de Fer (railways) have announced 4,800 job-cuts for 1995; Renault 1,735, Citroen 1,180. In Germany, the giant Siemens company has announced that it will cut "at least" 12,000 jobs in 1994-5, after the 21,000 already gone in 1993.

The lack of markets

For each enterprise, increasing productivity is a precondition for survival. Globally speaking, this ruthless competition leads to important gains in productivity. But this poses the problem of the existence of sufficient markets to absorb the growing amount of production that the enterprises can ensure with the same number of workers. If the markets are insufficient, job-cuts are inevitable.

"We have to raise productivity by 5 or 6% per year, and as long as the market doesn't progress more quickly, jobs will go". This is how the French car bosses summed up their situation at the end of 1994[2].

Public Debt

How can the market be made to "progress"? In International Review 78 we showed how, in the face of the open recession since the end of the 80s, governments have resorted massively to public debt.

This debt has made it possible to finance the expenditure which helps create 'solvent' markets for an economy which is cruelly lacking in such things because it can't create them spontaneously. The spiraling growth in the debts of the main industrial countries is part of the basis for the re-establishment of profits[3].

Public debt allows 'idle' capital, which finds it harder and harder to find profitable emplacements, to function as state bonds, assured of convenient and reliable returns. The capitalist can extract his surplus value not from his own management of capital, but from the work of the state which levies taxes[4].

The mechanism of the public debt takes the form of a transfer of values from part of the capitalists and workers to the holders of state bonds, a transfer which follows the path of taxes then of interest drawn from the debt. This is what Marx called "fictitious capital" .

The stimulating effects of public debt are risky, but the dangers it accumulates for the future are guaranteed (see 'New financial storms ahead' in International Review no 78). The present 'recovery' will be very expensive tomorrow on the financial level.

For the proletarians, this means that on top of the intensification of exploitation at the workplace, taxation will get heavier and heavier. The state has to levy a growing mass of taxes to reimburse capital and the interests on the debt.

Destroying capital to maintain its profitability

When the capitalist economy is functioning in a healthy manner, the increase or maintenance of profits is the result of the growth in the number of workers exploited and the capacity to extract a greater mass of surplus value from them. When it is suffering from a chronic illness, despite the reinforcement of exploitation and productivity, the lack of markets prevents it from maintaining its profits without reducing the number of workers to exploit, without destroying capital.

Although capitalism draws its profits from the exploitation of labor, it finds itself in the 'absurd' situation of having to pay the unemployed, workers who are not working, as well as having to pay peasants not to produce, to leave their fields lying fallow.

The social costs of ‘maintaining incomes' have reached up to 10% of the annual production of certain industrial countries. From capital's point of this is a mortal sin, an aberration, pure waste, the destruction of capital. With all the sincerity of a convinced capitalist, the new Republican spokesman of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, went on the warpath against all "the government aid to the poor".

But capital's point of view is that of a senile system, which is destroying itself in convulsions that are dragging the world into endless barbarism and despair. The aberration is not that the bourgeois state throws a few crumbs to people who aren't working, but the fact that there are people who can't play a part in the productive process at a time when the cancer of material poverty is spreading all over the planet.

It's capitalism that has become a historical aberration. The current 'recovery' without jobs is further confirmation of this. The only real 'medicine' for the economic organization of society is the destruction of capitalism itself, the inauguration of a society where the objective of production is no longer profit, the return on capital, but the pure and simple satisfaction of human needs.

**********

"It goes without saying that political economy only considers the proletarian as a worker: he is the one who having neither capital nor ground rent, lives solely by his labor, by an abstract and monotonous labor. It can thus affirm that, just like a beast of burden; the proletarian deserves to earn enough to be able to work. When he is no longer working, political economy no longer considers him to lie a human being; it abandons this consideration to criminal justice, to the doctors, to religion, to statistics, to politics, to public charity" (Marx, Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy).

[1] The official predictions of the OECD announce a diminution in the rate of unemployment in 1995 and 1996. But the level of these reductions is miniscule: 0.3% in Italy (unemployment officially stands at 11.3% in 1994; by 1996 it is supposed to go down to 11 %); 0.5% in the USA (from 6.1 % in 94 to 5.6 % in
96); 0.7% in Western Europe generally (from 11.6% to 10.9%). In Japan no reduction is in sight.

[2] Liberation, 16.12.94  

[3] Between 1989 and 1994, the public debt, measured as a percentage of gross national production, went from 53 to 65 % in the USA, from 57 to 73 % in Europe; in 1994, this percentage reached 123 in Italy, 142 in Belgium.

[4] This evolution of the ruling class into a parasitic body that lives off its state is typical of decadent societies. In the late Roman Empire as in decadent feudalism this phenomenon was one of the main factors in the massive development of corruption.

The anarchy and chaos which today characterizes the relations between fractions of the bourgeoisie, in particular at the international level, is not only the product of the earthquake represented by the collapse of the eastern bloc. This collapse, which is still taking its course as can be seen by the present events in the Caucasus, is itself the manifestation of a deeper reality, the same reality that explains the war in ex-Yugoslavia, or the fact that 900,000 Rwandans are rotting in refugee camps in Zaire: the advanced decadence of capitalism, its decomposition as a social system.

When a social system enters into its phase of decadence, that is to say when the social relations of production which characterize it become obsolete, no longer adapted to the possibilities and necessities of society, the very basis for the profits and privileges of the ruling class is reduced, made more fragile. The cohesion of the ruling class then tends to disintegrate into an infinite number of conflicting interests. Like hungry beasts who can only survive at the expense of others, more and more fractions of the class in power start tearing each other apart, devastating the civilization they once helped to build. Just as the numerous armies of decadent Rome ruined what was left of a decomposing Empire with their incessant conflicts, just as the feudal lords of the late Middle Ages destroyed whole harvests with their permanent local conflicts, so the imperialist powers of our century have made humanity go through the worst destructions in its history. The means and dimensions of the drama have changed. Catapults made of wood and animal skins have given way to guided missiles, and the battlefield has assumed the dimensions of the entire planet. But the nature of the phenomenon is the same. Society is destroying itself in an indescribable chaos, the prisoner of economic and social relations that have become too narrow ... Today, however, the very survival of humanity is at stake.

The forces of disintegration at work

To measure the reality of the chaos that now dominates international relations, we can distinguish two points of departure. On the one hand there is the general, 'ordinary', omnipresent chaos which is spreading everywhere; on the other hand, within all this, there are more important antagonisms, expressing the tendency towards the reconstitution of blocs or alliances and indicating the most decisive lines of force: this is the case with the antagonism between the former bloc leader, the USA, and a reunified Germany which is the candidate for the role of leader of a new bloc.

Ordinary chaos

The more the governments organize international meetings and summits between the statesmen of the big powers, the more the divisions between them break out into the open. The international organizations, whether it's the UN, NATO, the Western European Union or others, appear more and more as grotesque and impotent masquerades where the only thing that outdoes hypocrisy is cynicism. The media lament the 'misunderstandings' between the member countries, the 'differences in method' which are paralyzing these temples to the 'concert of nations'. But the reality of international relations is the reign of each against all. Each country is constantly caught between the necessity to defend its interests against those of others, which implies a proliferation of antagonisms with other countries, and, at the same time, the necessity for alliances that will enable it to survive in an ever more irrational and ruthless war. The fact that millions of victims pay for these antagonisms every year, all over the planet, does not halt this game of massacre between national capitals, and above all between the great powers.

The last months of 1994 have been rich in new manifestations of this frenetic chaos in which alliances are made and unmade against a background of ever-increasing instability.

The most tangible sign of the depth and importance of this instability today is the current evolution of the relations between the USA and Britain. What was once an unchanging point of reference in international relations is now going through its most difficult moments since the Suez crisis of 1956. The Economist, in its annual supplement, has talked of a "fading friendship". A report by the Pentagon goes along the same lines, accusing France of fuelling the war in Yugoslavia in order to poison relations between the USA and Britain.

During an ordinary summit at Chartres, in October 1994, Britain and France decided to set up a "group of combined aerial forces" and to work together towards an inter-African intervention force that would serve to "keep the peace" in English and French speaking Africa. The British no longer see the Western European Union as a "French submarine within NATO", and the journalists insist on the strength represented by this alliance between the only two nuclear powers in Europe.

Thus, Britain is moving further and further away from the USA; in order to defend its own interests, it is tending to adopt policies that are openly opposed to the USA, as we can see in Africa and above all in the Balkans.

The American-Russian alliance, that other pillar of the construction of the "new world order" has also been put to a
severe test. The question of the enlarging of NATO towards countries that were once part of the USSR's bloc (what Russia calls its "nearby abroad"), in particular Poland and the Czech republic, has more and more become a major bone of contention between the two powers. "No third country can dictate the conditions for enlarging NATO", as an American official dryly declared in the face of Russian protests.

The Franco-German axis, the spinal column of the European Union, has also been put into question: "We are light years from the German position" declared a French official, summarizing France's opposition to any "communitarianisation" of the foreign and security policies of the European Union. France fears that Europe will become a "German super-state". At the same time, Germany is nervous about a Franco-British alliance in 1995 against the prospect of a German-dominated federal Europe, an alliance that would have the sole purpose of countering Bonn's hegemonic ambitions.

Today the cohesion of the great blocs of the cold war seems like a distant memory of unity and order; the 'concert of nations' has become a barbaric cacophony. A cacophony whose face is that of the 500,000 victims of genocide in Rwanda, of the millions of corpses bloodying the planet from Cambodia to Angola, from Mexico to Afghanistan.

In this same process of disintegration, the break-up of the ex-USSR has not yet run its course. The Russian Federation, which sought to be the last bulwark against the centrifugal forces that had carried off the old empire, finds itself confronted with these same forces within itself, as well as in Moldova, Tadjikstan, Georgia, Abkhazia, Tatarstan ... the massive intervention of the Russian army in Chechnya[1] expresses the will of a part of the Russian ruling class to put an end to these tendencies which are continuing to dislocate what was, five years ago, the most
extensive imperialist power on the planet.

But decomposition has reached such a level in the ex-USSR that this operation aimed at 'restoring order' is turning into a new source of internal chaos.

On the ground, the resistance to Russian intervention has been more violent and 'popular' than was foreseen. In an atmosphere of nationalist and anti-Russian hysteria within the population, the president of Chechnya, Dudayev, launched an appeal in the face of the Russian army advance, declaring that "the earth under their feet must bum! It's a war to the death!". The president of the Russian republic of Ingushia, another Caucasian
republic close to Chechnya, announced the threat of the extension of the conflict, proclaiming that "the war for the Caucasus has begun!"

From the start, the Russians met with fierce resistance which cost them dear in men and materials.

But this operation has also led to new fractures within the Russian ruling class itself, which is already well-rotted. At the battle front, right at the beginning, one of the Russian generals (Ivan Babichev) refused to advance on the capital Grozny and fraternized with the Chechen population: "It is not our fault that we are here. This operation contradicts the Constitution. It is forbidden to use the army against the people". At the time of writing, several other generals on the ground have rallied to this protest.

In Moscow the divisions are also dramatic. "In Russia today there are two Chechen conflicts, one in the Caucasus, and another, more dangerous one in Moscow" declared Emile Paine, one of Yeltsin's advisers. A number of 'celebrated' military figures have stood against the intervention, as well as Yeltsin's former prime minister, Egor Gaidar, and Gorbachev ...

For President Clinton the crisis in Chechnya is an "internal problem" and for Willy Claes, the general secretary of NATO, it's an "inside business". "It's not in the interest of the USA and certainly not of the Russians to have a Russia that is going towards disintegration" declared Warren Christopher on TV, on 14 December, showing the profound disquiet of the American bourgeoisie towards the problems of its ally.

But the problem is not so "internal" as one might be led to believe. On the one hand because Chechnya has a certain sympathy from foreign forces, in particular neighboring Turkey and, probably, from Germany. On the other hand because this situation is only a spectacular expression of a world-wide process.

This dramatic putrefaction of the situation in Russia is not simply, as liberal speechmakers would have it, the consequence of the damage done by Stalinism (fraudulently identified with communism); it is not a specificity of Eastern Europe. Russia is just one of the places where the generalized decomposition of world capitalism is most advanced.

The tendencies towards the reconstitution of blocs

A universe of imperialist brigands cannot exist without there being a tendency towards the constitution of gangs and gang leaders. The multiple conflicts between capitalist nations inevitably tend to structure themselves in line with the antagonisms between the most powerful ones. And, among these, the one between the two main bosses stamps its imprint on all the others: the opposition between the USA and a reunified Germany, between the former chief of the western bloc and the only serious pretender to the leadership of a new bloc. This conflict runs
through the political life of numerous countries.

For example: the summit of the Islamic Conference held in Casablanca in December 1994 could not avoid becoming a clash between the Islamic countries allied to the USA and those allied to Europe. From the beginning, the camp led by Hassan II of Morocco (the recognized spearhead of American diplomacy) and Egypt's Mubarak (the country in the world which, next to Israel, receives the most aid from America) made an attack on " certain Islamic states" which support terrorists and which have "sold their souls to the Devil" , ie to Iran and Sudan, whose links with European powers are well-known.

In Turkey, at the end of November 94, the minister of foreign affairs, the social-democrat Soysal, who is somewhat pro-European and anti-American, resigned from the government.

In Mexico, in the state of Chiapas where the Zapatistas are to be found, there are two governors: one from the PRI, the government party since 1929 which has always worked as a solid ally of the 'Yankee' big brother despite using an 'anti-imperialist' rhetoric; the other, Avendano, the governor allied to the Zapatistas, who refuses to recognize the election of the PRI candidate due to frauds, and who controls a third of the province's municipalities. The latter has declared that only Europe can give him the necessary support for him to triumph.

In Europe itself, the question of the choice between the American option and the Germano-European one has rent the ruling classes. In Britain, within the party in power, there's been a set-to illustrated recently by the fact that the 'Euro-skeptics' practically put Major in a minority in the House of Commons on the question of contributions to the European Union. Major even envisaged the possibility of a referendum on the question.

In Italy, a country that was long considered to be "America's aircraft carrier in Europe", but also as one of the pillars of the European Union, the war between the two camps has torn the political class apart, even if what's really at stake is usually kept hidden. However, Carlo de Benedetti, one of the main figures amongst the national bosses, did not hesitate to attack the pro-American Berlusconi government in explicit terms: "Italy is distancing itself from Europe and entering into a spiral of destruction". It's this basic antagonism which is at the root of the
country's current governmental instability.

In France's political class, now in the midst of a presidential election campaign, there are also profound divisions over this question, particularly in the parties of the governmental majority.

Because they are not faced with a choice of this kind, only the German and American bourgeoisies seem to be somewhat coherent at the level of their international policy, even if this is not without its difficulties.

*****

Since the collapse of the USSR, Germany has made many advances on the international level: apart from its reunification, it has developed with some assurance its spheres of influence among the countries of central Europe, former members of the eastern bloc; it has intensified its links with countries as strategically important as Turkey, Iran or Malaysia; it has carried on building and enlarging the European Union, integrating new countries that are particularly close to it, such as Austria; in ex-Yugoslavia, it has imposed the international recognition of
its allies Slovenia and Croatia, which has opened up its access to the Mediterranean. The new reunified Germany has thus unequivocally affirmed that it is the only credible candidate for forming a new bloc opposed to that of the USA.

America's international policy has consisted of an offensive which has two main objectives: on the one hand, to preserve the dominant position of American capital; on the other hand, to systematically destroy the positions of its new European rivals.

The USA has been reaffirming its position as number one power by resorting to spectacular military operations, which often compel its former allies to line up behind it (Gulf war of 91, intervention in Somalia, invasion of Haiti, new operation in the Gulf in 94, etc); by keeping alive the international organisms formed at the end of the second world war to ensure its control over its allies, such as NATO, although the main targets of this tactic have not been taken in ("More than ever, the USA wants to make NATO an appendage of the State department and of Washington ". as a French diplomat declared recently[2]; by consolidating and fortifying its closest spheres of influence by creating 'free trade areas' such as NAFTA, which regroups the USA, Canada and Mexico, or the plan for areas regrouping the whole Pacific zone or the entire American continent (during December 94 Clinton convened two spectacular summits, first in Malaysia then in Miami, to get these projects off the ground).

Parallel to this the USA has been methodically attacking the spheres of influence of its former European 'allies', in particular the former colonial powers and principal military forces on the continent: France, but also Britain. The USA has thus chased France out of Lebanon, Iraq, and Rwanda, while severely threatening its positions in other black or North African countries (especially in Algeria where it has been supporting fractions of the Islamist movement); it has weakened the position of Britain in some of its former hunting grounds, such as South Africa and Kuwait.

If the blocs formed in the heat of the Second World War were for decades factors of relative stability, at least within their own ranks, today the fight for the constitution of new blocs is showing itself to be one of the main factors of instability and chaos.

The decomposition of international relations in decadent capitalism at the end of the 20th century is taking the form of the triumph of 'each against all' and the exacerbation of the law of the strongest.

The war in ex-Yugoslavia is the most significant focus of conflict in this period. 250,000 people killed, a million wounded a few hundred kilometers from the big industrial centers of Europe; fourteen countries militarily present under the flags of the United Nations[3]; five great powers (USA, Russia, Germany, France, Britain) using the multiple divisions within the local ruling class, exacerbated by the collapse of the USSR, to turn the country into a battlefield where the cannon-fodder is drawn essentially from the local inhabitants. From the grand hights of their 'Contact Group', these powers are pulling the strings that determine the evolution or the balance of forces on
the ground.

Who is behind who in ex-Yugoslavia?

"I know that the work of UNPROFOR was debatable. But the idea of the UN as an organization for peace above the nations pleased me a lot. J was rather naive. Now, J have the impression that, for five months, I have been helping the Serbs. I have the strong conviction that France is on the side of the Serbs, that France thinks that the mess in the Balkans will be lessened by a Serb-imposed stability"[4].

These words by a French bluehelmet aged 25[5] are a good summary of the contrast between the illusions of those who believed in the speeches of their governments about Yugoslavia and the sordid reality they discovered on the ground.

Since classes have existed, in order to mobilize the exploited into the butchery of war, the ruling classes have always had recourse to lies and mystifications. Religions and priests have always been the indispensable complement to the soldiers and the politicians. In our day, it is the totalitarianism of the media, the indoctrination of the masses, scientifically organized whether in the 'dictatorial' manner or in the more sophisticated forms used by 'democracy', which plays the role of recruiting cannon fodder and justifying massacres. The war in ex-Yugoslavia is no exception to this rule. But rarely has a war been covered up by such a quantity of lies and hypocrisy.

The powers involved all declare that they want peace and UNPROFOR claims to be "an organization for peace above the nations". But all of them are supporting and arming the parties involved in the conflict, without saying openly, even publicly declaring their hostility to a camp that they are secretly supporting.

In reality, behind the humanitarian and pacifist speeches each power is fuelling the war, if only to block alliances and advances made by its rivals. Thus, for example, the Pentagon has published a report which says that France is trying to keep up the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia in order to exacerbate antagonisms between the USA and Britain, which is certainly true; the USA and Britain also have an interest in the war carrying on in order to sharpen the opposition between France and Germany; Russia wants its status as a great power to be recognized and to this end
is playing on the rivalries between the western powers; as for Germany, which by supporting the independence of Slovenia and Croatia set a match to the powder, it only wants peace once the positions of its local allies have been favorably consolidated.

The veil of humanitarian and pacifist lies has been somewhat tom recently by the big confrontations over the Bihac enclave. This enclave, in the north of Bosnia, has a strategically crucial place in the heart of Krajina, that part of Croatia which is controlled by the Serbs. It is important for the Bosnians and the Serbs, but above all for the Croatians[6]. The importance of the stakes made it clearer than usual how the international powers
are participating in the war.

The USA overtly encouraged the Bosnian army to march on Bihac by unilaterally lifting the arms embargo to this country. This gave rise to a clamor of protest from the other powers, even though they have known for a long time that Washington has been secretly arming the Bosnians and even supplying it with "military advisers". The French minister of foreign affairs summarized the general reaction of the members of NATO to the gross liberties taken by the number one boss: "We regret that a permanent member of the Security Council has unilaterally exonerated itself from the application of a resolution which it had voted for and from decisions taken by common agreement within the Alliance "[7].

But the attitude of the French, just like that of their allies for now, the British, is no more in line with the decisions taken at diplomatic conferences. The impression of the French bluehelmet, that he was "helping the Serbs" when he was supposed to have been protecting the civil population against the latter, is not wrong. Two months ago the French government withdrew its bluehelmets from the Bihac enclave (they were replaced by inexperienced Bangladeshi troops), thus opening the door to the confrontations to come. Throughout the Serbian assault, the
troops of UNPROFOR, led by the French and the British, gave proof of a complicit impotence. On 5 December Izbegovic, the president of Bosnia, openly denounced the French and the British as "protectors of the Serbs". The American senator Robert Dole, future chief of the Republican majority in the Senate, declared that since the beginning of the conflict, the UN had done nothing but "help the Serb aggressors". The Croatian government has denounced Yashushi Akashi, the Japanese who is the special representative of the UN general secretary in ex-
Yugoslavia, as being "pro-Serb"[8].

In the face of these accusations, the French and British governments have once again been feigning outrage and threatening to withdraw their troops. The USA, which has always repeated that it could not allow itself to send a single one of its "boys" to Yugoslavia, seemed to do a backflip and declared that if this was the case it would be ready to send in 25,000 troops in order to assist an UNPROFOR retreat. "This is what allies are for", declared an American official[9]. It should be noted that Germany also rushed forward to offer its services, notably in the form of Tornado bombers, to help the French and British depart.

The events around Bihac have once again shown how the Americans are supporting Bosnia and the French and British are behind Serbia. What's more, the USA's declaration, as soon as the Serbs entered the town of Bihac, that" the Serbs have won the war in Bosnia", shows that it has not forgotten Croatia and its German ally. The position of the USA is clear: the Croats must accept the balance of forces imposed by the Serbs, they must make peace with the Serbs of Krajina, ie accept that the Bihac enclave, just like the third of Croatian territory which the Serbs conquered in the first part of the war, stay in Serbian hands. Thus the USA is using the Serbs against Germany. The recent 'private' voyage by Carter to discuss directly with the Serbs in Bosnia is an illustration of this.

There is nothing 'humanitarian' about the intervention of the great powers in ex-Yugoslavia. This is just a war for the most sordid imperialist interests. A war which, contrary to the litanies of the last three years, is far from moving towards a peaceful conclusion: the American offensive has met with strong resistance, and this can only lead to the intensification of conflicts. Furthermore, while Croatia has not carried out its threats to intervene, if it does do so, the conflagration will be even more general.

******

Capitalism in decomposition cannot live without wars, and wars like the one in ex-Yugoslavia cannot be eliminated without destroying capitalism.

It is vital that the proletariat understands the real nature of this new Balkans war. Not so much so that it is initiated into the analysis of imperialist strategies, but so that it is able to fight the feelings of powerlessness which the bourgeoisie tries to instill in the face of this conflict. To understand the decisive role played by the great powers in this war is to understand that the proletariat of the central countries has the possibility of stopping such madness. That it alone can offer a way out of the barbaric dead-end into which the decadence of capitalism has led humanity, and of which the war in ex-Yugoslavia is merely one of the more spectacular expressions.

RV, 27.12.94

[1] This little republic of the Russian Federation (a million and a half inhabitants, 13,000 square kilometers), situated in the Caucasus between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, with a Muslim majority, rich in oil, a traditional route for all kinds of traffic (especially in arms and drugs), to a large extent still organized through family clans which have their extensions into the mafia of Russia's big cities ... declared its independence in 1991. This independence was never recognized either by Russia or any other country. Since the summer of 1994, Russia has been fuelling a civil war, arming and piloting a movement of revolt by the Russian minority against Dudayev's regime.

[2] Liberation, 1.12.94  

[3] The UNPROFOR forces in Yugoslavia amount to 23,000 men in Bosnia-Herzegovina, with nearly 8,000 vehicles. The participating countries are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the USA, Spain, Britain, France, Italy, Holland, Norway and Turkey, who are members of NATO, plus Pakistan, Bangladesh and Ukraine.

[4] Liberation, 13.12.94  

[5] This is the testimony of a young man doing his military service, but one who accepted to go "voluntarily into external action", ie he became a mercenary. The bourgeoisie of the main industrial powers cannot yet allow itself to send conscript troops into a military operation. It is not yet ready to make the exploited class, in countries with an old proletarian tradition pay the "blood tax".  

[6] The Croatian authorities declared from the beginning of the confrontations over Bihac that they could not accept the fall of the enclave: "We have said that if there is no negotiated solution in Bihac, given its strategic importance, given the number of refugees who would be entering our country, we would be obliged to intervene ... the west has forced us to not intervene up till now ... " (declaration of a high Croatian official, LeMonde, 29.11.94). "The Croatian army is ready for war, but this will take place at the most propitious moment, both internally and internationally" (declaration by the commander in chief of the Croatian army, Liberation, 30.11.94).

[7] Le Monde, 16.11. 94

[8] Akashi already showed this to be the case when the Serbs took Gorazde in April 94, in his refusal to call for air strikes to stop the Serbian offensive.

[9] International Herald Tribune, 9.12.94

It is 80 years since the First World War inaugurated the epoch of capitalism's decadence, "the era of war or revolution" as the Communist International called it. However, while the imperialist war demonstrated the future that decadent capitalism had to offer humanity, the revolutionary wave, that put an end to the war and made the bourgeois order tremble from South Africa to Germany, from Russia to Canada, made clear that there is only one alternative to capitalist barbarity: the workers' world revolution.

This proletarian wave, whose high point was the Russian Revolution (see International Review nos 72, 73 and 75), constitutes an extraordinary fount of lessons for the workers' movement. The 1917-23 wave definitively confirmed, at the level of the world wide class struggle in the decadent period of capitalism, the majority of the positions that revolutionaries defend today (against the unions and "Socialist" Parties, against "national liberation" struggles, the necessity of the generalized organization of the class in Workers' Councils). In the present article we are going to concentrate on four questions:

* How the revolutionary wave turned imperialist war into a civil war between classes

* How it demonstrated Communist historical theses on the international character of the proletarian revolution

* How, despite being the factor that unleashed the revolutionary wave, war does not pose the most favorable conditions for the revolution

* The dominant character of the struggle of the proletariat in the most developed countries of capitalism.

It was the revolutionary wave that put an end to World War I

In International Review no 78 ("Polemic with Programme Comunista, Il") we show how the explosion of the war in 1914 was not directly due to economic causes, but because the bourgeoisie had brought about, due to the domination of reformist ideology in the "Social Democratic" parties, the ideological defeat of the proletariat. At the same time neither did the end of the war depend on, as they say, the bourgeoisie's "balancing the books" and concluding that the butchery had been "sufficient", to swap the "business" of destruction for that of reconstruction. Nor in November 1918 was there a clear military defeat of the central powers by the Entente powers[1]. In reality what forced the Kaiser to ask for an armistice was the necessity to form a front against the revolution which was spreading throughout Germany. If for their part the Entente powers did not take advantage of their enemy's weakness, it was due to the need to close ranks against the common threat, represented by the workers' revolution. In the countries of the Entente the revolution was still maturing. How did the proletarian response to the
war develop?

With the unfolding of the slaughter the proletariat began to shake off the weight of its defeat in August 1914[2]. Already in February 1915, the workers of the Clyde Valley (Great Britain had carried out a wildcat strike (against the advice of the union); this example was followed by workers in the arms industry and by Liverpool engineering workers. In France a strike by textile workers in Vienne and Lagors broke out. A general strike by the workers of Petrograd in 1916 stopped an attempt by the government to militarize workers. In Germany, the Spartacus League called a demonstration of workers and soldiers, under the slogans of "Down 'with the war!", "Down with the government!". "Hunger mutinies" took place in Silesia, Dresden ... It was in this climate of accumulating signs of discontent that news of the February Revolution in Russia arrived.

In April 1917 a wave of strikes broke out in Germany (Halle, Kiel, Berlin, ... ). Near insurrection took place in Leipzig and as in Russia, the first Workers' Councils were formed. On the 1st of May, in the trenches of the Eastern Front, Red Flags were flown in the German trenches and in the Russian. German soldiers passed a leaflet from hand to hand that said:

"Our heroic Russian brothers have thrown off the damned yoke of the butchers of their country ( ... ) Your happiness, your progress, depends on your ability to follow and take further the example of your Russian brothers ... A victorious revolution will not demand as many sacrifices as this savage war ... "

In France, in a climate of workers strikes (that of the Paris engineering workers spread to 100,000 workers in other industries), on the same 1st Maya meeting in solidarity with the Russian workers, proclaimed "The Russian Revolution is the signal for the world revolution". At the front illegal Soldiers' Councils circulated revolutionary propaganda and collected a levy from the soldiers' meager wages in order to help sustain the strikes in the rear.

At the same time in Italy massive rallies took place against the war. In Turin during one of these, a slogan arose that was constantly repeated throughout the country: "we should do as in Russia". In October 1917 soldiers and workers throughout the world looked towards Petrograd and "We should do as in Russia" was turned into a powerful stimulus to mobilize for the definitive end to the imperialist massacre.

Likewise, in Finland (where there had already been an attempted insurrection a few days after that in Petrograd) in January 1918 armed workers occupied public buildings in Helsinki and the South of the country. In Rumania at the same time, the Russian Revolution found an immediate echo. The Black Sea Fleet rebelled forcing an armistice with the Central Powers. In Russia the October revolution put an end to participation in the war, even submitting to the occupation of large areas of Russia by the Central Powers, under the so-called Peace of Brest-Litovsk, in the hope of the explosion of the world revolution.

In January 1918, the workers of Vienna learnt of the draconian "peace" conditions that the Austro- Hungarian government wanted to impose on the Russian Revolution. Confronted with the perspective of the continuation of the war Daimler workers unleashed a strike that within a few days had spread to 700,000 workers throughout the Empire, forming the first Workers' Councils. In Budapest, the strike spread under the slogan of "down with the war!", "Long live the Russian workers!", It was only the insistent calls for calm by the "Socialists", that calmed the strike wave, though not without resistance, and defeated the revolt of the fleet in Cattaro[3]. In Germany at the end of January there were also one million strikers. However, the workers left the running of the struggle in the hands of the "socialists" who agreed with the unions and the Military High Command to put an end to the strikes, sending more than 30,000 of the most prominent workers in the strike to the front. In this same period in the mines of Dombrowa and Lublin the first Workers' Councils in Poland were formed.

The movement against the war and in solidarity with the Russian Revolution was also growing in Britain. The visit of the Soviet Delegate Litvinov coincided in January 1918 with a wave of strikes and provoked such demonstrations in London that the bourgeois newspaper (The Herald) called them the "Workers' ultimatum to the government demanding peace". In France a strike broke out at Renault in May 1918, which rapidly spread to 250,000 workers in Paris. In solidarity the workers of the Loire region went back on strike and controlled the region for ten days.

Nevertheless, the last military offensives caused a momentary paralysis of these struggles. After the fiasco of these offensives the workers were convinced that the only way to stop the war was the class struggle. October saw a struggle by day laborers and a revolt against the dispatch of the most" Red" regiments from Budapest to the front, as well as massive strikes and demonstrations in Austria. On the 4th of November the bourgeoisie of the "double crown" retired from the war.

In Germany, the Kaiser attempted to "democratize" the regime (freeing Liebknecht, incorporating the "Socialists" into the government) in order to demand the "last drop of blood of the German people". However on the 3rd of November the sailors at Kiel refused to obey the officers who wanted to make one last suicidal attempt by the fleet to break out of the port. The Red Flag was hoisted throughout the fleet, and along with the workers of the city, they organized a Workers' Council. Within a few days the insurrection had spread to the main German cities[4]. On the 9th of November when the insurrection reached Berlin the German bourgeois, not wanting to make the same mistake committed by the Provisional government in Russia (prolonging participation in the war, which only served to ferment and radicalize the revolution) called for an armistice. On the 11th of November, the bourgeoisie put an end to the imperialist war in order to confront the class struggle.

The international nature of the working class and its' revolution

Unlike the revolutions of the bourgeoisie that were limited to implementing capitalism in their nation, the proletarian revolution is by necessity worldwide. While the bourgeois revolutions could be spread out over more than a century, the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat tends, by its very nature, to take the form of a gigantic wave which spread throughout the planet. This has always been the historical thesis of revolutionaries. Engels already demonstrated this in the Principles of Communism:

"Question 19 - Will this revolution be made in one country? Answer - No. Major industry in creating the world market has drawn the people of the world so closely together, particularly the most advanced nations, that each nation is dependent on what happens in every other. It has furthermore regimented social development in the advanced countries to the point that, in all countries, the bourgeois and the proletariat have become the two decisive classes in society, and the struggle between these classes has become the major struggle in our epoch. The communist revolution, therefore, will not be a purely national one, it will erupt simultaneously, ie in England, America, France and Germany (...) It is a universal revolution and therefore, it will also develop on a universal terrain".

The revolutionary wave of 1917-23 fully confirmed this. In 1919, the British Prime Minister wrote: "The whole of Europe is filled with the spirit of revolution. There is a deep sense not only of discontent but anger and revolt amongst the workmen against pre-war conditions. The whole existing order in its' political, social and economic aspects is questioned by the masses of the population from one end of Europe to the other" (Quoted in E H  Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution. Vo13).

However, the proletariat was unable to transform this formidable wave of struggles into a unified struggle. We will first look at the facts in order to be better able to analyze the obstacles the proletariat ran up against in the generalization of the revolution.

1. From November 1918 to August 1919. The attempted revolutions in the defeated countries ...

When the revolution began in Germany, three important detachments of the central European proletariat (Holland, Switzerland and Austria) had in practice already been neutralized.

In Holland, in October 1918, mutinies broke out in the army (the High Command scuttled its own Fleet before the sailors could seize control of it), while workers in Amsterdam and Rotterdam formed Workers' Councils. However, the "Socialists" "joined" the revolt in order to neutralize it. Their leader, Troelstra recalled much later "If I had not made a revolutionary intervention, the most energetic workers would have taken the road of Bolshevism" (P.J. Troelstra De Revolutie en de SDAP)

Thus, disorganized by their "leaders", separated from the help of the soldiers, the struggle ended with the machine gunning of workers, who on the 13th of November had united in a meeting near Amsterdam. The "Red Week" ended with 5 dead and dozens wounded.

In Switzerland on the same 13th of November, there was a general strike of 400,000 workers in protest against the use of troops against a demonstration celebrating the 1st anniversary of the Russian Revolution. The workers' newspaper "Volksrecht" proclaimed "Resist until the last. We are strengthened by the revolution in Austria and Germany, the workers' action in France, the movement of the proletariat in Holland and, above all, through the revolution in Russia".

But here also the "Socialists" and the unions called for an end to the struggle in order "not to place the unarmed masses under the guns of the enemy". It was precisely the disorientation and division that they created in the proletariat, that opened the doors to the terrible repression that defeated the "great strike". The "pacifist" Swiss government militarized the railways, organized counter-revolutionary guards, flattened workers' centers without any scruples. Hundreds of workers were arrested, and the
death penalty introduced for "Subversives".

In Austria, the Republic was proclaimed on the 12th of November. When the national red and white flag was hoisted, groups of workers tore off the white boarder. Men climbed onto the statue of Pallas Athena in the center of Vienna, and before an assembly of tens of thousands of workers, various speakers called for moving directly to the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the "Socialists" who had been called into government as the only party with any influence on the workers, declared that "The proletariat already has power. The workers' party governs the Republic" and systematically moved to neutralize the revolutionary organs, transforming the Workers' Councils into Councils of Production and the Soldiers' Councils into Army Committees (massively infiltrated by officers). The bourgeoisie's counter-offensive not only paralyzed the Austrian proletariat, but served as an instruction manual for the German bourgeoisie's counter -offensive.

In Germany, the Armistice and the proclamation of the Republic created a naive feeling of "triumph" for which the proletariat paid dearly. While the workers could not unify the different centers of struggle and vacillated about launching into the destruction of the state[5] the counter-offensive was organized and coordinated by the unions, the "Socialist" Party and the military High Command. From December the bourgeoisie went onto the offensive constantly provoking the proletariat of Berlin, in order to isolate their struggle from the rest of the workers in Germany. On the 4th of January 1919, the government sacked the Chief-of-Police Eichhorn, challenging the workers' opinion. On the 6th of January, half a million Berlin workers took to the streets. The following day the "socialist" Noske, commanding the Freicorps (demobilised officers and lower ranks, paid by the government) crushed the Berlin workers. Days later they murdered Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. Although the events in Berlin alerted workers in other cities (above all in Bremen where workers assaulted the union headquarters and distributed their funds to the unemployed), the government was able to fragment this response, in a way which allowed them to begin by concentrating on Bremen, then against the workers of the Rhineland and the Ruhr in order to return once again in March to the revolutionary embers in Berlin in the so-called "Bloody Week" (1,200 workers killed). After this they fell upon the workers of Mansfeld and Leipzig and the Republic of Councils in Magdeburg.

In March the workers in Munich proclaimed the Republic of Bavarian Councils, which along with the October Revolution in Russia and the Hungarian Revolution, constituted the only experiences of the workers taking power. The armed Bavarian workers were able to defeat the counter-revolutionary army sent against them by the deputy president Hoffmann. Nevertheless, as we have seen, the workers in the rest of Germany had suffered severe defeats and could not come to the aid of their brothers, while the bourgeoisie organized an army which from the beginning of May put down the insurrection. Amongst the troops who spread terror in Munich were Himmler, Rudolf Hess, Von Epp ... future Nazi leaders. All them were encouraged in their anti-proletarian fury by a government that called itself "Socialist".

On the 21st of March 1919, after a formidable wave of workers' strikes and mutinies, the workers councils took power in Hungary. In a tragic error, the Communist unified, at this very moment, with the "Socialists" who sabotaged the revolution from within. At the same time the western "democracies" (especially England and France) immediately ordered an economic blockade to which was added military intervention by Rumanian and Czech troops. In May when the Bavarian Workers' Councils fell, the situation for the Hungarian Revolution was also terrible. However, a formidable workers' reaction, in which Hungarian, Austrian, Polish, Russian, but also Czech and Rumanian workers participated, broke the military blockade. In the long run however, the sabotage of the "Socialists" and the revolutions isolation got the better of the workers' resistance and on the 1st of August Rumanian troops took Budapest, installing a union government that liquidated the Workers' Councils. When the unions had finished their work they handed over command to Admiral Horty (another future collaborator with the Nazis) who unleashed a reign of terror against the workers (8,000 executed, 100,000 deportations). In the glow of the Hungarian revolution the miners of Dombrowa (Poland) took control of the region and formed a "Workers' Guard" in order to defend themselves from the bloody repression of that other "Socialist" Pilsudski. When the Hungarian councils fell, the "Red Republic of Dombrowa" crumbled.

The Hungarian Revolution also provoked the last workers' convulsions in Austria and Switzerland in June 1919, the Viennese police drawing the lessons of their German buddies, plotted a provocation (an assault on the headquarters of the Communist Party) in order to precipitate an insurrection when the whole of the proletariat was still weak and disorganized. The workers fell into the trap leaving 30 dead on the streets of Vienne. This also happened in Switzerland after a general strike in Zurich and Basle.

... and among the "victors"

In Great Britain, again in the Clyde region, at the beginning of 1919 more than 100,000 workers were on strike. On the 31st of January ("Red Friday") during a workers' rally in Glasgow, workers confronted troops and artillery sent by the government. Miners were ready to begin a strike, but the unions managed to stop it "Giving a margin of confidence to the government in order that it could study the nationalization of the mines" (Hinton and Hyman: Trade Unions and Revolution).

In Seattle (United States) at the same time a strike of shipyard workers broke out which within a few days had spread to all the workers in the city. Through mass assemblies and an elected and revocable strike committee, the workers controlled the city's food supply and organized self-defense against the troops sent by the government. However, the "Seattle Commune" remained isolated and a month later (after hundreds of arrests) the shipyard workers returned to work. Other strikes broke out, such as that of the miners in Butte (Montana) where a Workers' and Soldiers' Council was formed, and the strike by 400,000 steel workers. Here again, the struggles failed to unify.

In Canada during the Winnipeg General Strike in May 1919, the local Government organized a patriotic meeting in order to try and counteract the pressure from the workers with the chauvinism of victory. But the soldiers "threw away the script" and after recounting the horrors of the war proclaimed the necessity to "transform the imperialist war into class war" which radicalized the movement even more, leading to its spreading to Toronto. Nevertheless, the workers left the direction of the struggle to the unions who lead them to isolation and defeat and the terror of the city's thugs, whom the government called "special commissioners".

But the wave did not remain just in the countries directly effected by the imperialist slaughter. In Spain in 1919, a strike broke out at La Canadiense, and spread rapidly through the industrial belt of Barcelona. While on the walls of the haciendas (the houses of the great landowners) in Andulucia, the semi-literate day labors wrote "Viva los Soviets! Viva Lenin!". The mobilization of the day laborers during 1918-19 has gone down in history as the "Bolshevik two years".

Concentrations of workers outside Europe and North America also took part in the wave.

In Argentina, at the beginning of 1919, in the so-called "Bloody Week" in Buenos Aires a general strike took place in response to the repression inflicted on the workers at the Talleras Vasena factory. After 5 days of street fighting and artillery bombardments of workers' areas, 3,000 were left dead. In Brazil, the strike of200,000 workers in Sao Paulo saw the troops sent by the government fraternizing with the workers. At the end of 1918 a "Workers' Republic" was proclaimed in the favelas (shanty towns) of Rio de Janeiro, which, however, remained isolated and collapsed faced with the state of siege imposed by
the government.

In South Africa, the land of "racial hatred", the workers' struggles made clear the necessity and possibility of the workers struggling together "The working class of South Africa cannot gain its liberation until it overcomes the racial prejudices and hostility towards the workers of other colors within its ranks" (The International, newspaper of the Industrial Workers of Africa). In March 1919 a tram strike spread to all of Johannesburg, with assemblies and meetings in solidarity with the Russian Revolution. While in Japan, in 1918, the so-called "Rice Mutinies" developed against the sending of rice to Japanese troops who were participating in the counter-revolution in Russia.

2. 1919-1921: The late re-awakening of the proletariat in the "victorious" countries and the weight of the defeat in Germany

In this first phase of the revolutionary wave the proletariat played for high stakes. First, the suffocating isolation of the revolutionary bastion in Russia[6] had to be ended. But the very fate of the revolution was being decided. The strongest proletarian detachments - Germany, Austria, Hungary - had entered the combat, and their strength and experience would determine the future of the world revolution. Nonetheless, the first phase of the revolutionary wave ended, as we have seen, with profound defeats for the proletariat, from which it was unable to recover.

In Germany, the workers supported in March 1919 the general strike called by the unions against the "Kapp Putsch", in order to reinstate the "democratic" Scheidemann government. The workers of the Ruhr however, were not willing to return to power those who had already murdered 30,000 workers, and they armed themselves forming the "Red Army of the Ruhr". In some cities (Duisberg) they went as far as arresting the union and socialist leaders. But once again the struggle remained isolated. At the beginning of April the reconstituted German Army smashed the Ruhr revolt.

In 1921, the German bourgeoisie devoted itself to "cleansing" the revolutionary remnants who remained in Central Germany, plotting new provocations (the assault on the Leuna factories in Mansfeld). The Communists of the KPD, completely disorientated, fell into the trap and ordered the "March Actions" in which the workers of Mansfeld, Halle, etc, despite their heroic resistance could not overcome the bourgeoisie, who made good use of the dispersion of the movement, to massacre first the workers of Central Germany and then the workers of Hamburg, Berlin and the Ruhr who showed solidarity with them.

Given that the struggle of the working class is by essence international, what happens in one country has repercussions on what happens in others. Therefore, when after the euphoria caused by "victory" in the war, the proletariats of Britain, France and Italy joined the struggle en masse, the successive defeats suffered by their class brothers in Germany deepened the weight of the most nefarious mystifications: nationalization, "workers' control" of production, trust in the unions, lack of trust in the proletariat.

In Britain a hard-fought rail strike broke out in September 1919. Despite intimidation by the bourgeoisie (warships in the Thames estuary, soldiers patrolling the streets of London) the workers did not give in. What is more the transport workers and workers in electric businesses wanted to call a strike, but the unions stopped them. The same would happen later when the miners called on the solidarity of the rail workers. The kind-hearted union proclaimed: "Why the dangerous adventure of a general strike? Seeing we have within our grasp a much simpler, less costly and undoubtedly less dangerous means. We must show the workers that a much better way forwards is to intelligently use, the power that the most democratic constitution in the world offers them and that will allow them to gain all they desire" (Quoted by EdouardDolleans, Historia del Moviemento Obrero) To immediately prove this to the workers, "the most democratic bourgeoisie in the world" hired thugs, strikebreakers and provocateurs ... and made one million workers unemployed.

Nonetheless, the workers still had confidence in the unions. And they paid a very dear price for this: In April 1921 the miners called for a general strike, but were confronted with the refusal of the unions to back them (April the 15th, will always remain in workers memory as "Black Friday") which left the miners isolated, confused and open to the government's attacks. Once the main workers' detachments were defeated, the bourgeoisie "allowed the workers to gain all they desire" - wage cuts for over
7 million workers.

In France the worsening of the workers' living conditions (above all due to the scarcity of fuel and food) let loose a train of workers' struggles from the beginning of 1920. From February the epicenter of the movement was the rail strike that, despite opposition from the union, spread to and generated workers' solidarity in other sectors. Faced with this the CGT union decided to place itself at the head of the strike and to "support" it through the tactic of "waves of assault", or rather on one day the miners would strike, on another engineering workers ... and in this way workers solidarity did not tend to draw together, but to disperse and die. By the 22nd of May the rail workers were isolated and defeated (18,000 disciplinary sackings). It is true that the unions were "discredited" in front of the workers (membership fell by 60%) but their work of sabotaging the workers struggles had born fruit for the bourgeoisie: the French proletariat was defeated and left open to the punitive expeditions of the "Civic Leagues".

In Italy, where throughout 1917-19 formidable workers' struggles had broken out against the imperialist war and the sending of supplies to the troops fighting against the Russian Revolution[7], the proletariat was, however, unable to launch an assault against the bourgeois state. In the summer of 1920, due to the collapse of numerous businesses, a fever of "factory occupations" broke out, which were supported by the unions since, in reality, they diverted the proletariat away from the confrontation with the bourgeois state, and channeled them into the "control of production" instead. Suffice it to say that the government of Giolitti told businessmen that "we are not going to use military force to dislodge the workers, since this would move the struggle from the factory to the street" (Quoted in M Ferrare, Conversando con Togliatti). The workers' combativity was wasted in these factory occupations. The defeat of this movement, although in 1921 there were new and isolated strikes in Lombardy and Venice, opened the door to the counter-revolution, which in this case took the form of Fascism.

In the United States, the working class also suffered important defeats (the strikes in the coal mines and in the lignite mines of Alabama, and on the railways) in 1920. The capitalist counter-offensive imposed "open contracts" (the impossibility of collective bargaining), which brought about a 30 % reduction in wages.

3. The last death rattles of the revolutionary wave

From 1921, although there were still heroic expressions of workers' combativity, the revolutionary wave had already entered into its terminal phase. Even more so when the weight of the workers' defeats led the revolutionaries of the Communist International into increasingly serious errors (the application of the policy of the "United Front", support for "national liberation" movements, expulsion of the fractions of the revolutionary left from the International...) that at the same time led to more confusions and important failures which, in a dramatic spiral, led to new defeats.

In Germany the workers' combativity was diverted increasingly towards "anti-fascism" (for example when the ultra-right killed Erzberger, or when a warmonger wanted to "raze" Kiel in November 1918) or towards the nationalist terrain. Faced with the invasion of the Ruhr by French and Belgian troops in 1923, the KPD (Communist Party of Germany) raised the abject flag of "National-Bolshevism", claiming that the proletariat should defend the "German Fatherland", as something progressive, faced with the imperialist aggression represented by the powers of the Entente. In October of the same year, the Communist Party that had joined the governments of Saxony and Thuringia, decided to provoke insurrections beginning on the 20th of October in Hamburg. When the workers of this city rose up in revolt the Communist Party decided to retreat, which left them to face a cruel repression on their own. The exhausted, demoralized, crushed German proletariat had sealed its own defeat. Days later, Hitler led his famous "bierkeller putsch" an attempted Nazi uprising in a beerhall in Munich, which failed for the time being (Hitler came to power by the "parliamentary road" ten years later).

In Poland, the proletariat that in 1920 had closed ranks with its bourgeoisie against the invasion of the Red Army, returned to its class terrain in 1923 with a new wave of strikes. But the international isolation that this struggle suffered allowed the bourgeoisie to keep the initiative in its hands and to mount all kinds of provocations (the burning of the Warsaw Arsenal for which the Communists were accused) in order to confront the workers when they were dispersed. On the 6th of November an insurrection broke out in Krakow against the killing of two workers, but the lies of the "Socialists" (who got the workers to hand in their arms) lead to the disorientation and demoralization of the workers. Despite the wave of solidarity strikes with Krakow that took place in Domdrowa, Gornicza, Tarnow ... within a few days the bourgeoisie had extinguished this workers' uprising. In 1926 the Polish proletariat would be the cannon fodder of the inter-bourgeois struggles between the "Philo-fascist" government and Pilsudski who the "left" supported as the "defender of Liberty".

In Spain the successive waves of struggle were systematically held in check by the "Socialist" Party and the UGT, which allowed General Primo de Rivera to impose his dictatorship in 1923[8].

In Great Britain, after some partial and very isolated struggles (the marches of the unemployed on London in 1921 and 1923 or the all-out strike of construction workers in 1924) the bourgeoisie imposed a final defeat in 1926. After another wave of miners' strikes, the unions organized the "General Strike" which they called off 10 days later, leaving the miners alone to return to work in December having suffered thousands of sackings, After the defeat of this struggle the counter-revolution reigned in Europe.

Also in this phase of the definitive decline of the revolutionary wave, there were defeats of the proletarian movements in the countries of the periphery of capitalism:

In South Africa, the "Red revolt of the Transvaal" in 1922 against the replacing of white workers by black workers on lower wages, spread to workers of both races and other sectors (coalmines, railways ... ) until it took insurrectional forms.

In 1923 Dutch troops and thugs hired by the planters were used against a rail strike that spread from Java to Surabaj and Jemang (Indonesia).

In China, the proletariat had been dragged (following the infamous thesis of the CI which supported "national liberation" movements) into supporting the actions of the nationalist bourgeoisie grouped around the Kuomintang, which however had no hesitation in savagely repressing the workers when they struggled on their class terrain (for example the general strike in Canton in 1925). In February and March 1927 the workers of Shanghai launched insurrections in order to prepare the entry into the city of the nationalist general Chang-Kai-Shek. This "progressive" leader (according to the CI) did not hesitate to take hold of the city, in alliance with the shopkeepers, peasants, intellectuals and especially the lumpen elements, in order to crush with fire and blood the general strike directed by the Shanghai Workers' Council in protest at the prohibition of strikes by the "liberator". Even after two months of terror in the workers' areas of Shanghai the Cl still supported the "Left wing" of the Kuomintang, based in Wuhan. This nationalist "left" did not vacillate in shooting down workers whose strikes "were irritating the foreigners ( .. .) impeding the progress of their commercial interests" (M. N. Roy, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in China). When the proletariat was already completely crushed, the CP decided to "pass over to the insurrection", which did no more than make this defeat even worse: 2,000 workers were killed in the "Canton Commune" of December 1927.

This struggle of the Chinese proletariat marked the dramatic epilogue of the world revolutionary wave, and as the revolutionaries of the Communist Left analyzed, a decisive landmark in the passage of the "Communist" Parties into the camp of the counter-revolution. A counter-revolution that spread over the proletariat of the world, like an immense black night, for 40 years until the resurgence of the struggles of the working class in the middle of the 1960s.

War does not offer the most favorable conditions for revolution

Why did the revolutionary wave fail? Without a doubt the incomprehensions that the proletariat and revolutionaries had about the conditions of the new historical period of decadence, had a decisive weight; but we cannot forget how the objective conditions created by the imperialist war prevented this vast ocean of struggles from being channeled towards a unified combat. In "the historic conditions for the generalization of the struggle of the working class" (International Review no 26) we analyzed: "War is certainty a peak in the crisis of capitalism, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it is also a 'response' by capitalism to the crisis. It is an advanced moment of barbarism which as such does not greatly favor the conditions for the generalization of the revolution".

We can see this from the facts of this revolutionary wave.

i) The war was a blood-letting for the proletariat. As Rosa Luxemburg explained:

"For the advance and victory of Socialism we need a strong, educated, ready proletariat, masses whose strength lies in knowledge as well as in numbers. And these very masses are being decimated all over the world. The flower of our youthful strength, hundreds of thousands whose Socialist education in England, in France, in Belgium, in Germany and in Russia was the product of decades of education and propaganda, other hundreds of thousands who were ready to receive the lessons of Socialism, have fallen, and are rotting upon the battlefields. The fruit of the sacrifices and the toil of generations is destroyed in a few short weeks, the choicest troops of the international proletariat are torn out by the roots" (The Junius Pamphlet).

A high percentage of the 70 million soldiers were proletarians who were replaced in the factories by women, or by workers recently brought from the colonies, with much less experience of struggle. Furthermore in the army the workers were diluted in an interclassist mass along with peasants, lumpens .... Thus the actions of the soldiers (desertions, insubordination...) though not benefiting the bourgeoisie, did not represent a terrain for genuinely proletarian struggle. For example, the desertions in the Austro-Hungarian army were in great part motivated by the refusal of Czechs, Hungarians.... to struggle for the Emperor in Vienna. The mutinies in the French army in 1917 did not question the war but "how to carry out the war" (the "inefficiency" of certain military actions ... ). The radical nature and, consciousness of some of the soldiers actions (fraternizing with the soldiers on the "other side", refusal to repress workers' struggles...) were in reality the consequence of the mobilization in the rear... And when after the armistice, the question was posed of destroying capitalism to put an end to war, the soldiers represented the most vacillating and backward sector. This is why the German bourgeoisie, for example, deliberately overstated the weight of the Soldiers' Councils compared to that of the Workers' Councils.

ii) The proletariat did not "control" the war. The unleashing of war requires the defeat of the proletariat. This included the impact of the reformist ideology that was part of this defeat, also the cessation of struggles in 1914: for example in Russia a growing wave of struggles that had developed during 1912-13 came to an abrupt end.

But besides, during the course of the war, the class struggle was pushed into the background by the din of military operations. While military reverses accentuated discontent (for example, the failure of the Russian Army's offensive in June 1917 brought about the "July days"), it is also certain that the offensives of the rival imperialisms and the success of their own, pushed the proletariat into the arms of the "interests of the fatherland". Thus the spring of 1918, at a significant moment for the world revolution (only months after the October insurrection in Russia), produced the last German military offensives that:

- paralyzed the wave of strikes which from January had broken out in Germany and Austria, with the "success" of the conquests in Russia and the Ukraine, which military propaganda called "the peace of bread".

- lead to French soldiers, who had been fraternizing with the workers of the Loire, closing ranks with their bourgeoisie. In the summer these same soldiers put down the strikes.

And what is more important, when the bourgeoisie saw that its domination was really threatened by the proletariat, it could put an end to the war, separating the revolution from its main stimulus. This question was not understood by the Russian bourgeoisie, but it was by the more prepared German bourgeoisie (and with them the rest of the world bourgeoisie). No matter how strong the imperialist antagonisms are between the different national capitals, the class solidarity of the different sections of the bourgeoisie is much stronger faced with the necessity to confront the proletariat.

In fact, the feeling of relief that the armistice generated in the workers weakened their struggle (as we saw in Germany) while, on the other hand, it reinforced the weight of bourgeois mystification. The bourgeoisie presented the imperialist war as an "anomaly" in the functioning of capitalism (the "Great War" was going to be "the war to end war ) trying to convince the working class that the revolution was not necessary because "everything would be as it was before". The sensation of a "return to normality" strengthened the tools of the counter-revolution: the "Socialist" parties and their" gradual passage to Socialism", the unions and their mystifications ("workers control of production", nationalizations, ... ).

iii) Finally the imperialist war broke the generalization of the revolution by fragmenting the workers' response between those of the victorious and defeated countries. Though the governments were weakened by military defeat, the crumbling of the regime did not necessarily mean the strengthening of the proletariat. Thus after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the proletariat of the "oppressed nationalities" was dragged into the struggle for the "independence" of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Yugoslavia[9]. The Hungarian workers who in October took Budapest, and the general strike in Slovakia in November 1920 ... were diverted onto the rotten terrain of "national liberation". In Galicia (then in Austria) what for years had been a movement against the war, was allowed to become demonstrations "for Polish independence and military victory over Germany!". In its insurrectional attempt of November 1918, the proletariat in Vienna was to struggle practically alone.

In the defeated countries, the revolt was more rapid but also more desperate and therefore dispersed and disorganized. The anger of the workers of the defeated countries, when it remained isolated from the struggle of the workers of the victorious ones, could finally be diverted towards "revanchism", as was seen in Germany in 1923, after the invasion of the Ruhr by Franco-Belgian troops.

In the victorious countries, on the other hand, the workers' combativity was delayed by the chauvinist euphoria of victory[10]. The workers' struggle recovered slowly, as if the workers had been waiting for the "dividends of Victory"[11]. Only once these illusions had been shattered by the brutality of post-war conditions (especially after 1920, when capitalism entered into a phase of economic crisis) did the workers of France, Britain, and Italy enter massively into struggle. However, by then the workers of the defeated countries had suffered decisive defeats. The fragmentation of the workers' response between the victorious and defeated countries, moreover, allowed the world bourgeoisie to jointly coordinate their forces, in support of those fractions that at different times found themselves in the front line of the war against the proletariat. After the defeat of the Paris Commune, Marx had already denounced "The unprecedented fact that in the most terrible war of modern times, the victorious and defeated armies united faced with the common threat of the proletariat (...) Class domination cannot hid the fact that under the national uniform, all national governments are as one only against the proletariat" (Marx, The Civil War in France):

* Even before the end of the war, the Entente powers had turned a blind eye when German troops in March 1918 crushed the workers' revolution in Finland or the revolt of the Hungarian Army at Vladai in September 1918.

* Faced with the German revolution, it was President Wilson (of the USA) who demanded that the Kaiser integrate the "socialists" into the government as the only force capable of confronting the revolution. A little later, the Entente gave the German government 5,000 machine guns with which to massacre the workers' revolt. And in March 1919, Noske's army would move, with the full consent of Clemenceau, into the Ruhr "demilitarized zone", in order to smash one revolutionary focus after another...

* From the end of 1918, Vienna served as the coordination center of the counter-revolution, commanded by the sinister English colonel Cuningham who coordinated, for example, the counter-revolutionary actions of Czech and Rumanian troops in Hungary. When the army of the Hungarian Workers' Councils attempted in July 1919 to carry out a military action on the Rumanian front, the troops of this country were waiting for them, since the Hungarian "socialists" had already informed the
Vienna "anti-Bolshevik center" about this operation.

* Along with military collaboration, came the blackmail of "humanitarian aid" which arrived from the Entente (especially from the USA), a condition of which was that the proletariat had to accept without protest exploitation and misery. When in March 1919, the Hungarian Councils called on the Austrian workers to enter into a common struggle with them, the "revolutionary" Frederik Adler answered them "You call on us to follow your example. We want to do this with all our hearts and will, but sadly we cannot. In our country there is no more food. We have been turned into complete slaves of the Entente" (Arbeiter-Zeitung, 23/3/1919)

In conclusion we can affirm that, contrary to what many other revolutionaries think[12], war does not create favorable conditions for the generalization of the revolution. This in no way means we are "pacifists" as some Bordigist groups claim. On the contrary, we defend as Lenin did that "the struggle for
peace without revolutionary action is an empty and lying phrase". It is precisely our responsibility as the vanguard in this revolutionary struggle, that demands that we draw the lessons of the workers' experience, and affirm[13] that the movement against the economic crisis of capitalism that began at the end of the 60's, although apparently less "radical", more tortuous and contradictory, will establish a much firmer material base for the proletarian world revolution:

* The economic crisis affects all countries without exception. Independently of the level of devastation that the crisis can cause in the different countries, it is certain that there are neither "victors", "vanquished", nor "neutrals".

* Unlike imperialist war, which the bourgeoisie could bring to an end faced with the threat of the workers' revolution, world capitalism cannot stop the economic crisis, nor can it avoid the increasingly brutal attacks on the workers.               

It is significant that the very groups that accuse us of being "pacifists" tend to under-estimate the workers struggles against the economic crisis.

The decisive role of the main proletarian concentrations

When the proletariat took power in Russia, the Mensheviks along with all the "socialists" and centrists, denounced the "adventurism" of the Bolsheviks, because the "backwardness" of Russia meant that it was not mature enough for the Socialist revolution. It was precisely the justified defense of the proletarian nature of the October revolution that led the Bolsheviks to explain the "paradox" of the world revolution arising from the struggle of a "backward" proletariat as in Russia[14], by means of the erroneous thesis which sees the chain of world imperialism being broken at its weakest link[15]. Nevertheless, an analysis of the revolutionary wave permits the refutation from a Marxist viewpoint, both of the idea that the workers of the Third World will not be prepared for the socialist revolution, and of this idea's apparent "antithesis", that it will be easier for them.

1. The First World War represented the historic landmark of capitalism's entry into its decadent phase. Which is to say that the preconditions for revolution (sufficient development of the productive forces and also of a revolutionary class. Within a moribund society) had been established at a worldwide level.

The fact that the revolutionary wave spread to every comer of the planet and that, in all countries, the workers' struggles were confronted by the counter-revolutionary action of all the fractions of the bourgeoisie, made it clear that the proletariat (independently of the level of development the different countries had achieved) does not have different tasks in Europe or the so-called Third World. Thus, there is not a proletariat that is "prepared" for socialism (in the advanced countries) and a proletariat that is "too immature for revolution" that has to go through the "democratic-bourgeois phase".

The revolutionary wave that we have been analyzing, demonstrated how the workers of backward Norway could discover that "The workers' demands cannot be satisfied by parliamentary means, but only by the revolutionary actions of all workers" (Manifesto of the Cristiania Workers' Council March 1918); how the Indonesia plantation workers or those of the Rio favelas formed Workers' Councils, how Berber workers united with workers of European origin against the "nationalists" during the general strike in the Algerian ports in 1923...

To proclaim today, as some in the revolutionary milieu do, that the proletariat of these backward countries, unlike those of the advanced countries, must form unions, or support the "national" revolution of the "progressive" fractions of the bourgeoisie, is equivalent to throwing overboard the lessons of the bloody defeats suffered by these proletariats at the hands of the alliance of all the bourgeois fractions ("progressive" and reactionary) or of the unions (including the most radical ones, such as the anarchist ones in Argentina) who in the center and on the peripheries of capitalism demonstrated how they had been converted into agents of the capitalist state.

2. However, although the whole of capitalism and therefore the world proletariat, is "mature" for revolution, this does not mean that the world revolution could begin in any country or that the struggle of the workers of the most backward countries has the same responsibilities, the same determinant character, as the struggles of the proletariat of the most advanced countries. The revolutionary wave of 1917 -23 constantly demonstrated that the revolution can only start from the proletariats of the most developed capitalisms, that is to say those detachments of the working class which by the weight they have in society, by their accumulated historical experience gained through years of combat against the capitalist state and its mystifications, play a central and decisive role in the worldwide confrontation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie:

The example of the struggle of the workers of the most developed countries, encouraged workers to form Workers' Councils from Turkey (where in 1920 there existed a Spartacist group) and Greece to Indonesia and Brazil. In Ireland (a, proletariat that Lenin erroneously believed should struggle for "national liberation"), the influence of the revolutionary wave opened up an interval, when the workers instead of struggling alongside the Irish bourgeoisie for their "independence" from Great Britain, struggled on the terrain of the international proletariat. In the summer of 1920 the Limerick Workers Council was formed and in the West of the country a revolt of farm laborers broke out which was put down, as much by the IRA (when the workers occupied fauns owned by Irish landlords) as by the British troops.

When the bourgeoisie had defeated the decisive workers battalions in Germany, France, Britain, Italy ... the world working class was decisively weakened, and the struggles of the workers in the countries on the periphery of capitalism could not change the course of the defeat of the world proletariat. The enormous demonstrations of courage and combativity given by the workers of America, Asia... separated from the contribution of the central battalions of the working class, were lost in serious confusions (as for example the revolution in China) which inevitably led them to defeat. In the countries were the proletariat is weakest, due to its scarce forces and experience, they were confronted, however, by the combined action of the bourgeoisies who have more experience in their class struggle against the proletariat[16]. 

Therefore the central link where the future of the revolutionary wave was decided was Germany, whose proletariat was a real beacon for the proletariat of the world. However, in Germany the most developed and conscious proletariat was confronted by a bourgeoisie that had accumulated a vast experience of confronting the proletariat. It is enough to see the "power" of the specific anti-worker apparatus of the German capitalist state: a "socialist" party and unions which maintained their organization and coordination at all moments in order to sabotage the revolution.

Therefore, in order to make the worldwide unification of the proletariat possible, it is necessary to overcome the most refined mystifications of the class enemy, the most powerful anti-worker apparatus... It is essential to defeat the strongest fraction of the world bourgeoisie and this can only be done by the world's most developed and experienced working class.

Hence, the thesis that the revolution must necessarily follow from war, as with the "weakest link", was an error of the revolutionaries of that period due to their desire to defend the proletarian world revolution. These errors, were however, converted into dogma by the triumphant counter-revolution after the defeat of the revolutionary wave, and today unfortunately form part of the Bordigist groups "doctrine".

The defeat of the revolutionary wave of the proletariat of 1917 -23 does not mean that the proletarian revolution is impossible. On the contrary, almost 80 years later capitalism demonstrates, in war after war, barbarity after barbarity that it cannot escape from the historic morass of its decadence. And despite its limitations, the world proletariat has emerged from the night of counter-revolution to set a new course towards decisive class confrontations, towards a new revolutionary attempt. To triumph in this new world assault on capitalism, the working class will have to draw the on lessons of what constitutes its main historical experience. It is the responsibility of revolutionaries to abandon dogmatism and sectarianism, in order to be able to discuss and clarify the necessary balance sheet of this experience.

Etsoem

[1] The German retreat from its French and Belgian position, between August and November, cost Britain 378,000 men and France 750,000.  

[2] The defeat of the proletariat in 1914 was only ideological and not physical, hence the immediate return of strikes, assemblies, solidarity"" Whereas in 1939, the defeat was complete, both physical (after the crushing of the revolutionary wave) and ideological (anti-fascism).

[3] See "From Austro-marxism to Austro-fascisrn" in International Review no 10.  

[4] See "70 years since the Revolution in Germany" in International Review No 55 & 56.

[5] Vacillations which were also shared by revolutionaries. See the book The German-Dutch Communist Left.

[6] See "Isolation is the death of Revolution" in International Review no 75.

[7] See "Revolution and Counter-revolution in Italy" in International Review no 2 & 3.

[8] The Spanish proletariat was not however defeated: hence its formidable struggles in the 30's. See our pamphlet Franco y La Republica masacran al proletariado (available only in Spanish).

[9] See "Balance of 70 years of 'national1iberation'" in International Review no 66.

[10] Only in the "defeated" part of France (Alsace-Lorraine), were there important strikes (rail, mines) and Soldiers' Councils in November 1918.  

[11] The weakest capitalism that lost the war was also the one that initiated it, which permitted the bourgeois to reinforce chauvinism with campaigns about "war reparations".  

[12] Including groups that laid out very serious and lucid balance sheets of the revolutionary wave, as was the case with our predecessors of the French Communist Left, who were wrong on this question, which lead them to hope for a new revolutionary wave after World War II.  

[13] See the article quoted from International Review no 26.  

[14] In our pamphlet The Russian Revolution, beginning of the World Revolution, we demonstrated that Russia was not backward (it was the world's 5th industrial power). Its advance in respect to the rest of the proletariat cannot be attributed to the supposed "backwardness" of Russian capitalism, but to the fact that the revolution arose from the war and that the world bourgeoisie was unable to come to the aid of the Russian bourgeoisie (as it was also unable to do during the "civil war" of 191 8-1 920) as well as to the absence of social shock absorbers (unions, democracy...) under Tsarism.

[15] We have expressed our critique of this "theory of the weak link" in "The proletariat of Western Europe at the center of the class struggle" and in "On the critique of the theory of the weak link" (International Review no 31 & 37 respectively).

[16] As we have already seen in the Russian Revolution (see the article in International Review no 75), when the French, British and North American bourgeoisies undertook coordinated counter-revolutionary action. Also in China the Western "democracies" at first supported the "warlords" financially and militarily and then the leaders of the Kuomintang.

On the eve of World War I, when revolutionaries like Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg declared the internationalist position characteristic of capitalism's new historic phase - "There is no longer any such thing as defensive or offensive wars" (Congress of Basel, 1912) - they did so with reference to the Balkan War. In capitalism's "decadent", "imperialist" phase, all wars between powers are equally reactionary. Contrary to what happened in the 19th century, when the bourgeoisie could still lead wars against feudalism, the proletarians could no longer choose between either camp in these wars. The only possible response to capitalism's militaristic barbarism is the destruction for capitalism itself. These positions, ultra-minority ones in 1914 when the First World War broke out, where nonetheless to form the basis for the great revolutionary movements of this century: the 1917 Russian Revolution, and the German Revolution of 1919, which put an end to the bloodbath begun in 1914.

For the first time since World War II, war has broken out again in Europe, and again it has broken out in the Balkans. It is vital that we reappropriate the experience of revolutionaries' struggle against war. This is why we are publishing this article which sums up a crucial aspect of revolutionaries' action against one of capitalism's most terrible scourges.

Bilan no 21, July August 1936

It would be falsifying history to say that the 1st and 2nd Internationals never considered the problem of war, and that they did not try to resolve it in the interests of the working class. We could even say that the problem of war was on the agenda right from the birth of the 1st International (the war that opposed
Austria to France and the Piedmont in 1859, the 1864 conflict between Denmark and the Austro-Prussian alliance, the war between Prussia and Italy on one side and Austria and South Germany on the other in 1866, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, not to mention American Civil War of 1861-65, and the insurrection of Bosnia-Herzegovina against Austrian annexation in 1878, all of which provoked the liveliest interest among internationalists at the time).

If we consider the number of wars that arose during this period, we can say that the problem was more a "burning" one in the time of the 1st International than of the 2nd, which was marked above all by the colonial wars for the division of Africa. With the exception of the brief conflict between Turkey and Greece in 1897, wars did not break out in Europe until the Balkan wars, and that between Italy and Turkey for the possession of Libya, which prefigured the world conflagration of 1914.

All this explains - and we are speaking from experience - that we, the generation which entered the struggle before 1914, perhaps considered the problem of war as an ideological struggle rather than a real and imminent danger: the termination, without recourse to arms, of serious crises such as the Fashoda or Agadir incidents tended to make us believe, wrongly, that economic "interdependence", in other words the increasing number of close ties between countries, constituted a secure defense against the outbreak of war among the European powers, and that their increasing military preparations rather than leading inevitably to war, only confirmed the principle "si vis pacem para bellum" ("if you want peace, prepare for war").

When the 1st International was founded, the universal panacea for preventing war was the suppression of standing armies, and their replacement by militia on the Swiss model. This position was put forward by the International's 2nd Congress at Lausanne in 1867, aimed in particular at a bourgeois pacifist movement which had formed a League for Peace that held congresses from time to time. The International decided to take part (in the Congress held in Geneva, where Garibaldi made his pathetically theatrical intervention with the famous declaration that "only the slave has die right to make war on tyrants"), and its delegates insisted that "it is not enough to do away with standing armies to put an end to war, but that a transformation of the entire social order is also necessary").

At the International's 3rd Congress, held in Brussels in 1868, a resolution was voted on the workers' attitude in the case of a conflict between the great European powers, where they were called to prevent a war of one people against another, and to cease work in the event of war. Two years later, in July 1870, the International found itself faced with the outbreak of war between France and Prussia.

The International's first manifesto was innocuous enough: "on the ruins that will be left by the two armies, socialism will remain the only real power. Then will be the moment for the International to decide what to do. Until then, let us remain calm and vigilant" (!!!).

The fact that the war was conducted by Napoleon "the Small" (ie Napoleon III) determined the somewhat defeatist attitude of large sections of the French population, amongst whom the internationalists opposition to the war found an echo.

Moreover, the fact that Germany was generally considered as having been "unjustly" attacked by "Bonaparte", provided a certain justification (since this was a "defensive" war) to the German workers' position of national defense.

The fall of the French Empire, after the catastrophic defeat at Sedan, overturned these positions.

"We repeat what we declared in 1793 to the European coalition" wrote the French internationalists in their manifesto to the German people: "the French people will not make peace with an enemy occupying our territory. Only on the banks of the contested river [the Rhine] will the workers reach out their hands to create the United States of Europe, the Universal Republic".

The patriotic fever intensified, and indeed presided over the birth of the glorious Paris Commune itself.

On the other side, for the German proletariat it was now a war conducted by the monarchy and Prussian militarism against the "French Republic" and the "French people". Hence the slogan of "an honorable peace without annexations", which motivated Liebknecht's and Bebel's protest in the Reichstag against the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and their consequent condemnation for "high treason".

Another point remains to be clarified on the subject of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, and the attitude of the workers' movement to it.

In fact, at the time, Marx envisaged the possibility of "progressive wars" - above all the war against Tsarist Russia - in an epoch where the cycle of bourgeois revolutions was not yet closed, just as he envisaged a possible conjunction of the bourgeois revolutionary movement with the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, where the latter would intervene, even in time of war, to hasten its final triumph.

"The war of 1870", wrote Lenin in his pamphlet on Zimmerwald, "was a "progressive war" like those of the French revolution, which while they undoubtedly brought with them all the elements of pillage and conquest, had the historic function of destroying or shaking feudalism and absolutism throughout the old Europe still founded on serfdom".

But while such a perspective was still admissible in Marx's day, even though it had already been overtaken by events, in capitalism's final, imperialist phase, to talk about "progressive", "national", or "just" wars is nothing but a deception and a betrayal. In effect, as Lenin wrote, unity with the national bourgeoisie of one's own country is unity against the unity of the revolutionary international proletariat, in a word it is unity with the bourgeoisie, against the proletariat, the betrayal of the revolution and of socialism.

Moreover, we should not forget other problems which influenced Marx in 1870, and which he emphasized in a letter to Engels (20th July 1870). The concentration of state power following the Prussian victory could only be useful to the concentration of the German working class, favorable to its class struggle, and, Marx wrote "the German preponderance will transport the center of gravity of the European workers' movement from France to Germany, and consequently ensure the definitive triumph of scientific socialism over Proudhonism and utopian socialism".

To finish with the 1st International, we will point out that, curiously, the 1871 London Conference did not deal with these problems despite their topicality, any more than did the Hague Congress in September 1872 where Marx gave a presentation in German of the events since 1869, the date of the International's previous Congress. In fact, the events of the time were treated very superficially, and the Congress limited itself to expressing its admiration for the heroic champions who had fallen in the Commune, and its fraternal greetings to the victims of bourgeois reaction.

The first Congress of the reconstituted International, held in Paris in 1889, restated the old slogan of the "replacement of standing armies by popular militias", and the next Congress, held in Brussels in 1891, adopted a resolution calling on workers to protest, by constant agitation, against all attempts at war, adding by way of consolation that the responsibility for war would in all events fall on the shoulders of the ruling classes ...

The 1869 London Congress - which saw the definitive split with the anarchists - declared in a general programmatic resolution on the question of war, that "the working class in all countries must oppose the violence provoked by war".

In 1900, in Paris, following the growth in political strength of the socialist parties, a principle was set forward which was to become axiomatic for all agitation against war: "the socialist deputies to Parliament in all countries are required to vote against all military and naval expenditure, and against colonial expeditions".

But the fullest debates on the question of war took place at Stuttgart in 1907.

Alongside the grandiloquent phrase mongering of the histrionic Herve on the duty of "answering war by the general strike and insurrection", Bebel presented a resolution essentially in agreement with Guesde, which although theoretically correct was inadequate with regard to the role and tasks of the proletariat.

At this Congress, in order to "prevent Bebel's orthodox deductions being read through opportunist spectacles" (Lenin) Rosa Luxemburg, in agreement with the Russian Bolsheviks, added to the resolution amendments which emphasized that the problem consisted not only in the struggle against the eventuality of war, but also and above all in using the crisis caused by the war to accelerate the fall of the bourgeoisie: "to profit in every way from the economic and political crisis to raise the people and so
to precipitate the fall of capitalist rule" .

In Copenhagen in 1910, the previous resolution was confirmed, especially with regard to the strict duty of socialist deputies to refuse all war credits.

Finally, as we know, during the Balkan war, and faced with the imminent danger of a world conflagration exploding in the powder-keg of Europe - today the powder-kegs have been multiplied to infinity - a special Congress was held in Basel in November 1912, to draw up the famous manifesto, which repeated all the declarations of Stuttgart and Copenhagen, denounced the future European war as "criminal" and "reactionary" for all governments, and declared that it could only "hasten the fall of capitalism by unfailingly provoking the proletarian revolution".

But while the manifesto declared that the looming war would be a war of pillage, an imperialist war for all the belligerents, and that it could only lead to a proletarian revolution, it tried above all to demonstrate that this imminent war could not be justified by a shadow of national interest. This implied an admission that, under a capitalist regime, and in the midst of imperialist expansion, cases could exist where participation by the exploited class in a war of "national defense" could be justified.

Two years later, the imperialist war broke out, and with it the IInd International collapsed. This debacle was the direct result of the insurmountable contradictions and ambiguities contained in all these resolutions. In particular, the ban on voting war credits did not resolve the problem of the "defense of the country" against the attack of an "aggressor nation". This is the breach through which the pack of social-chavinists and opportunists poured. The "Sacred Union" was sealed with the collapse of the international class solidarity of the workers.

As we have seen, if we look superficially at the language of its resolutions the IInd International not only adopted a principled class position against war, it also provided itself with the practical means to oppose it, to the point of formulating more or less explicitly the principle of transforming the imperialist war into a proletarian revolution. But if we go to the bottom of things, we can see that while the IInd International posed the problem of war, it resolved it in a formal and simplistic manner. It denounced war above all for its horrors and atrocities, because the proletariat provided the cannon fodder for the ruling class. The Ilnd International's anti-militarism was purely negative, and left almost exclusively to the socialist youth, in some countries against the clear hostility of the party itself.

With the exception of the Bolsheviks during the 1904-05 Russian Revolution, no party envisaged so much as the possibility of systematic illegal work in the army. The parties limited themselves to manifestoes or papers against war, which were posted on the walls or distributed at schools, calling on workers to remember that under the soldier's uniform they remained proletarians. Faced with the inadequacy and sterility of this work, Herve had an easy time of it, especially in Latin countries with his wordy demagoguery of "burying the flag in the dung-heap", and his encouragement of desertion, the rejection of armies, and his famous slogan "shoot your officers".

In Italy - where in October 1912 the socialist patty gave the only example in the Ilnd International of calling a 24-hour strike against the Tripolitanian colonial expedition - a young worker in Bologna, Masetti, followed Herve's suggestions and shot his colonel during a military exercise. This was the only positive event to come out of the entire Herve comedy.

Less than a month later, on the 4th August, temporarily ignored by the mass of workers engulfed in the carnage of World War I, the manifesto of the Bolshevik Central Committee raised the flag of the continuity of the workers' struggle with its historic call for the transformation of the present imperialist war into a civil war.

The October Revolution was on the march.

Gatto Mamone

Guy Debord committed suicide on 30th November, 1994. All the press in France, where he lived, has written about his death, for despite his limited public appearances, Debord was a well-known personality. His fame was due, not to the "works" produced in what the media called his profession - film producer - whose audience was always a small one, but to his writing (The Society of the Spectacle, 1967), and above all to his activity as founding member and one of the main inspirations behind the Situationist International. As a revolutionary organization, it is this last aspect of Debord's life that interests us, for although it dissolved more than 20 years ago, in its time the Situationist International had a certain influence on the groups and elements that were moving towards class positions.

We do not propose here to produce a history of the SI, nor an exegesis of the 12 issues of its review published between 1958 and 1969. Suffice it to say that the SI was born, not as a political movement properly speaking, but as a cultural movement that brought together a number of artists (painters, architects, etc) from various tendencies (the Lettrist International, the Movement for an Imaginist Bauhaus, the London Psycho geographical Committee, etc) , which proposed to make a "revolutionary" critique of art as it exists in society today. Thus the first issue of the SI's review (June 1958) published an address distributed to a meeting of international art critics, which said: "Scatter, pieces of art criticism, criticism of artistic fragments. Today, the unitary artistic activity of the future is being organized in the Situationist International. You have nothing more to say. The Situationist International will leave you no room. We will reduce you to famine".

It should be noted that although the SI called for a radical revolution, it still considered that it was possible to organize "the unitary artistic activity of the future" within capitalist society. Moreover, this activity was seen as a sort of stepping-stone to revolution, since "The elements of a new life must already be forming among us - in the field of culture - and it is up to us to bring passion to the debate" (SI no 1, page 23, "Les situationnistes et I'automation", by Asger Jorn). The author of these lines was a fairly well-known Danish painter.

The kind of concerns that interested the SI's founders showed that this was not an organization expressing an effort by the working class to develop its consciousness, but an expression of the radicalized intellectual petty bourgeoisie. This is why the SI's political positions, while they claimed to be based on Marxism, against stalinism and trotskyism, were extremely confused. An appendix to the first issue of the review took position on the coup d'état of 13th May 1958, when the army based in Algeria rebelled against the power of the French government: it speaks of the "French people", and of the trades unions and left-wing parties as "workers' organizations", etc. Two years later, we can still find "Third-Worldist" overtones in the fourth issue: "In the emancipation of the colonized and under-developed peoples, carried out by themselves, we salute the possibility of skipping the intermediate stages that others passed through, both in industrialization and in culture and the use of a life liberated from all constraint" ("La chute de Paris", SI no 4, page 9). A few months later, Debord was one of the 121 signatories (mostly artists and intellectuals) of the "Declaration on the right to desertion in the Algerian war", which includes the following: "The cause of the Algerian people, which is contributing decisively to the ruin of the colonial system, is the cause of all free men". SI no 5 takes up this gesture collectively, without the slightest criticism of the concessions to democratic ideology contained in the "Declaration".

Our aim here is not to heap denunciations on the SI. But it is important, especially for those who may have been influenced by this organization's positions, that the reputation for "radicalism" that surrounded it, its intransigence and its refusal to compromise, has been much exaggerated. The SI had great difficulty in disengaging itself from the political aberrations of its origins, especially its concessions to leftist or anarchist ideas. Only gradually did the SI approach the positions of the left communists - in fact of the councilisrs - just as the pages of its review gave an increasing space to political questions rather than artistic vagaries. For a while, Debord was closely linked with the group that published Socialisme ou Barbarie, and it was he who instigated the SI's evolution. In July 1960, he published a document titled "Preliminaries for a definition of a united revolutionary program" with P. Canjuers, a member of SouB. However, although for a time Socialisme ou Barbarie inspired the SI's political evolution, it was itself an extremely confused group. It came from a late split (1949) within the trotskyist "4th International", but was never able to break the umbilical cord tying it to trotskyism in order to join the positions of the communist left. After a number of splits, which produced the GLAT (Groupe de Liaison pour l' Action des Travailleurs), ICO (Information et Correspondance Ouvrieres) and the Pouvoir Ouvrier group, SouB ended its career under the aegis of Cornelius Castoriadis (who was to give his support, at the beginning of the 1980s, to Reagan's campaigns on the supposed military superiority of the USSR) as a coterie of intellectuals who explicitly rejected marxism.

We find another example of the extreme confusion of the SI's positions in 1966, when it tried to take position on Boumedienne's military coup d'état in Algeria, and could find nothing better than to make a "radical" defense of self-management (in other words, the old anarchist recipe, derived from Proudhon, which leads workers to take part in their own exploitation):

"The only program of Algerian socialist elements is the defense of the self-managed sector, not only as it is, but as it must become ... Only a maintained and radicalized self-management can be the starting-point for a revolutionary assault on the existing regime ... Self-management must become the sole solution to the mysteries of power in Algeria, and must know that it is this solution" (SI no 10, page 21, March 1966). Even in 1967, the issue no 11 of the SI's review, which contains its clearest political positions, continues to cultivate a certain ambiguity on a number of points, especially on the so-called "national liberation struggles". Alongside a vigorous denunciation of the "Third-Worldism" promoted by the leftist groups, the SI ends up making concessions to "Third-Worldism" itself:

"It is obviously impossible, today, to hope for a revolutionary solution to the Vietnamese war. Above all, we must put an end to American aggression, to allow the real social struggle develop naturally in Vietnam, on other words to allow the Vietnamese workers to rediscover their internal enemies: the Northern bureaucracy and all the possessing and ruling strata in the South (...) Only a resolutely anti-state and internationalist revolutionary Arab movement can both dissolve the Israeli state and gain the support of the mass of the exploited. By the same process, it alone will be able to dissolve all the Arab states and create Arab unification by the power of the Workers' Councils" (SI no 11, "Deux Guerres Locales", pp21-22).

In fact these ambiguities, which the SI never got rid of, explain in part its success at a time when "Third-Worldist" illusions were particularly strong within the working class, and above all in the student and intellectual milieu. This is not to say that the SI recruited on the basis of its concessions to "Third- Worldism", but rather that had the SI been perfectly clear on the question of the so-called "national liberation struggles", it is likely that many of its supporters at the time would have turned away from it[1].

Another reason for the SI's success in the student and intellectual milieu obviously lies in the priority it gave to its critique of capitalism's ideological and cultural aspects. For the SI, we are living today in the "society of the spectacle" (which was a new term for state capitalism), in other words within a phenomenon already analyzed by revolutionaries as specific to capitalism's decadent phase: the omnipresence of the capitalist state throughout society, including in the cultural sphere. Similarly, while the SI was very clear in declaring that the proletariat is the only revolutionary force in this society, its definition of the proletariat allowed the intellectual petty bourgeoisie to include itself within the working class, and so to consider itself as a "subversive force":

"Given the reality which is emerging today, we may consider as proletarians people who have no possibility of modifying the social space-time which society allocates for their consumption ... " (SI no 8, ‘Domination de la nature, ideologie et classes'). And the SI's typically petty-bourgeois vision of this question is confirmed by its analysis, similar to Bakunin's, of the lumpen-proletariat, which would be called to constitute a revolutionary force since "... the new proletariat tends to be defined negatively as a "Front against forced labor" which unites all those who resist recuperation by the state" ("Banalites de Base" in SI no 8, page 42).

The elements in revolt of the intelligentsia particularly liked the SI's propaganda methods: the spectacular sabotage of cultural and artistic events or the "subversion" of comic strips and photo-novels (for example, the nude pin-up shown speaking the famous slogan of the workers' movement: "The emancipation of the workers will be the task of the workers themselves "). Similarly, situationist slogans encountered a great success in this social stratum: "Live without dead time. Pleasure unrestrained", "Demand the impossible", "Take your desires for reality". The idea of immediately putting into practice the situationist ideas of the "critique of daily life", in fact only expresses the immediatism of the petty bourgeoisie, a social class without any future. Finally, a pamphlet written by a situationist in 1967 (De la misere en milieu etudiant) presenting students as the most contemptible creatures in the world, alongside priests and the military, contributed to the SI's notoriety within a stratum of the population whose masochism is a measure of its lack of any role on the social and historical scene.

France was the country where the SI encountered the greatest echo, and the events of May 68 marked its apogee. Situationist slogans were on every wall, for the media the word" situationist" was synonymous with" radical revolutionary". The first Sorbonne Occupation Committee was composed largely of SI members and sympathizers. There is nothing surprising about this. The events of 68 marked at one and the same time the last gasp of the student revolts which began in California in 1964, and the historic recovery of the proletariat after four decades of counter-revolution. The simultaneity of these two phenomena, and the fact that state repression of the student revolt was the trigger for the massive strike movement which had been ripening with the first effects of the economic crisis, allowed the situationists to express the most radical aspects of this revolt, while still having a certain impact on certain sectors of the working class which were beginning to reject the bourgeois structures of control
constituted by the unions and the left parties.

However, the recovery in the class struggle, which caused the appearance and flourishing of a whole series of revolutionary groups including our own organization, was the death knell for the Situationist International. It proved incapable of understanding the real significance of the struggles of 1968. In particular, because it was convinced that the workers had risen against the "spectacle", not against the first effects of an insurmountable economic crisis the SI wrote idiotically: "The revolutionary eruption did not come from an economic crisis ... the frontal attack of May was on a capitalist economy working well" (Enrages et Situationnistes dans Ie mouvement des occupations, a book written by the Situationist Rene Viennet, page 209)[2]. With this view of things as their point of departure, it is hardly surprising that the SI succumbed to complete megalomania: "The agitation begun in January 68 at Nanterre by the four or five revolutionaries who were to form the "enrages" group [influenced by the Situationists' ideas] was to lead, only five months later, to the quasi-liquidation of the state" (ibid, page 25). From then on, the SI entered into a crisis which was to end in its dissolution in 1972.

In fact, it was only "by default" that the SI had an impact, before and during the events of 1968, on elements coming towards class positions, as a result of the disappearance or sclerosis in the period of counter-revolution of the communist currents of the past. Once the student revolt died, and organizations were formed in the wake of the 68 events that took up the experience of those currents, there was no longer any room for the SI. Its self-dissolution was the logical conclusion of its bankruptcy, of the trajectory of a movement which could have no future, because it refused to attach itself firmly to the communist fractions of the past. Guy Debord's suicide[3] probably followed the same logic.

Fabienne

[1] The best proof of the Sl's lack of rigor (to say the least) on this question is its designation of Mustapha Khayati to set out its theses on the subject (see "Contributions servant a rectifier I'opinion du public sur la revolution dans les pays sous-developpes", in SI no 11, pp38-40). Shortly afterwards, Khayati joined the Democratic Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, without this causing his immediate exclusion from the SI; in the end, it was Khayati who resigned. At its Venice conference in 1969, the SI simply accepted the resignation with the argument that it did not accept "dual memberships". In short, whether Khayati joined a group like ICO, or enrolled in a bourgeois army (why not the police, it all comes to the same thing?) made no difference to the SI.

[2] In a polemic against our French press, the SI wrote: "As for the debris of the old non-trotskyist ultra-leftism, they needed at least a major economic crisis. They subordinated any revolutionary movement to its return, and so saw nothing coming. Now that they have recognized a revolutionary crisis in May, they have to prove that this "invisible" economic crisis was there in the spring of 68. Without any fear of being ridiculed, they are working at it now, producing schemas on the rise in unemployment and inflation. So for them, the economic crisis is no longer that terribly visible objective reality that was lived so hardly in 1929, but a son of eucharistic presence that supports their religion" (SI no 12, page 6). This crisis may have been "invisible" for the SI, but not for our current since our press in Venezuela (the only one in existence at the time) devoted an article to it in January 1968.  

[3] Always assuming that he did commit suicide ... Another hypothesis is always possible: Debord's friend Gerard Lebovici was murdered in 1984.

It's not for fun that the capitalists refuse to exploit a growing number of workers or to carryon exploiting the old ones. They get their profit from living labor as it is devoured by the machinery of the wages system. The work of others is, for capital, the goose that lays the golden eggs. As such, capital doesn't have an interest in killing it. But capital's only religion is profit. A capitalist who doesn't make a profit is doomed to disappear. Capital doesn't give out jobs out of humanism, but because that's the way it works. And if profits are insufficient, it lays off, it cuts jobs. Profit is the alpha and omega of the capitalist bible.

According to official history, in 1949 a “popular revolution” triumphed in China. This idea, defended as much by the democratic West as by the Maoists, forms part of a monstrous mystification produced by the Stalinist counter-revolution about the supposed creation of “Socialist states”. It is certain that in the period between 1919 and 1927 China lived through an important working class movement, which was fully integrated into the international revolutionary wave that shook the capitalist world in that epoch, but this movement was ended by a massacre of the working class. What the bourgeoisie’s ideologues present on the other hand, as the “triumph of the Chinese Revolution”, was only the installation of a state capitalist régime in its Maoist variant, the culmination of a period of imperialist struggles on the terrain of China that began in 1928, after the defeat of the proletarian revolution.

In the first part of this article we will lay out the conditions in which the proletarian revolution arose in China, drawing out some of the principle lessons. The second part is dedicated to the period of the imperialist struggles, which gave rise to Maoism, while at the same time denouncing the fundamental aspects of this form of bourgeois ideology.

The IIIrd International and the revolution in China

The evolution of the Communist International (CI) and its activity in China was crucial for the course of the revolution in that country. The CI represents the most important effort made by the working class up until now to give itself a world party with which to guide its revolutionary struggle. However, its late formation, during the world revolutionary wave, without having previously had sufficient time to consolidate itself politically and organically, led it, despite the resistance of the Left fractions[1] [12] into opportunist deviation when - faced with the defeat of the revolution and the isolation of Soviet Russia - the Bolshevik Party, the most influential in the International, began to vacillate between the necessity of maintaining the basis for a future renewal of the revolution, even at the cost of sacrificing the triumph in Russia, or the defence of the Russian state that had arisen from the revolution but at the cost of making treaties and alliances with the national bourgeoisies, treaties and alliances that represented an enormous fount of confusion for the international proletariat and lead to the acceleration of its defeat in many countries. The abandonment of the historic interests of the working class in exchange for promises of collaboration between classes, led the International to a progressive degeneration that culminated in 1928, with the abandonment of proletarian internationalism on the altar of so-called “defense of Socialism in one country”.[2] [13]

Lack of confidence in the working class progressively led the International, increasingly converted into a tool of the Russian government, to search for the creation of a barrier against the penetration of the great imperialist powers, through the support of the bourgeoisies of the “oppressed countries” of Eastern Europe, the Middle and Far East. This policy had disastrous results for the international working class, since through the political and material support of the CI and the Russian government for these supposedly “nationalist” and “revolutionary” bourgeoisies of Turkey, Persia, Palestine, Afghanistan... and finally China, these same bourgeoisies, who hypocritically accepted Soviet support without breaking their links either with the imperialist powers or with the landed aristocracy who they were supposedly fighting, crushed the workers’ struggles and annihilated the communist organisations with the arms supplied to them by the Russians. Ideologically, this abandonment of proletarian positions was justified by invoking the “Theses on the Colonial and National question” from the Second Congress of the IIIrd International (in whose writing Lenin and Roy had played a central role). These Theses certainly contain an important theoretical ambiguity, that distinguished wrongly between the “imperialist” and “anti-imperialist” bourgeoisies, which opened the doors to major political errors, since in this epoch the bourgeoisie, even in the oppressed countries, had finished being revolutionary and everywhere had acquired an “imperialist” character. Not only because the latter were tied to one or other of the great imperialist powers, but also because, after the working class had taken power in Russia, the international bourgeois formed a common front against all the revolutionary movements of the masses. Capitalism had entered into its decadent phase, and the opening of the epoch of the proletarian revolution had definitively closed the epoch of bourgeois revolutions.

Despite this error, these Theses were still capable of warding off some opportunist slidings, which unfortunately became generalised a little while later. The report of the discussion presented by Lenin recognised that in this epoch “A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeois of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeois of the oppressed countries, although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a certain degree of agreement with the imperialist bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it”.[3] [14] Therefore, the Theses appeal for support principally amongst the peasants and, above all, they insist on the necessity of the Communist organisations maintaining their organic and principled independence faced with the bourgeoisie. “The Communist International has the duty to support the revolutionary movement in the colonies only for the purpose of gathering the components of the future proletarian parties - communist in fact and not just in word - in all the backward countries and training them to be conscious of their special tasks, the special tasks, that is to say, of fighting against the bourgeois-democratic tendencies... must unconditionally maintain the independent character of the proletarian movement, be it only in embryo”. But the International’s unconditional, shameful support for the Kuomintang in China forgot all of this: that the national bourgeoisie was already not revolutionary and was establishing close links with the imperialist powers, the necessity of forging a Communist Party capable of struggling against the democratic bourgeois and the indispensable independence of the working class movement.

The bourgeois “revolution” of 1911 and the Kuomintang

The development of the Chinese bourgeoisie and its political movement during the first decades of the twentieth century, rather than demonstrating its supposedly “revolutionary” aspects, illustrates the extinction of the bourgeoisie’s revolutionary character and the transformation of the national and democratic ideal, into a mere mystification, when capitalism entered its decadent phase. A survey of events shows us not a revolutionary class, but a conservative, accomodationist, class, whose political movement neither looked to totally displacing the nobility nor expelling the “imperialists”, but rather to place itself between them.

The historians usually underline the different interests that existed between the fractions of the Chinese bourgeoisie. Thus, it is common to identify the speculator/merchant fraction as being allied with the nobility and the “imperialists”, while the industrial bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia formed the “nationalist”, “modern”, “revolutionary” fraction. In reality, these differences were not so marked. Not only because both fractions were intimately linked by business and family ties but above all, because the attitudes of the merchant fraction and those of the industrial and intelligentsia were not so greatly different given that they both constantly looked for the support from the “Warlords” linked to the landed nobility, as well as the governments of the great powers.

By 1911 the Manchu Dynasty was already completely putrid and on the point of collapse. This was not some product of the action of a revolutionary national bourgeoisie, but the consequence of the division of China at the hands of the great imperialist powers, who had torn the old Empire apart. China had increasingly become divided into regions controlled by warlords, owners of greater or smaller mercenary armies,  always fighting amongst themselves in order to sell themselves to the highest bidder and behind whom usually stood one or other of the great powers. The Chinese bourgeoisie felt that it had to replace the dynasty, as country’s unifying element, although without the aim of breaking up the régime of production in which the interests of the landlords and the “imperialists” were mixed with their own, but rather, in order to maintain it. It is in this framework that the events that took place between the so-called “1911 Revolution” and the “May 4th Movement of 1919” have to be placed.

The “1911 Revolution” began as a plot by conservative warlords supported by Sun Yat-sen’s bourgeois nationalist organisation, the T’ung Meng Hui. The Emperor did not know of the warlords’ plans. They set up a new régime in Wuhan. Sun Yat-sen, who was in the United States looking for financial support for his organisation, was called on to become president of the new government. Both governments entered into negotiations and within a few weeks it was agreed that both the Emperor and Sun Yat-sen should retire, and a unified government would take their place headed by Yuan Shih-K’ai who was head of the imperial troops and the true strong man of the Dynasty. The significance of all of this is that the bourgeoisie put aside its “revolutionary” and “anti-imperialist” pretensions, in order to maintain the unity of the country.

At the end of 1912 the Kuomintang (KMT) was formed; Sun Yat-sen’s new organisation represented this bourgeoisie. In 1913 the Kuomintang participated in presidential elections, restricted to the propertied social classes, which they won. However, the new president Sun Chiao-yen was killed. After this Sun Yat-sen allied himself with some military sucessionists from the central South of the country intending to form a new government, but was defeated by forces from Peking.

As we can see the feckless “nationalists” of the Chinese bourgeoisie were constrained by the games of the “warlords” and consequently by the great powers. The explosion of the First World War subordinated the political movement of the Chinese bourgeoisie still further to the play of the imperialists’ interests. In 1915 various provinces “declared independence”, the country was divided between the “warlords”, backed by one or other power. In the North, the Anfu government - supported by Japan - disputed predominance with Chili - backed by Great Britain and the United States. Czarist Russia, for its part wanted to turn Mongolia into its protectorate. The South was also disputed, Sun Yat-sen made new alliances with some warlords. The death of the Peking’s strong man aggravated even more the struggles between the warlords.

It was in this context, at the end of the war in Europe, that the “May 4th Movement of 1919” occurred, extolled by the ideologues as a “real anti-imperialist movement”. In reality this petty-bourgeois movement was not directed against imperialism in general, but specifically against Japan, which had taken the Chinese province of Shangtun as its prize at the Versailles Conference (the conference where the “democratic” victors redivided up the world), which the Chinese students opposed. However, it is necessary to note that the aim of not ceding Chinese territory to Japan was in the interests of the other rival power: the United States, which was finally to “liberate” the Shantung province from exclusive Japanese domination in 1922. That is to say, that despite the “radical” ideology of the May 4th Movement, it remained encased in imperialist struggles. And it could have done nothing else.

On the other hand, it is necessary to point out that during the May 4th Movement the working class expressed its own aspirations for the first time in its demonstrations, which not only raised the nationalist demands of the movement, but also their own demands. The end of the war in Europe could not put an end either to the conflicts between the warlords or to the struggle between the great powers for the redivision of the country. Little by little two, more or less unstable, governments emerged: one in the North with its seat in Peking, commanded by the warlord Wu P’ei-fu, the other in the South, with its seat in Canton, at whose head was found Sun Yat-sen and the Kuomintang. Official history presents the Northern government as representing the forces of noble “reaction” and the imperialists, while that in the South represented the “revolutionary” and “nationalist” forces, of the bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie and the workers. This is a scandalous mystification.

The reality is that Sun Yat-sen and the Kuomintang were always backed by the southern warlords. In 1920 the warlord Ch’en Ch’iung-ming, who had occupied Canton, invited Sun to form another government. In 1922 following the defeat of first attempts by the southern warlords to advance towards the North, he was thrown out of government, but in 1923 the warlords supported his return to Canton. On the other hand, there is the much talked of alliance of the Kuomintang with the USSR. In reality, the USSR made treaties and alliances with all the governments in China, including with those in the North. It was the North’s definitive inclination towards Japan that obliged the USSR to prioritise its relationship with the government of Sun Yat-sen, which for its part never abandoned its efforts to gain support from the different imperialist powers. Thus in 1925, just before his death when travelling to negotiations with the North, Sun passed through Japan soliciting support for his government.

It was this party, the Kuomintang representative of a national bourgeoisie (commercial, industrial and intellectual) integrated into the game of the great imperialist powers and the “warlords”, that was declared a “sympathizer party” by the Communist International. It is to this party that at one time or another the communists in China had to submit themselves, on the altar of so-called “national revolution”, for whom they served as “coolies”.[4] [15]

The Communist Party of China at the crossroads

According to the official history the development of the Communist Party in China was a by-product of the movement of the bourgeois intelligentsia at the beginning of the century. Marxism had been imported from Europe along with other Western “philosophies”, and the formation of the Communist Party formed part of the growth of many other literary, philosophical and political organisations in this period. With ideas of this kind the historians have invented a bridge between the political movement of the bourgeoisie and that of the working class, making it appear as if they had been one and the same, and giving the formation of the Communist Party a specifically national significance. The truth is that the development of the Communist Party in China was fundamentally linked, not to the growth of the Chinese intelligentsia, but to the march of the international revolutionary movement of the working class.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) was created between 1920 and 1921 from small Marxist, Anarchist and Socialist groups who sympathised with Soviet Russia. As with many other Communist Parties, the CPC was born as an integral part of the CI and its rise was linked with the development of the workers’ struggles that were also following the example of the insurrectional movements in Russia and Western Europe. In 1921 there were a few dozen militants, but within a few years there were thousands; during the strike wave in 1925 membership reached 4,000, and by the insurrectional period of 1927 it had risen to 60,000. This rapid numerical expansion expressed, on the one hand, the revolutionary will that animated the working class in China in the period from 1919 to 1927 (the majority of militants in this period were workers from the great industrial cities). Nevertheless, it is necessary to say that the numerical growth of the Party did not express an equivalent strengthening of the Party. The overhasty admission of militants contradicted the traditions of the Bolshevik Party of forming a solid, tested, vanguard organisation of the working class, rather than a mass organisation. But worst of all was the adoption at its 2nd Congress of an opportunist policy, from which it was unable to detach itself.

In mid 1922, on instructions from the Executive of the International, the CPC launched the wretched slogan of the “anti-imperialist United Front with the Kuomintang” and the individual adhesion of communists to the latter. This policy of class collaboration, (which began to spread through Asia after the “Conference of the Toilers of the East” in January 1922) was the result of the negotiations secretly entered into beforehand between the USSR and the Kuomintang. By June 1923, the CPC’s 3rd Congress voted for all Party members to join the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang was itself admitted to the CI in 1926 as a sympathiser organisation, and took part in the CI’s 7th Plenary Session, in which the United Opposition (Trotsky, Zinoviev...) were not eve allowed to attend. In 1926, while the KMT was preparing its final blow against the working class, in Moscow the infamous “theory” was elaborated that the Kuomintang was an “anti-imperialist bloc of four classes (the proletariat, the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie).

This policy had disastrous consequences for the working class movement in China. While strike movements and demonstrations arose spontaneously and impetuously, the Communist Party, merged with the Kuomintang, was incapable of orientating the working class, of putting forward independent class politics, despite the incontestable heroism of the communist militants who were frequently found in the front ranks of the workers’ struggles. Equally bereft of unitary organisations of political struggle, such as the workers’ councils, at the demand of the CPC itself the working class put its confidence in the Kuomintang, in other words of the bourgeoisie.

However, it is equally certain that the policy of subordination to the Kuomintang encountered frequent resistance inside the CPC (as was the case with the current represented by Chen Tu-hsiu). From the 2nd Congress there had already been an opposition to the Theses defended by the delegate of the International (Sneevliet) according to which the KMT was no longer a bourgeois party, but a class front to which the CPC had to subordinate itself. Throughout the whole period of the union with the Kuomintang voices arose inside the Communist Party to denounce the anti-proletarian preparations of Chiang Kai-Shek; asking, for example, that the arms supplied by the USSR should go to arm the workers and peasants and not to strengthen Chiang Kai-shek’s army as happened, and eventually posing, the need to leave the trap that the KMT constituted for the working class: “The Chinese revolution has two roads: one is the one that the proletariat can mark out and by which we can advance our revolutionary objectives; the other is that of the bourgeoisie and this will ultimatly betray the revolution in the course of its development”.[5] [16]

Nevertheless, it was impossible for a young and inexperienced party to overcome the erroneous and opportunist directives of the Executive of the International and it fell into them itself. As a result, the working class was unable to stop the Kuomintang stabbing it in the back, because while the Kuomintang was preparing to do so, the proletariat was being pulled into a struggle against the landlords opposed to the Kuomintang. And therefore the revolution in China had few opportunities to triumph, because on the international level the backbone of the world revolution - the German proletariat - had been broken since 1919, the opportunism of the IIIrd International only precipitated the defeat.

The upsurge of the working class

Maoism has used the weakness of the working class in China as an argument to justify the movement of the CPC towards the countryside from 1927. The working class in China at the beginning of the century was certainly miniscule in relation to the peasantry (a proportion of 2 to 100), but its political weight was not limited in the same proportions. There were around 2 million urban workers (without counting the 10 million more or less proletarianised artisans populating the cities) highly concentrated on the banks of the Yangtze, in the costal city of Shanghai and in the industrial zone of Wuhan (the triple city Hankow-Wuchang-Hanyang); in the Canton-Hong Kong complex and the mines of Hunan province. This concentration gave the working class extraordinary potential for paralysing and taking under its control the vital centres of capitalist production. Also in the Southern provinces there existed a peasantry that was closely linked to the workers, since they provided the work force of the industrial cities, which could constitute a force of support for the urban proletariat.

Moreover, it would be a mistake to judge the strength of the working class in China from its numbers in relation to the other classes in the country. The proletariat is a historic class, that draws its strength from its international existence, and the example of the revolution in China clearly demonstrates this. The strike movement, did not have it’s epicentre in China, but in Europe; it was an expression of the expanding wave of the world revolution. The workers in China, as in all parts of the world, launched themselves into struggle faced with the example of the triumphant revolution in Russia and the attempted insurrections in Germany and other European countries.

At the beginning, since the majority of the factories in China were foreign owned, the strikes had an “anti-foreigner” tinge and the national bourgeoisie thought they could use this to apply pressure on the foreign powers. However, the strike movement took on an increasingly class character, against the bourgeoisie in general, without making a distinction between “national” and “foreign” bosses. Strikes for workers’ demands developed from 1919 onwards, despite repression (it was not uncommon for workers to be beheaded or burnt in the fireboxes of locomotives). In the middle of 1921, a textile strike broke out in Hunan. At the beginning of 1922, there was a 3 month sailors’ strike in Hong Kong, which finished when they won their demands. In the first months of 1923 a wave of about 100 strikes broke out, in which more than 300,000 workers participated; in February the warlord Wu P’ei Fu ordered the repression of the railway strike leading to the killing of 35 workers while, the wounded were mutilated. In June 1924 there was a three month general strike in Canton/Hong Kong. In February the cotton workers of Shanghai launched a strike. This was the prelude to the gigantic strike movement that swept all of China in the Summer of 1925.

The 30th of May Movement

In 1925 Russia fully supported the Kuomintang government in Canton. Already from 1923 an alliance between the USSR and the Kuomintang had been openly declared, a military delegation from the Kuomintang headed by Chiang Kai-shek had visited Moscow, while at the same time a delegation from the International provided the Kuomintang with its statutes and organisational and military structure. In 1924, the first official Congress of the Kuomintang sanctioned the Alliance and in May the Whampoa Military Academy was set up with Soviet arms and military advisors, directed by Chiang Kai-shek. In fact, what Russia did was to form a modern army, in the service of the bourgeois fraction regrouped in the Kuomintang, which had been without one until then. In March 1925 Sun Yat-sen visited Peking (with whose government the USSR still maintained relations) in order to try and form an alliance that would unify the country, but he died of an illness before he could put forward his aim.

It was into this framework of an idyllic alliance that the full force of the working class movement burst, reminding the bourgeoisie of the Kuomintang and the opportunists of the International about the international class struggle.

A wave of agitation and strikes arose from the beginning of 1925. On the 30th of May English police in Shanghai fired on a workers’ and students’ demonstration, killing twelve demonstrators. This was the detonator for a general strike in Shanghai, which rapidly spread to the main commercial ports of the country. On the 19th of June a general strike also broke out in Canton. Four days later the British troops of the British concession of Shameen (bordering Canton) opened fire on another demonstration. The workers in Hong Kong launched a strike in response. The movement spread, reaching as far as Peking where on the 30th of July a demonstration of 200,000 workers took place while peasant agitation deepened in the province of Kwangtung.

In Shanghai, the strike lasted three months, in Canton/Hong Kong a strike/boycott was declared that lasted until October of the following year. Here, workers’ militias began to be formed. The working class in China demonstrated for the first time that it was a force really capable of threatening the whole capitalist régime. Despite this, one consequence of the “30th May Movement” was that the Canton government consolidated and extended its powers towards the South, this movement also shook the class instincts of the “nationalist” bourgeoisie regrouped in the Kuomintang, which until then had left the strikes “to get on with it”, since the strikes were mainly focused against the foreign factories and concessions. The strikes in the summer of 1925 generally assumed an anti-bourgeois character, without “respect” for the national capitalists either. Thus, the “revolutionary” and “nationalist” bourgeoisie, with the Kuomintang at its head (backed by the great powers and with the blind support of Moscow), furiously launched itself into a confrontation with its mortal class enemy: the proletariat.

Chiang Kai-shek’s coup and expedition towards the North

In the last months of 1925 and the first months of 1926 there occurred what the historians call the “polarisation of the Left and the Right wings of the Kuomintang”, which according to them includes the fragmentation of the bourgeoisie into two, one part remaining loyal to “nationalism” and the other moving towards an alliance with “imperialism”. However, we have already seen that the most “anti-imperialist” fractions of the bourgeoisie never stopped trying to deal with the “imperialists”. What happened in reality, was not the fractionalisation of the bourgeoisie, but its prepartion to confront the working class, throwing out unnecessary elements inside the Kuomintang (the communist militants, a part of the petty-bourgeoisie and some generals loyal to the USSR). Then, the Kuomintang feeling that it had sufficient political and military force, tore off the mask of “the block of four classes” and appeared as what it always had been: the party of the bourgeoisie.

At the end of 1925, the boss of the “left wing” Liao Chung-K’ai was killed and the harassment of communists began. This was the prelude to Chiang Kai-shek’s coup, which made him the Kuomintang’s strong man, the man to initiate the bourgeois reaction against the proletariat. On 20th March, Chiang, in front of the cadets of the Whampao Military Academy proclaimed martial law in Canton; he then closed down the workers’ organisations, disarmed the strike pickets and arrested many communist militants. In the months that followed, communists were removed from any posts of responsibility in the KMT.

The Executive of the International, completely under the control of Stalin and Bukharin, showed itself to be blind to the reaction of the Kuomintang and despite the resistance from inside the CPC, ordered that the alliance be kept up, hiding these events from the members of the International and the CPs.[6] [17] Chiang Kai-shek brazenly demanded that the USSR support him militarily in order that he could carry out his Northern expedition, which began in July 1926.

As with many other actions of the bourgeoisie, the Northern expedition is falsely presented as a “revolutionary” event, as having the intention of spreading the “revolutionary” régime and unifying China. But the pretensions of the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-shek were not so altruistic. His cherished dream (as with the other warlords) was to possess the port of Shanghai and to obtain from the great powers the administration of its rich customs duties. To this end he relied on a very important element of blackmail: his capacity to contain and crush the workers’ movement.

When the Kuomingtang’s military expedition began, it declared martial law in the regions which it already controlled. Thus, at a time when the deluded workers in the North were preparing to support the forces of the KMT, it was totally banning workers’ strikes in the South. In September the “left wing” took Hankow, but Chiang Kai-shek refused to support it and set himself up in Hanchang. In October he ordered the communists to stop the peasant movement in the South and the army put an end to the strike/boycott in Canton/Hong Kong. This was a clear signal to the great powers (especially Britain) that the Kuomintang’s advance towards the North did not have “anti-imperialist” pretensions and a little time later secret negotiations began with Chaing.

From the end of 1926 the industrial areas along the Yangtze river boiled with agitation. In October the warlord Sia-Chao (who had just gone over to the Kuomintang) advanced on Shanghai, but stopped some kilometers from the city, allowing the “enemy” troops of the North (under the command of Sun Ch’uan-fang) to enter the city first in order to suffocate the imminent uprising. In January 1927, the workers spontaneously occupied the British concessions in Hankow (in the triple city of Wuhan) and Jiujiang. Then, the Kuomintang army halted its advance in order, in the best tradition of reactionary armies, to permit the local warlords to repress the workers’ and peasants’ movements. At the same time, Chaing Kai-shek publicly attacked the communists and crushed the peasant movement in Kwangtung (in the South). Such is the scenario in which it is necessary to place the Shanghai insurrectionary movement.

The Shanghai insurrection

The Shanghai insurrectionary movement marked the culminating point of a decade of constant struggles and rise of the working class. This is the highest point the Revolution in China reached. However, conditions were extremely unfavourable for the working class. The Communist Party found itself disjointed, struck down, subordinated and tied hand and foot by the Kuomintang. The working class deceived by its illusions in the “block of four classes” was unable to give itself the council type unitary organisms necessary for the centralisation of its struggle.[7] [18] Meanwhile, the guns of the imperialist powers were pointed towards the city and the Kuomintang as it was drawing closer to Shanghai supposedly unfurled the flag of the “anti-imperialist revolution”, whose real objective was to crush the workers. Only the revolutionary will and heroism of the working class can explain its capacity to have taken, in these conditions, the city that represented the heart of Chinese capitalism, although it was only for a few days.

The Kuomintang resumed its advance in February 1927. By the 18th, the Nationalist army was in Jiaxing, 60 kilometers from Shanghai. Then, with the prospect of the imminent defeat of Sun Ch’uan fang, a general strike broke out in Shanghai: “the movement of the proletariat in Shanghai, from the 19th to the 24th of February was objectively an attempt by the proletariat of Shanghai to consolidate its hegemony. With the first news of the defeat of Sun Ch’uan fang in Zhejiang, the atmosphere in Shanghai became red hot and in the space of two days, there exploded with the potential of a elemental force a strike of 300,000 workers who transformed it irresistibly into an armed insurrection which ended up achieving nothing, due to a lack of leadership...”.[8] [19]

Taken by surprise, the Communist Party vacillated about launching the slogan of insurrection, while it was taking place on the streets. On the 20th, Chiang Kai-shek once again ordered the suspension of the attack on Shanghai. This was the signal for Sun Ch’uan fang’s forces to unleash repression, in which dozens of workers were killed, momentarily containing the movement.

In the following weeks Chiang Kai-shek, skillfully manoeuvered in order to avoid being relieved of the command of the army and to silence rumours about his alliance with the “right wing”, the great powers and his preparations against the working class.

At last, on the 21st of March, the definitive insurrectional attempt took place. A general strike was proclaimed on this day, in which  practically all the 800,000 workers of Shanghai took part. “The whole proletariat was on strike, as was the greater part of the petty-bourgeoisie (shopkeepers, artisans,etc...) (...) within a few dozen minutes the whole police force was disarmed. By 2 o’clock the insurgents already possessed about 1500 rifles. Immediately afterwards the insurgent forces moved against government buildings and disarmed the troops. Serious fighting tool place in the Chapi neigbourhood (...) Finally, at four in the afternoon, on the second day of the insurrection, the enemy (approximately 3,000 soldiers) were definitively defeated. This wall broken, all of Shanghai (with the exception of the concessions and the international neighbourhood) was in the hands of the insurgents”.[9] [20] This action, after the revolution in Russia and the insurrectional attempts in Germany and other European countries was another blow to the capitalist world order. It showed all the revolutionary potential of the working class. Nevertheless, the bourgeoisie’s repressive apparatus was already working and the proletariat did not find itself in conditions to confront it.

The “revolutionary” bourgeoisie massacres the proletariat.

The workers took Shanghai, only to open the gates to the national “revolutionary” army of the Kuomintang, which finally entered the city. No sooner had he installed himself in Shanghai, than Chiang Kai-shek began to prepare the repression of the workers, reaching an agreement with the speculator bourgeoisie and the city’s underworld gangs. Likewise, he started to approach the representatives of the great powers and the Northern warlords openly. On the 6th April Chang Tso-lin (with Chiang’s agreement) raided the Russian embassy in Peking and arrested militants of the Communist Party who were later murdered.

On the 12th of April a massive and bloody repression organised by Chiang was unleashed in Shanghai. Gangs of lumpenproletarians from the secret societies who had always played the role of strikebreakers were let loose against the workers. The troops of the Kuomintang - the supposed “allies” of  the workers - were directly employed to disarm and arrest the proletarian militias. The proletariat tried to respond on the following day by declaring a general strike, but contingents of demonstrators were intercepted by troops, leading to numerous victims. Martial law was immediately imposed and all workers’ organisations were banned. In a few days five thousand workers were killed, amongst them many militants of the Communist Party. Raids and killings continued for months.

Simultaneously, in a coordinated action, the forces of the Kuomintang that had remained in Canton unleashed another massacre, exterminating thousands more workers.

With the proletarian revolution drowned in the blood of the workers of Shanghai and Canton, there was still resistance particularly in Wuhan. However, here again the Kuomintang, and more specifically its “left wing”, cast off the “revolutionary” mask and in July passed to Chaing’s side unleashing repression here also. Likewise, the military hordes were let loose to destroy and massacre in the countryside of the Central and Southern provinces. The murdered workers throughout China were counted in their tens of thousands.

The Executive of the International tried to cover up its nefarious and criminal policy of class collaboration, by putting the whole responsibility on to the CPC and its central organs, and more specifically on the current which had rightly opposed this policy (that of Chen Tu-hsiu). In order to finish off this work, it ordered the already weak and demoralised Communist Party of China to embark on an adventurist policy which ended in the so-called “Canton insurrection”. This absurd atempted “planned” coup was not supported by the proletariat of Canton and all it achieved was to unleash yet more repression. This practically marked the end of the workers movement in China, from which it would not recover to carry out a significant expression in the following 40 years.

The policy of the International towards China a focus of the Left Opposition’s denouncation of the rise of Stalinism (Trotsky’s current also ended up by incorporating Chen Tu-hsiu). This was a late and confused current of opposition to the degeneration of the 3rd International, and although it maintained itself on the proletariat’s class terrain in respect to China, when it denounced the subordination of the CPC to the Kuomintang as the cause of the defeat of the revolution, it could never overcome the false framework of the Second Congress of the International’s Theses on the national question which, in turn, was one of the factors which would lead it into opportunism (ironically Trotsky supported the new class front in China during the inter-imperialist confrontation of the 30’s), until it passed into the camp of the counter-revolution during the course of the Second World War.[10] [21] In any case, all the revolutionary internationalists who remained in China were henceforth called “Trotskyist” (for years Mao Tse-tung would persecute the few internationalists who still opposed his counter-revolutionary policy as “Trotskyist agents of Japanese imperialism”)

The Communist Party was literally annihilated, with around 25,000 Communists killed at the hands of the Kuomintang while the rest were imprisoned or persecuted. The remnants of the Communist Party, along with some detachments of the Kuomintang fled to the countryside. But this geographical displacement corresponded to a still more profound political displacement. In the following years the Party adopted a bourgeois ideology, its social base - led by the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeosie - was predominantly peasant and took part in inter-bourgeois military campaigns. The Chinese Communist Party, despite having conserved the name, had stopped being a Party of the working class and was converted into a bourgeois organisation. But this is a historical question that will be dealt with in the second part of this article

***

By way of a conclusion, we want to draw out some lessons highlighted by the revolutionary movement in China:

* The Chinese bourgeoisie did not stop being revolutionary only when it launched itself against the proletariat in 1927. Already from the “1911 Revolution” on, the “nationalist” bourgeoisie had demonstrated its readiness to share power with the nobility, to ally itself with the warlords and to subordinate itself to the imperialist powers. Its “democratic”, “anti-imperialist” and even “revolutionary” aspirations were nothing but the cover to hide its reactionary interests, which were exposed when the proletariat began to represent a threat. In the epoch of capitalism’s decadence the bourgeoisie of the weak countries are as reactionary and imperialist as the other powers.

* The class struggle of the proletariat in China from 1919 to 1927 cannot be explained in the purely national context. It constituted a link in the wave of the world revolution that shook capitalism at the beginning of the century. The elemental power with which the workers’ movement arose in China, a section of the world proletariat at that time considered as “weak”, enabled them spontaneously to take into their hands great cities, and demonstrates the potential that the working class has to overthrow the bourgeoisie, although for this to happen it requires revolutionary consciousness and organisation.

* The proletariat can have nothing more to do with making an alliance with any fraction of the bourgeoisie. However, its revolutionary movement can draw behind it sections of the urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie (as the Shanghai insurrection and the Kwangtung peasant movement demonstrated). Nevertheless, the proletariat must not merge its organisations with those of other strata, in some kind of “Front”. On the contrary, it has to maintain its class autonomy at all times.

* To be victorious, the proletariat requires a political party which orientates it in the decisive moments, as much as the council type organisations that cement its unity. In particular, the working class has to provide itself with its World Communist Party, firm in principle and tempered in struggle, in sufficient time, before the explosion of the next international revolutionary wave. Opportunism, which sacrifices the future of the revolution on the altar of immediate “results” and leads to class collaboration must be permanently fought in the ranks of revolutionary organisation.

Leonardo.

In August 1914, the First World War broke out. It was to claim 20 million victims. The determining responsibility of the trades unions, and above all the social-democracy, in the slaughter was clear to all.

In the German Reichstag, in SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) voted unanimously in favour of war credits. At the same time, the unions called for the “sacred union”, banning all strikes and declaring themselves for the mobilisation of all the nation’s forces for war.
This is how the social-democracy justified the vote in favour of war credits by its parliamentary group: “In the time of danger, we will not abandon our fatherland. In this, we feel we are in accord with the International, which has always recognised the right of every people to national independence and self-defence, just as we are in agreement with it in condemning all wars of conquest. Inspired by these principles, we vote the war credits that are demanded”. The fatherland in danger, national defence, a people’s war for civilisation and liberty, were the “principles” on which social-democracy’s parliamentary representatives took their stand.

This was the first great betrayal by a proletarian party in the history of the workers’ movement. As an exploited class, the working class is an international class. This is why internationalism is the most fundamental principle for any proletarian revolutionary organisation; for any organisation to betray this principle leads it inevitably into the enemy camp: the camp of Capital.

German capital could never had started the war had it not been certain of the support of the unions and the leadership of the SPD. While their treachery was thus hardly a surprise for the bourgeoisie, it provoked a terrible shock in the workers’ movement. Even Lenin could not at first believe that the SPD had really voted for war credits. On first hearing the news, he thought that this was black propaganda aimed at dividing the workers’ movement[1] .

Indeed, given the years of increasing imperialist tensions, the IInd International had intervened very early against the preparations for imperialist war. At the Congress of Stuttgart in 1907and of Basle in 1912 – and even right up to the last days of July 1914 – it had taken position against the ruling class’ war-mongering, against the bitter resistance of an already powerful right-wing.

• “Should war nonetheless break out, it is the duty of the social-democracy to bring it swiftly to an end, and use all its strength to exploit the economic and political crisis created by the war to stir up the people and so to hurry the abolition of capitalist domination” (Resolution of the International adopted in 1907, and repeated in 1912).
• “The situation is dangerous, world war looms! The ruling classes which in peace time strangle, despise and exploit you, want to turn you into cannon-fodder. Everywhere there must sound in the despots’ ears: We refuse the war! Down with war! Long live the international fraternisation of peoples!” (Appeal of the SPD central committee on 25the July 1914, only ten days before they approved the war, on 4th August).

The SPD MPs voted for war as representatives of Europe’s greatest workers’ party, the product of decades of labour (often in the most unfavourable conditions, for example in the period of the anti-socialist laws, when the party was banned). The party owned dozens of both daily and weekly publications. In 1899, the SPD possessed 73 papers, whose overall circulation had reached 400,000 copies; 49 of them came out six times a week. In 1900, the party had more than 100,000 members.

The treachery of the SPD leadership thus confronted the revolutionary movement with a fundamental question: could this mass working class organisation be allowed to pass, bags and baggage, into the enemy camp?

The leadership of the German SPD was not alone in its treachery. In Belgium, Vandervelde, the International’s president, became a minister in a bourgeois government, as did socialist Jules Guesde in France. The French Socialist Party declared unanimously in favour of war. In Britain, where there was no conscription, the Labour Party took on the organisation of recruiting. In Austria, although the Socialist Party did not formally vote for war, it conducted a frantic campaign in its favour. In Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Holland, the socialist leaders all voted for war credits. In Poland, the Socialist Party took the position for the war in Galicia and Silesia, but against it in Russian Poland. In Russia, the picture was uneven: the old leaders of the workers’ movement like Plekhanov or the anarchist Kropotkin, but also a handful of Bolsheviks in exile in France, called for defence against German militarism. In Russia itself, the social-democrat fraction in the Duma made a declaration against the war. This was the first official declaration against the war by a parliamentary group in one of the main warring countries. The Italian Socialist Party took position against the war from the outset. In December 1914, the party excluded a group of renegades who, under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, aligned themselves with the pro-Entente bourgeoisie, and made propaganda in favour of the war. The Bulgarian Social Democratic Workers’ Party (Tesniaks) also adopted a firm internationalist position.

The International, the pride of the working class, disintegrated in the flames of the World War, to be transformed, in Rosa Luxemburg’s words, into a “heap of wild beasts in the grip of nationalist fury, tearing each other apart for the greater glory of bourgeois order and morality”. The SPD became a “stinking corpse”. Only a few groups in Germany – Die Internationale, Lichtstrahlen, the Bremen Left – the group around Trotsky and Martov, some of the French syndicalists, the Dutch De Tribune group around Gorter and Pannekoek, and the Bolsheviks, resolutely defended the internationalist standpoint.

Alongside this decisive betrayal by most of the II International’s parties, the working class was subjected to an ideological battering which succeeded in injecting it with a fatal dose of nationalist poison. In 1914, it was not just the petty-bourgeoisie which was enrolled behind Germany’s expansionist aims: whole sectors of the working class were also galvanised by nationalism. Moreover, bourgeois propaganda maintained the illusion that the war would be finished “in a few weeks, by Christmas at the latest”, and everybody would be able to go home.

On the eve of war, despite the extremely unfavourable conditions, the minority of revolutionaries who stood firm on the principle of proletarian internationalism did not give up the struggle.

Revolutionaries and their stand against the war

With the vast majority of the working class still intoxicated with nationalism, on the eve of 4th August 1914, the main representatives of the social-democratic left organised a meeting in Rosa Luxemburg’s flat; present were Käthe and Herman Duncker, Hugo Eberlein, Julian Marchlewski, Franz Mehring, Ernst Meyer, Wilhelm Pieck. They were few, but their activity during the next four years was to have an immense influence.

Several vital questions were on the meeting’s agenda:

• the evaluation of the balance of class forces;
• the evaluation of the balance of forces within the SPD;
• the aims of the struggle against the treason of the party leadership;
• the perspectives and methods of this struggle.

The general situation was obviously very unfavourable. That was no reason for resignation for these revolutionaries. Their attitude was not to reject the organisation, but on the contrary to continue and develop the struggle within it; and to fight determinedly to preserve its proletarian principles.

Within the social-democratic parliamentary group in the Reichstag, the vote in favour of the war credits was preceded by an internal debate where 78 MPs declared themselves for the vote, and 14 against. The 14, including Liebknecht, followed party discipline and voted for the credits. This was kept secret by the SPD leadership.

There was a lot less apparent unity in the party at the local level. Many local sections (Orstvereine) immediately sent protests to the leadership. On 6th August, a crushing majority in the Stuttgart local section defied the parliamentary fraction. The left even managed to exclude the right from the party, and to take control of the local paper. In Hamburg, Laufenberg and Wolfheim rallied the opposition; in Bremen, the Bremerbürger Zeitung intervened determinedly against the war; protests also came from the Braunschweiger Volksfreund, the Gothaer Volksblatt, the Duisburg Der Kampf and from papers in Nuremberg, Halle, Leipzig and Berlin, reflecting the opposition of large sections of the party rank and file. During a meeting at Stuttgart on 21st September 1914, Liebknecht’s attitude was criticised. He himself was to say later that to have acted as he did, under fraction discipline, had been a disastrous mistake. Since every paper was subject to censure from the outbreak of the war, the expressions of protest were immediately reduced to silence. The SPD opposition thus relied on making itself heard abroad. The Swiss Berner Tagwacht became the voice of the SPD left wing; the internationalists also found expression in the review Lichtstrahlen, edited by Borchardt from September 1913 to April 1916.

An examination of the situation inside the SPD shows that although the leadership had betrayed, the organisation as a whole had not been enrolled in the war. This is why the perspective appeared clearly: to defend the organisation, we cannot abandon it to the traitors; we have to exclude them and break clearly with them.

During the meeting at Luxemburg’s flat, the question was posed of leaving the party, either as a mark of protest or out of disgust at its treachery. This idea was unanimously rejected on the grounds that the organisation should not be abandoned, since this would mean offering it on a plate to the ruling class. It was impossible to leave the party, built at the cost of such immense efforts, like rats leaving a sinking ship. This was why fighting for the organisation did not mean leaving it but fighting to reconquer it.

At that moment, nobody thought of leaving the organisation. The balance of forces did not oblige the minority to do so .Nor for the time being was it a matter of building a new, independent organisation. This attitude of Rosa Luxemburg and her comrades set them among the most committed defenders of the need for organisation.

The fact is that the internationalists had begun the combat long before the working class recovered from its intoxication. As a vanguard, they did not wait for the reactions of the working class as a whole, but took the lead in the class’ combat. While the nationalist poison continued its work on the class, which was under the ideological and physical fire of imperialist war, the revolutionaries – in the most difficult conditions of illegality – had already unmasked the conflict’s imperialist nature. Here again, in their work against the war, the revolutionaries did not simply wait for wider fractions of the proletariat to come to consciousness by themselves. The internationalists assumed their responsibilities as revolutionaries, as members of a proletarian political organisation. Not a day passed during the war when the future Spartakists were not working to defend the organisation and lay the foundations for the break with the traitors. This was a far cry from the so-called spontaneism of Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartakists.

The revolutionaries immediately entered into contact with internationalists in other countries. As their best-known representative, Liebknecht was sent abroad and made contact with the Socialist Parties in Belgium and Holland.

The struggle against the war was fought at two levels: first, in Parliament, which the Spartakists could still use as a tribune; and second, more importantly, through the development of a network of resistance at local level in the party and in direct contact with the working class.

It was thus that in Germany, Liebnecht was to become the standard-bearer of the struggle.

Within Parliament, he succeeded in drawing more and more deputies to him. Clearly at first, fear and hesitation dominated. But on 22nd October 1914, five SPD deputies left the chamber in protest; on 2nd December, Liebknecht was alone in voting against war credits, but in March 1915 about 30 deputies left the chamber, and a year later in August 1916, 36 deputies voted against the credits.

Of course the real centre of gravity lay in the activity of the working class itself, on the one hand at the roots of the workers’ parties and on the other in the workers’ mass actions, both in the streets and in the factories.

Immediately after the outbreak of war, the revolutionaries had clearly and energetically taken a position on its imperialist nature [2]. In April 1915, the first and only issue of Die Internationale was published; 9,000 copies were printed and 5,000 were sold on the first evening (hence the name of the group “Die Internationale”).

The first illegal anti-war leaflets were distributed during the winter of 1914-15, including the most famous of them: “The main enemy is in our own country”.

Propaganda material against the war circulated in many local meetings of militants. Liebknecht’s refusal to vote for war credits was well-known and quickly made him the most famous adversary of the war, first in Germany and then in the neighbouring countries. All the positions taken up by the revolutionaries were considered as “highly dangerous” by the bourgeois security services. In the local meetings of militants, representatives of the traitorous party leaders denounced militants who distributed propaganda material against the war. Often the latter would be arrested following the meeting. The SPD was split to the core. Hugo Eberlein was to report, during the KPD’s founding Congress on 31st December 1918, that links existed with more than 300 towns. To put an end to the growing anti-war resistance in party ranks, the leadership decided in January 1915, in agreement with the military High Command, to silence Liebknecht definitively by drafting him into the army. This meant he could no longer speak freely or take part in meetings of militants. On 18th February, Rosa Luxemburg was imprisoned until February 1916; in July she was arrested again and remained in prison until October 1918. In September 1915, Ernst Meyer, Hugo Eberlein and the 70-year-old Franz Mehring, were all imprisoned, with many others.

Even in these extremely difficult conditions they continued to work against the war and did everything they could to continue their organisational work.

Meanwhile, the reality of war was beginning to sober more and more workers from their nationalist intoxication. The offensive in France had broken down and had been replaced by a long trench war. By the end of 1914, 800,000 soldiers had already died. In the spring of 1915, the war in the trenches of France and Belgium cost hundreds of thousands of lives. On the Somme, 60,000 soldiers died in one day. Disillusionment spread rapidly at the front, but above all the working class on the home front was plunged into dire misery. Women were mobilised into armaments factories while food prices rose terribly, to be followed by rationing. March 18 1915 saw the first women’s demonstration against the war. On 15th and 18th October there were bloody confrontations between police and demonstrators against the war in Chemnitz. In November 1915, some 15,000 demonstrators marched in Berlin against the war. The working class was stirring in other countries too. In Austria, numerous wildcat strikes broke out, against the orders of the unions. In Britain, 250,000 miners from the South Wales coalfields went on strike; in Scotland, strikes broke out among the engineers of the Clyde Valley. In France, there were strikes in the textile industry.

Slowly, the working class began to emerge from the fog of nationalism and to show its readiness to defend its interests as an exploited class. Everywhere, the “sacred union” began to tremble.

The reaction of revolutionaries internationally

An epoch ended with the outbreak of World War I and the treason of the parties of the IInd International. The International died because several of its member parties no longer represented an internationalist orientation. They had ranged themselves alongside their respective national bourgeoisies. An International made up of different national member parties does not betray as such; it dies and no longer has any part to play for the working class. It can no longer be corrected as such.

But the war had clarified things within the international workers’ movement: on the one hand were the traitor parties; on the other the revolutionary left which continued to defend class positions coherently and inflexibly, but which formed at first a small minority. Between the two stood a centrist current, oscillating between the traitors and the internationalists, constantly hesitating to take unambiguous positions, and refusing to break clearly with the social-patriots. In Germany itself, opposition to the war divided into several groups:

• the hesitant, most of whom belonged to the social-democratic parliamentary fraction in the Reichstag: Haase and Ledebour were the best known;
• the group around Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, Die Internationale, which from 1916 took the name Spartakusbund;
• the groups around the Bremen Left (the Bremerbürger Zeitung was published from July 1916) headed by Johann Knief and Karl Radek, the group around Julian Borchardt (Lichstrahlen), with some other towns (in Hamburg around Wolfheim and Laufenburg; in Dresden around Otto Rhüle). At the end of 1915, the Bremen Left merged with the Borchardt group to form the Internationale Sozialisten Deutschlands (ISD).

After a first phase of disorientation and lost contacts, from the spring of 1915 onwards, international conferences of Socialist Women (26-28th March) and Young Socialists (5-7th April) were held in Bern. After several adjournments, from 5-8th September, 37 delegates from 12 European countries met in Zimmerwald (not far from Bern). The biggest delegation from Germany, with 10 delegates from three opposition groups: the centrists, the Die Internationale group (Meyer, Thalheimer), and the ISD (Borchardt). Whereas the centrists called for an end to the war without any social upheaval, the left made the link between war and revolution the central question. After bitter discussion, the Zimmerwald conference broke up, adopting a Manifesto calling on the workers in every country to struggle for the emancipation of the working class and the goal of socialism, by the most intransigent proletarian struggle. By contrast, the centrists refused to include any reference to the need for an organisational break with social-chauvinism, or to the call to overthrow one’s own imperialist government. Nonetheless, the Zimmerwald Manifesto had a huge echo in the working class and among the troops. Despite being a compromise, criticised by the left because the centrists still hesitated in the face of clear cut positions, the Manifesto was nonetheless a decisive step in the unification of revolutionary forces.

In a previous article in the International Review, we have already criticised the Die Internationale group, which at first hesitated over the need to transform the imperialist war into a civil war.

The balance of forces begins to change

The revolutionaries thus gave an impetus to their process of unification and their intervention encountered and ever greater echo.

On 1st May 1916, some 10,000 workers demonstrated against the war. Liebknecht spoke, to shout out “Down with the war! Down with the government!” At these words, he was arrested, which sparked off a huge wave of protest. Liebknecht’s courageous intervention served as a stimulus and orientation for the workers. The revolutionaries’ determination to struggle against the social-patriotic current, to continue the defence of proletarian principles, did not lead them into greater isolation, but encouraged the rest of the working class to enter the struggle.

In May 1916, the Beuthen miners struck for a wage increase. In Leipzig, Brunswick and Koblenz, workers demonstrated against hunger and the cost of living. A state of siege was decreed in Leipzig. The action of the revolutionaries, and the fact that despite the censorship and banning of meetings, news about the growing resistance to the war began to spread, gave further impetus to the combativity of the working class as a whole.

On 27th May 1916, 25,000 Berlin workers demonstrated against Liebknecht’s arrest. The next day, 55,000 workers began the first political mass strike against his imprisonment. In Brunswick, Bremen, Leipzig and many other towns, there were solidarity meetings and demonstrations against food shortages. Workers’ meetings were held in a dozen towns. Here we have a clear concretisation of the relationship between revolutionaries and the working class. The revolutionaries are neither outside nor above the working class, they are simply its clearest and most determined part, gathered together in political organisations. But their influence depends on the receptivity of the working class as a whole. Even if the number of elements organised in the Spartakist movement was still small, hundreds of thousands of workers nonetheless followed their slogans. More and more, they were the spokesmen for the spirit of the masses.

Consequently, the bourgeoisie did everything it could to isolate the revolutionaries from the class, by a wave of repression. Many members of the Spartakist League were placed in preventative detention. Rosa Luxembourg and almost the entire Spartakus central committee were arrested during the second half of 1916. Many Spartakists were denounced by SPD bureaucrats for having distributed leaflets in the SPD’s meetings; the police gaols filled up with Spartakist militants.

While the massacres on the Western front (especially at Verdun) claimed more and more victims, the bourgeoisie demanded more and more of the workers on the home front, in the factories. No war can be fought unless the working class is ready to sacrifice its entire life for the profit of capital. Now, the ruling class was encountering an increasingly strong resistance.

Protests against hunger developed constantly (the population was only receiving a third of its needs in calories). During the autumn of 1916, protests and demonstrations took place almost daily in the great towns: September in Kiel, November in Dresden, a movement of the Ruhr miners in January 1917. The balance of forces between capital and labour was little by little being overturned. Within the SPD, the social-patriotic leadership encountered more and more difficulties. Despite its collaboration with the police, which arrested and sent to the front any oppositional worker, and despite its ability to keep a majority in the votes within the party through manipulation, the leadership was unable to put down the growing resistance to its attitude. Bit by bit, the revolutionary minority began to gain influence within the party. From the autumn of 1916, more and more of the local sections (Orstvereine) refused to pay their dues to the leadership.

By unifying its forces, the opposition from this moment on tried to eliminate the central committee in order to take control of the party.

The SPD central committee could see clearly that the balance of forces was beginning to go against it. Following the meeting of a national conference of the opposition, on 7th January 1917, the central committee decided to expel the entire opposition. The split had come. An organisational break was inevitable. Internationalist activity, and the political life of the working class, could hence forth no longer develop within the SPD but only outside it. Following the expulsion of revolutionary minorities, all proletarian life in the SPD was extinguished. Work within the SPD was no longer possible: the revolutionaries had to organise outside[3] .

The opposition was henceforth confronted with a question: what sort of organisation? Suffice it to say here, that during this period of spring 1917 the different currents in the German Left went in different directions.

In a future article we will go, at greater depth, into an appreciation of the organisational work at that time.

The Russian Revolution: the beginning of the revolutionary wave

At the same time, internationally, the pressure of the working class was going beyond a decisive threshold. In February (March by the Western calendar), the workers and soldiers in Russia once again, as they had done in 1905, created their workers’ and soldiers councils. The Tsar was overthrown. A revolutionary process began which was very soon to spread to neighbouring countries and throughout the world. The event gave birth to an immense hope in the workers’ ranks.

The struggle’s further development can only be understood in the light of the Russian Revolution. The fact that the working class had overthrown the ruling class in one country, that it had begun to shake the foundations of capitalism, acted as a beacon showing the direction to follow. And the working class throughout the world began to look in this direction.

The working class’s struggle in Russia met a powerful echo, and above all in Germany.

A wave of strikes broke out in the Ruhr between 16-22nd February 1917. Mass actions took place in many German towns. Not a week passed without some important act of resistance, demands for higher wages or better provisions. Disorders due to problems of food supply were reported in almost all the great cities. When a new reduction in food rations was announced in April, the workers’ anger overflowed. From 16th April, a great wave of mass strikes broke out in Berlin, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Hanover, Brunswick and Dresden. The army chiefs of staff, the main bourgeois politicians, and the leaders of the SPD and the unions all worked together to try to control the strike movement.

More than 300,000 workers in 30 factories were on strike. This was the second great mass strike after the struggles in July 1916 over Liebknecht’s arrest.

• “Innumerable meetings took place in halls, or in the open air, speeches were made and resolutions adopted. The state of siege was broken and reduced to nothing in an instant, as soon as the masses entered into movement and took determined possession of the street” (Spartakusbriefe, April 1917).

The working class in Germany thus followed closely in the steps of its class brothers in Russia, who were confronting capital in a gigantic revolutionary struggle.

They fought with exactly the methods described by Rosa Luxemburg in her pamphlet The Mass Strike, written after the struggles of 1905: mass meetings, demonstrations, discussions and common resolutions in the factories, factory assemblies, right up to the formation of workers’ councils.

Since the unions had been integrated into the state in 1914, they had served as a rampart against the reaction of the working class. They sabotaged the struggle by every means available. The proletariat had to act by itself, organise by itself and unify by itself. No organisation created in advance could spare it this task. And the workers in Germany, the most developed country of its time, showed that they could organise themselves. Contrary to all the speeches we hear today, the working class is perfectly capable of entering massively into struggle and of organising to do so. In this perspective, the struggle could no longer take place within the union and reformist framework, that is by industrial branch, separated from each other. The working class showed that henceforth, it is capable of uniting irrespective of trade or industry, and of entering into action for demands shared by all: bread and peace, and the liberation of its revolutionary militants. Everywhere the demand went up for Liebknecht’s liberation.

Struggles can no longer be carefully prepared in advance, as if by a general staff, as they were in the previous century. The task of the political organisation is not to organise the workers but to assume the role of political leadership.

During the 1917 strike wave in Germany, the workers confronted the unions directly for the first time. Although the latter had been created by the class itself during the previous century, from the outset of the war they had become the defenders of capital in the factories and henceforth formed an obstacle to proletarian struggle. The workers in Germany were the first to discover that they could only go forward by going against the unions

The beginning of the Russian Revolution had its first effects among the soldiers. The revolutionary events were discussed with immense enthusiasm; fraternisation between German and Russian troops was frequent on the Eastern front. In the summer of 1917, the first mutinies took place in the German fleet. Here too bloody repression could stifle the first flames but it could no longer put a halt to the revolutionary movement in the long term.

The partisans of Spartakus and the Bremen Linksradikalen had a strong influence among the sailors.

In the industrial towns, the working class counter-attack continued to develop from the Ruhr to central Germany, from Berlin to the Baltic, everywhere the working class confronted the bourgeoisie. On 16th April, the workers of Leipzig published a call to the workers of other towns to unite with them.

The intervention of revolutionaries

The Spartakists were to be found in the forefront of these movements. From the spring of 1917 they recognised the significance of the movement in Russia and extended a bridge in the direction of the Russian working class, putting forward the perspective of the international extension of the revolutionary struggles. In their pamphlets, in their leaflets, in their polemics towards the working class they intervened ceaselessly against the centrists who with their oscillation and hesitations avoided taking clear positions. They contributed to an understanding of the new situation, ceaselessly exposed the betrayal of the social-patriots and showed the working class how to rediscover the path onto its own class terrain.

In particular, the Spartakists constantly put forward the positions that:

• if the working class developed an adequate balance of forces it would be able to end the war and push back the capitalist class;
• in the context of this perspective it was necessary to take up the revolutionary flame that the working class in Russia had lit.

At this level, the proletariat in Germany occupied a central and decisive position!

• “In Russia the workers and peasants (…) have overthrown the old czarist government and taken control of their own destiny. Strikes and work stoppages of such unity and tenacity as there are now ensure not only small victories but an end to the genocide and the overthrow of the German government and of the domination of the exploiters (…) Throughout the period of the war the working class has never been so powerful as now when it displays unity and solidarity in its action and in its combat; the ruling class never so mortal (…) Only the German revolution can bring to all peoples the peace that is so fiercely desired, and freedom. The victorious Russian revolution together with the victorious German revolution are invincible. From the day that the German government collapses – and with it German militarism – under the revolutionary blows of the proletariat, a new era will be opened up: an era in which capitalist wars, exploitation and oppression will disappear for ever” (Spartakist leaflet, April 1917).
• “We must break the domination of the reaction and of the imperialist classes in Germany if we want to put an end to the genocide (…) it’s only through the struggle of the masses, through the uprising of the masses through mass strikes that halt all economic activity and the whole of the war industry, it’s only through the revolution and the conquest of the people’s republic in Germany that the genocide can be stopped and that peace can be generally established. And it’s also only in this way that the Russian revolution can be saved.”
• “The catastrophic situation internationally can only serve to break the international proletariat. Only the world proletarian revolution can end the world imperialist war” (Spartakusbriefe no 6, August 1917).

The radical left was aware of its responsibility and fully understood what was at stake if the revolution in Russia remained isolated: “…On the fate of the Russian revolution: it will attain its objective only if it is a prologue to the European revolution of the proletariat. If on the other hand the European, German workers go on behaving as if they were spectators at this fascinating drama, gawping at it, then the power of the Russian soviets awaits the same destiny as the Paris Commune (that is, bloody defeat)” (Spartakus, January 1918).

That is why it was necessary for the proletariat in Germany, which was in a key position to extend the revolution, to become conscious of its historic role. “The German proletariat is the most faithful, the surest ally of the Russian revolution and of the international proletarian revolution” (Lenin)

A look at the content of the Spartakists’ intervention shows us that it was clearly internationalist and that it gave a correct orientation to the workers’ struggles: the overthrow of the bourgeois government with the perspective of the international overthrow of capitalist society; the exposure of the sabotaging tactics of those forces that were in the service of the bourgeoisie.

The vital necessity for the extension of the revolution to the central countries of capitalism

Although the revolutionary movement that began in Russia in February 1917 was mainly directed against the war it did not have the strength of itself to end that war by itself. To do that it was absolutely vital that the working class in the large industrial bastions of capitalism enter onto the scene. And it was with a profound awareness of this necessity that when the soviets seized power in October 1917, the Russian proletariat launched an appeal to all the workers of the belligerent countries:

• “The government of workers and peasants created by the revolution of 24/25 October and with the soviets of workers, soldiers and peasants as its base, proposes that all peoples of the belligerent countries and their governments participate in negotiations for a fair and democratic peace” (26 November, 1917)

For its part the world bourgeoisie was aware of the danger to its domination posed by such a situation. That is why it was bound at that moment to do all in its power to stifle the flame that had been lit in Russia. That is why the German bourgeoisie, with the general blessing of all, continued its war offensive against Russia even after it had signed a peace agreement with the soviet government at Brest-Litovsk in January 1918. In their leaflet entitled “The moment of decision”, the Spartakists published a warning to the workers about this:

• “The decisive moment is now at hand for the German proletariat! Be on your guard! Because the aim of the German government is to throw dust in the eyes of the people with these negotiations, to prolong and increase the misery and distress of the genocide. The government and the German imperialists are simply following their old aims with new means. Under cover of the right of nations to self-determination they have set up puppet states in the occupied Russian provinces which are condemned to a pseudo-existence, being economically and politically dependent on their German ‘liberators’ who will then of course, swallow them up at the first favourable opportunity”.

However another year was to pass before the working class in the industrial centres was sufficiently strong to push back the murderous arms of imperialism.

But from 1917 onwards the reverberations of the victorious revolution in Russia on the one hand and the imperialists’ intensification of the war on the other pushed the workers more and more to want to put an end to the war.

The revolutionary flame did in fact spread to other countries.

• In Finland, January 1918, a workers’ executive committee was formed to prepare the seizure of power. These struggles were to be defeated militarily on March 1918. The German army alone mobilised more than 15,000 soldiers. The number of workers massacred was to rise to more than 25,000 dead.
• 15th January 1918 saw a political mass strike in Vienna which spread to almost the entire Hapsburg empire. Huge demonstrations for peace took place in Brunn, Budapest, Graz, Prague, Vienna and other cities.
• A workers’ council was formed to unite the various actions of the working class. On 1st February 1918 the sailors of the Austro-Hungarian fleet rose up in the naval port of Cattaro against the continuation of the war and fraternised with the striking workers of the arsenal.
• In the same period strikes were taking place in England, France and Holland (see the article on this in the International Review no 80, https://en.internationalism.org/content/3623/first-revolutionary-wave-world-proletariat [35])

The January struggles: the SPD as the bourgeoisie’s spearhead against the working class

As the German offensive continued against the young workers’ revolutionary power in Russia, the anger within the workers’ ranks overflowed. On 28th January 400,000 workers, mainly in the armaments factories, went on strike in Berlin. On 29th January the number of strikers rose to as many as 500,000. The movement spread to other cities: in Munich a general assembly of strikers launched the following appeal: “The workers of Munich send their fraternal greetings to the Belgian, French, English, Italian, Russian and American workers. We feel at one with them in their determination to put an end to the world war … We want to impose world peace in solidarity … Proletarians of all countries, unite!” (Quoted by R Müller, p 148 [of his 3-volume history of the German Revolution]).

During the mass movement, the most important of the war, the proletarians formed a workers’ council in Berlin. A Spartakist leaflet addressed them thus:

• “We must create a freely-elected organ on the Russian and Austrian model to represent us whose task is to direct this and the future struggles. Each factory to elect one man of confidence for 1,000 workers”. In all, more than 1800 delegates met. Elsewhere the leaflet says: “union officials, governmental socialists and other pillars of the war effort should in no way be elected onto these delegations … These men of straw and voluntary agents of the government, these mortal enemies of the mass strike, have no business among the workers in struggle! … At the time of the mass strike in April 1917 they broke the back of the strike movement in the most perfidious way by exploiting the confusions of the masses and orienting the movement towards false paths … These wolves in sheep’s clothing are a much more serious threat to the movement than are the police of imperial Prussia”.
  At the heart of the demands we find: peace, the adherence of workers’ representatives in all countries to the peace negotiations… The assembly of workers’ councils for its part stated: “We address the present appeal to the workers in Germany and to those of all the belligerent countries and call on them to enter simultaneously into mass strike, as our comrades in Austria-Hungary have already done successfully because only the solidarity of the international class struggle can bring peace, freedom and bread definitively.”

Another Spartakist leaflet stresses: “We must speak Russian in response to the reaction.” They called for street demonstrations in solidarity.

Given that the struggle had involved a million workers the ruling class was to chose a tactic that it would subsequently employ again and again against the working class. It was the SPD that was the bourgeoisie’s spearhead in torpedoing the movement from within. By taking advantage of the still-significant influence that it enjoyed among the workers this treacherous party managed to send three of its own representatives into the action committee, into the leadership of the strike, who did all they could to break the movement. They acted as saboteurs from within. Ebert clearly recognises this: “I went into the leadership of the strike with the deliberate intention of rapidly finishing it and saving the country from any harm … It was the ultimate duty of the workers to support their brothers and fathers at the front and supply them with the best arms. The workers of France and England don’t miss an hour’s work that can help their brothers at the front. Obviously, all Germans wish for victory,” (Ebert, 30th January, 1918). The workers were to pay a very high price for their illusions in social democracy and its leaders.

In 1914 the SPD had mobilised the workers for war, now they did all in their power to block the strikes. This shows the clear-sightedness and survival instinct of the ruling class, its awareness of the danger that the working class represents to it. The Spartakists for their part denounced long and loud the deadly danger that social-democracy represented and warned the proletariat against it. To the perfidious methods of social-democracy the ruling class added direct and brutal interventions against the strikers with the help of the army. A dozen workers were cut down and several tens of thousands were forcibly enlisted… although the latter contributed to the destabilisation of the army by agitating within it in the following months.

The strikes were finally broken on 3rd February.

We can see that the working class in Germany used exactly the same means of struggle as it did in Russia: mass strikes, workers’ councils, elected and revocable delegates, massive street demonstrations … and these have subsequently constituted the “classic” weapons of the working class.

The Spartakists developed a correct orientation for the movement but did not yet have a decisive influence. “There were a number of our militants among the delegates but they were dispersed, had no plan of action and were lost among the masses,” (Barthel, p591)

This weakness on the part of the revolutionaries, together with social democracy’s work of sabotage, were the decisive factors that led to the impasse that the movement of the class experienced at that moment.

• “If we had not gone into the strike committee I’m sure that the war and everything with it would have dissipated in January. There was the danger of a total collapse and the eruption of a situation like that in Russia. Because of our action the strike was soon ended and order restored” (Scheidemann).

The movement in Germany came up against a much stronger enemy than in Russia. The capitalist class here had in fact already learnt its lesson in order to do all in its power against the working class. Already at this time the SPD proved its ability to set traps to break the movement by taking the lead in it. In later struggles this was to prove even more destructive.

The defeat in January 1918 gave the capitalist forces the possibility to continue their war for a few more months. During 1918 the army was to engage in other offensives. For Germany alone and in 1918 only, this cost 550,000 deaths and almost a million wounded.

The workers’ combativity had still not been broken after the events of January 1918, in spite of everything. Under the pressure of the worsening military situation, a growing number of solders deserted and the front began to disintegrate. From the summer onwards, not only did the willingness to struggle begin to develop again in the factories but the army chiefs were also forced to acknowledge that they were unable to keep the soldiers at the front. For the bourgeoisie, a cease-fire consequently became an urgent necessity.

The ruling class thus showed that it had drawn the lessons of what had happened in Russia.

Although in April 1917 the German bourgeoisie had let Lenin cross Germany in a sealed train in the hope that the action of the Russian revolutionaries would lead to a development of chaos in Russia and so facilitate the realisation of Germany’s imperialist aims (the German army did not foresee at the time that what would ensue was the proletarian revolution of 1917), now they had at all costs to avoid an identical revolutionary development as that in Russia.

So the SPD entered the newly-formed bourgeois government to act as a brake on the movement. “In the circumstances if we refuse to collaborate we must expect a very serious danger … that the movement will overreach us and a Bolshevik regime momentarily appears at home too” (G Noske, 23.09.18)

At the end of 1918 the factories were once more in ferment, strikes broke out constantly in different places. It was just a matter of time before the mass strike movement was spread over the whole country. The growing combativity supplied the soil to nourish the action of the soldiers. When the army ordered a new offensive of the fleet in October, mutinies broke out. The sailors at Kiel and other Baltic ports refused to go to sea. On 3rd November a wave of protests and strikes took place against the war. Workers and soldiers councils were created everywhere. In the space of a week the whole of Germany was “submerged” by a wave of workers’ and soldiers councils.

In the period after February 1917 in Russia it had been the continuation of the war by the Kerensky government that had given a decisive push to the struggle of the proletariat, to the point that the government was driven from power in October so that a definitive end could be made to the imperialist butchery. In Germany the ruling class was better armed than the Russian bourgeoisie and did all it could to maintain its power.

So on 11 November, just a week after the development of workers’ struggles and their lightening extension and after the appearance of workers’ councils, the German bourgeoisie signed the armistice. Drawing the lessons of the Russian experience they did not make the mistake of provoking a fatal radicalisation of the proletarian wave by continuing the war at all costs. By ending it they tried to cut the ground from beneath the feet of the movement and so block its extension. Moreover they introduced into the campaign their most important piece of artillery: the SPD with the unions at its side.

• “By entering the ministry, governmental socialism has set itself up as the defender of capitalism and bars the road to the growing proletarian revolution. The proletarian revolution will walk over its corpse,” (Spartakusbriefe no. 12, October 1918).

At the end of December Rosa Luxemburg stated: “In all previous revolutions the opponents confronted each other in an open way, class against class, sword against shield … In today’s revolution the troops that defend the old order are not drawn up under their own flag and in the uniform of the ruling class … but under the flag of the revolution. It is a socialist party that has become the most important instrument of the bourgeois counter-offensive”.

In a future article we will go into the counter-revolutionary role of the SPD when confronted with the further development of the struggles.

The end of the war made possible by the action of revolutionaries

The working class in Germany would never have been able to develop its capacity to put a stop to the imperialist butchery without the constant participation and intervention of revolutionaries within its ranks. The transformation from the situation of nationalist intoxication in which the working class was steeped in 1914 to the uprising of November 1918 which put an end to the war was possible only by the virtue of the tireless activity of revolutionaries. It was not pacifism that made the end of the massacres possible but the revolutionary uprising of the proletariat.

If from the beginning the internationalists had not courageously exposed the betrayal of the social patriots, if they had not raised their voices loud and clear in the assemblies, factories, in the streets, if they had not determinedly unmasked the saboteurs of the class struggle, the working class response could not have developed and could still less have reached a climax.

By casting a clear glance at this period in the history of the workers’ movement and assessing it from the point of view of the work of revolutionaries we can draw out the crucial lessons for today.

The handful of revolutionaries who continued to defend internationalist principles in August 1914 did not allow themselves to be intimidated or demoralised by their reduced numbers and the enormity of the task they had to accomplish. They maintained their confidence in their class and continued to intervene resolutely, in spite of the immense difficulties, to try and reverse the balance of class forces which was particularly unfavourable. In the party’s sections the revolutionaries rallied their forces as rapidly as possible and never turned their back on their responsibilities.

By defending excellent political orientations before the workers on the basis of a correct analysis of imperialism and the balance of forces between classes they showed the real perspective with the greatest clarity and they served to orient their class politically.

Their defence of the political organisation of the proletariat was also consistent. They did so as much when the point was not to abandon the SPD in the hands of the traitors without a struggle as when it was necessary to build a new organisation. In the next issue we will go into the main elements of this combat.

From the beginning of the war the revolutionaries intervened to defend proletarian internationalism, the international unification of revolutionaries (Zimmerwald and Kienthal) as well as that of the working class as a whole.

Because they realised that the war could not be ended by pacifist means but only through class war, civil war, and that it was therefore necessary to overthrow capitalist domination to free the world from barbarism, they intervened concretely to go beyond capitalist society.

This political work could not have been possible without the theoretical and programmatic clarification carried out before the war. Their fight, led by Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin, was in continuity with the positions of the Left within the Second International.

We can say that although the number of revolutionaries and their impact was small at the beginning of the war (Rosa Luxemburg’s apartment had room to hold the main militants of the left on 4th August 1914; all the delegates at Zimmerwald were able to get into three taxis), their work was to prove decisive. Even though at the beginning only small numbers of their press were circulated, the positions and orientations that they contained were crucial for the further development of the consciousness and the combat of the working class.

All this must serve as an example and open our eyes to the importance of the work of revolutionaries. In 1914 the class still needed four years to get over its defeat and present a massive opposition to the war. Today the workers of the industrial centres are not tearing each other to pieces in an imperialist butchery; they must defend themselves against more and more wretched living conditions that capitalism in crisis imposes upon them.

But in the same way as at the beginning of the century when they would never have been able to put an end to the war if the revolutionaries among them and not fought clearly and decisively, to carry out its struggle today and carry out its responsibilities as a revolutionary class, the working class urgently needs its political organisations and their intervention. We will concretise this point in future articles.  DV

International Review 81, 2nd Quarter 1995

As this series has developed, we have shown how Marx’s revolutionary work went through different phases corresponding to the changing conditions of bourgeois society, and of the class struggle in particular. The last decade of his life, following the defeat of the Paris Commune and the dissolution of the First International, was therefore, as in the 1850s, primarily devoted to scientific research and theoretical reflection rather than open militant activity.

A considerable part of Marx’s energies during this pe­riod was directed towards his mammoth critique of bour­geois political economy, to the remaining volumes of Capital, which were never completed by him. Ill health certainly played a considerable part in this. But what has come to light in recent years is the extent to which Marx during this period was “distracted” by questions which, at first sight, might appear to represent a diversion from this key aspect of his life’s work: we refer to the anthropologi­cal and ethnological preoccupations stimulated by the ap­pearance of Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society in 1877. The degree to which Marx was absorbed in these issues has been revealed by the publication in 1974 of his Ethnological Notebooks, which he had worked on in the period 1881-2, and which were the basis for Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. Engels wrote the latter as a “bequest” to Marx, in other words in recognition of the central importance that Marx accorded to the scientific study of earlier forms of human society, in particular those preceding the formation of classes and the state.

Closely related to these investigations was Marx’s growing interest in the Russian question, which had devel­oped from the early seventies but was given considerable impetus by the publication of Morgan’s book. It is well known that Marx’s reflections on the problems posed to the nascent revolutionary movement in Russia prompted him to learn Russian and accumulate a huge library of books on Russia. He was even led to conceal from Engels - who had to nag Marx constantly to press on to the completion of Capital - the amount of time he was devoting to the Russian question.

These preoccupations of the “Late” Marx have given rise to conflicting interpretations and controversies which bear comparison to the arguments over the work of the “Young” Marx. There is for example the view of Ryzanov, who on behalf of the Moscow Marx-Engels Institute published Marx’s letter to Vera Zasulich and its preceding drafts in 1924, after they had been “buried” by elements in the Russian marxist movement (Zasulich, Axelrod, Plekhanov, etc). According to Ryzanov, Marx’s absorption in these matters, particularly the Russian question, was essentially the result of Marx’s declining intellectual powers. Others, in particular elements who have been on the “edge” of the proletarian political movement, such as Raya Dunayevskaya and Franklin Rosemont [1], have correctly argued against such ideas and have attempted to draw out the importance of the “Late” Marx’s concerns. But in doing so they have introduced a number of confusions that open the door wide to a bour­geois misuse of this phase of Marx’s work.

The article that follows is not at all an attempt to inves­tigate the Ethnological Notebooks, Marx’s writings on Russia, or even Engels’ Origins of the Family in the depth that they require. The Notebooks in particular are almost unchartered territory and require a huge amount of explo­ration and “decoding’: they are very much in note form, a collection of marginal notes and extracts, and much of this written in a curious mixture of English and German. Furthermore, most of the “excavation” that has been done on them so far concerns the section dealing with Morgan’s book. This was certainly the most important section and served as the principal basis for The Origins of the Family. But the Notebooks also include Marx’s notes on JB Phear’s The Aryan Village (a study of communal social forms in India), HS Maine’s Lectures on the Early History of Institutions (which focuses on the vestiges of communal so­cial formations in Ireland) and J Lubbock’s The Origins of Civilisation, which reveals Marx’s interest in the ideologi­cal creations of primitive societies, particularly the devel­opment of religion). There is a great deal that could be said about the latter in particular, but we have no intention of trying to go into these problems here. Our aim is the much more limited one of affirming the importance and relevance of Marx’s work on these areas, while at the same time criti­cising certain of the false interpretations that have been made of them.

The family, private property, and the state are not eternal

This is not the first time in this series that Marx’s inter­est in the question of “primitive communism” has come up. We have shown, for example, in International Review no.75, that the Grundrisse and Capital already defend the notion that the first human societies were characterised by an absence of class ex­ploitation and private property; that vestiges of these com­munal forms had persisted in all the pre-capitalist class systems; and that these vestiges, together with the half-dis­torted memories that lived on in popular consciousness, had frequently provided the basis for the revolts of exploited classes in these systems. Capitalism, by generalising com­modity relations and the economic war of each against all, had effectively dissolved these communal remnants (at least in those countries where it had taken root); but in doing so had laid the material foundations for a higher form of communism. The recognition that the further back you traced the history of human society, the more you found it to be based on communal forms of property, was already a vital argument against the bourgeois notion that commu­nism was somehow against the fundamentals of human na­ture.

The publication of Morgan’s study of American Indian society (in particular the Iroquois) was thus of considerable importance to Marx and Engels. Although Morgan was no revolutionary, his empirical studies provided a striking con­firmation of the thesis of primitive communism, making it plain that institutions which, as foundation stones of the bourgeois order, were deemed to be eternal and immutable, had a history: they had not existed at all in remote epochs, had emerged only through a long and tortuous process, had altered in form as society had altered in form - and could thus be altered and indeed abolished in a different kind of society.

Morgan’s view of history was not altogether the same as that of Marx and Engels, but it was not incompatible with the materialist view. In fact it laid considerable stress on the central importance of the production of life’s necessities as a factor in the evolution of one social form into another, and attempted to systematise a series of stages in human history (“savagery”, “barbarism”, “civilisation”, and vari­ous sub-phases within these epochs) that Engels essentially took over in his Origins of the Family. This periodisation was extremely important for understanding the whole pro­cess of historical development and the origins of class soci­ety. Furthermore, in Marx’s previous works, the source material for studying primitive communism was mainly drawn from archaic, and extinct, European social forms (eg the Teutonic and the classical) or those communal vestiges which persisted in the Asiatic systems being wiped out by colonial development. Now Marx and Engels were able to broaden the scope by extending their study to peoples who were still in the “pre-civilised” stage, but whose institutions were advanced enough to make it possible to understand the mechanics of the transition from primitive or rather bar­barian society to a society based on class divisions. In short, this was a living laboratory for the study of evolving social forms. Small wonder that Marx was so enthusiastic and strove to understand it in such depth. Pages and pages of his notes go into vast detail about the kinship patterns, customs and social organisation of the tribes that Morgan studied. It is as if Marx is seeking to get as clear as possible a picture of a social formation which provides empirical proof that communism is no idle dream, but a concrete pos­sibility rooted in humanity’s material conditions.

“Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State”: Engels’ title reflects the main sub-divisions of Marx’s notes on Morgan, in which Marx seeks to establish how, on the one hand, these “sacred” pillars of bourgeois order had once not existed, and how, on the other, they had evolved from within the archaic communities.

Thus, Marx’s notes concentrate on the fact that in “savage” society (ie, hunter-gatherer societies), there is virtually no idea of property at all except for a few personal possessions. In more advanced (‘barbarian’) societies, par­ticularly with the development of agriculture, property at first remains essentially collective, and there is still no class living off the labour of another. But the germs of differen­tiation can be discerned through the organisation of the “gens”, of clan systems within the tribe where property can be passed on through a more restricted group. “Inheritance: its first great rule came in with the institution of the gens, which distributed the effects of a deceased person among his gentiles”(The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx, edited by Lawrence Krader, the Netherlands, 1974, p 128). The “worm in the bud” of private property is thus contained within the ancient communal system, which existed not be­cause of humanity’s innate goodness but because the mate­rial conditions in which the first human communities evolved could permit of no other form; in changing mate­rial conditions connected to the development of the produc­tive forces, communal ownership was eventually trans­formed into a barrier to this development and was super­seded by forms more compatible with the accumulation of wealth. But the price paid for this development was the ap­pearance of class divisions - the appropriation of social wealth by a privileged minority. And here again, it was through the transformation of the clan or gens into castes and then classes that this fateful development took place.

The appearance of classes also results in the appearance of the state. Marx’s recognition of a tendency inside the Iroquois “governing” institutions for there to be a separation between public fiction and real practise is developed by Engels into the thesis that the state “is by no means a power imposed on society from the outside” (Origins of the Family); that it was no plot imposed by a minority but emerged from the soil of society at a certain stage of its de­velopment (a thesis magnificently confirmed by the experi­ence of the Russian revolution and the emergence of the transitional Soviet state out of the post-revolutionary situa­tion). Like private property and classes, the state arises out of contradictions appearing in the original communal order. But at the same time, and no doubt with the experience of the Paris Commune still very fresh in his mind, Marx is clearly fascinated by the Iroquois “council” system, going into considerable detail about the structure of decision making and the customs and traditions that accompanied the tribal assemblies: “The Council - instrument of government und supreme authority uber gens, tribe confederacy ... sim­plest u lowest form of the Council - that of the Gens; a democratic assembly, wo every adult male u female member had a voice upon all questions brought before it; it elected and deposed its sachem u. chiefs .... It was the germ of the higher council of the tribe, and that still higher of the con­federacy, each of which was composed exclusively of chiefs as representatives...” (ibid, p 150).

Thus, just as the notion that property was originally collective struck a blow against bourgeois notions of politi­cal economy, the “Robinsonades” which saw the urge to­wards private property as innate in human nature, Morgan’s work confirmed that human beings had not always needed an authority controlled by a specialised minority, a state power, to manage their social life. Like the Commune, the Iroquois councils were proof of humanity’s ability to gov­ern itself.

The quotation above mentions the equality of men and women in the tribal democracy. Again, Marx notes that even here, the signs of a differentiation can be seen: “In this area as elsewhere Marx discerned germs of social stratification within the gentile organisation, again in terms of the separation of “public” and “private” spheres, which he saw in turn as the reflection of the gradual emergence of a propertied and privileged tribal caste. After copying Morgan’s observation that, in the Council of Chiefs, women were free to express their wishes and opinions “through an orator of their own choosing”, he added, with emphasis, that the “decision (was) made by the (all-male) Council’” (Rosemont, “Karl Marx and the Iroquois”, in Arsenal, Surrealist Subversion, no. 4, 1989). But as Rosemont goes on to say, “Marx was nonetheless unmis­takably impressed by the fact that, among the Iroquois, women enjoyed a freedom and a degree of social involve­ment far beyond that of the women (or men!) of any civilised nation”. This understanding was part of the real breakthrough that Morgan’s researches enabled Marx and Engels to make on the question of the family.

As early as the Communist Manifesto, the tendency around Marx and Engels had denounced the hypocritical and oppressive nature of the bourgeois family and had openly advocated its abolition in a communist society. But now Morgan’s work enabled the marxists to demonstrate through historical example the fact that the patriarchal, monogamous family was not the irreplaceable moral foun­dation of any social order; in fact it was a rather late arrival in humanity’s history and, here again, the further back one looks, the more it becomes evident that marriage and child-rearing were originally communal functions, that a “communism in living” (Notebooks, p 115) prevailed among the tribal peoples. This isn’t the place to go into the very complicated details about the evolution of marriage in­stitutions noted by Marx and summarised by Engels, or to assess Engels’ views in the light of more recent anthropo­logical research. But even if some of their assumptions about the history of the family were mistaken, the essential point remains: the patriarchal family where the man consid­ers the woman to be his private property is not “the way things have always been” but a product of a particular kind of society - a society founded upon private property (indeed, as Engels points out in Origins of the Family, the very term “family”, from the Latin “familias” is totally bound up with slavery, since it originally meant, in ancient Rome, the household of a slaveowner, those over whom he had the power of life and death - slaves and women in­cluded). In a society where neither classes or private prop­erty existed, women could not be seen as chattels or ser­vants and indeed enjoyed a much higher status than in “civilised” societies; the oppression of women thus develops with the gradual emergence of class society, even if, as with private property and the state, its germs can already be seen in the old community.

This social and historical view of the oppression of women was a refutation of all the openly reactionary views which assume some inherent, biological basis for the “inferior” status of women. The key to women’s inferior status down the ages is not to be found in biology (even if biological differences have their input into the development of male dominance) but in history - in the evolution of par­ticular social forms corresponding to the material develop­ment of the productive forces. But this analysis also goes against the feminist interpretation which (however much it might borrow from the marxist position) also inevitably tends to make the oppression of women something biologi­cally inherent, though this time in the male rather than the female. In any case, both feminism and the out-and-out re­actionary view lead to the same conclusion: that women’s oppression can never be abolished as long as society is made up of men and women (“radical separatism”, for all its absurdity, is really the most consistent form of feminism). For the communists, on the other hand, if the oppression of women had its beginnings in history, it can also have its end - in the communist revolution that will provide men and women with the material conditions to relate to each other, and to bring up children, free of the social and eco­nomic pressures that have hitherto forced them into their respective, restrictive roles. We will return to this point in a subsequent article.

The dialectic of history: Marx against Engels?

Both Dunayevskaya and Rosemont have noted, in their comments on the Notebooks, that the “Late” Marx’s interest in primitive communism represented a return to some of the themes of his youth, in particular of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. The latter had repre­sented a more “philosophical” anthropology; in the Notebooks Marx was moving towards a historical anthro­pology, but without renouncing the preoccupations of his earlier work. Likewise the theme of the man-woman rela­tion had been posed, if somewhat abstractly, in 1844, and was now being dealt with “in the flesh’. These comments are accurate as long as one also bears in mind, as we showed in International Review 75, that the “themes of 1844” had continued to be a vital element in Marx’s thought in “mature” works like Capital and the Grundrisse, and didn’t suddenly revive in 1881. In any case, what does emerge from a reading of the Notebooks is Marx’s respect not only for the social or­ganisation of the “savages” and “barbarians”, but also for their cultural achievements, their way of life, their “vitality”, which he saw as being “incomparably greater ... than the Semitic, Greek, Roman and a fortiori the modern capitalist societies” (‘Drafts of a reply” to Vera Zasulich, in Teodor Shanin, ed, Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the Peripheries of Capitalism, New York, 1983, p107n). This respect can be seen from his frequent defence of their intelligence against bourgeois (and racist) “blockheads” like Lubbock and Maine, of the imaginative qualities inherent in their myths and legends; it can be seen, above all, in his detailed depiction of their customs, feasts, festivals and dances, of a mode of living in which work and play, politics and celebration had not yet become totally separate categories. This is a concretisation of one of the central themes that emerge from the 1844 MS and the Grundrisse: that in the pre-capitalist societies, and espe­cially in the pre-civilised ones, human life was in many re­spects less alienated than it has become under capitalism; that the people of primitive communism provide us with a glimpse of the all-round human being of tomorrow’s com­munism. Thus Marx in his reply to Vera Zasulich on the Russian commune (see below) was quite prepared to en­dorse the view that “the new system to which modern soci­ety is tending “will be a revival, in a superior form, of an archaic social type’” (ibid, p107. Marx here was probably quoting from memory the lines by Morgan with which Engels closes The Origins of the Family).

This concept of a “revival” on a higher level is integral to dialectical thinking but it is a real puzzle to the bourgeois outlook, which offers us a choice between a linear view of history and a naive idealisation of the past. When Marx was writing, the dominant trend in bourgeois thought was a simplistic evolutionism in which the past, above all the primitive past, was repudiated as a fog of darkness and childish superstition, the better to justify “present day civilisation” and its enslavement or extermination of the primitives who stood in its way. Today the bourgeoisie car­ries on exterminating what’s left of the primitives, but it no longer has the same unshakable faith in its civilising mis­sion, and there is a strong counter-trend, especially among the petty bourgeoisie, towards “primitivism”, the hopeless desire to return to the primitive way of life, now imagined as a kind of lost paradise.

For both these outlooks, it is impossible to look at primitive society lucidly, recognising both its “grandeur”, as Engels put it, and its limitations: the lack of real indi­viduality and freedom in a community dominated by scarcity; the restriction of the community to the tribe, and thus the essential fragmentation of the species in this epoch; the inability of mankind in these formations to see himself as an active, creative being, and thus his subordination to mythical projections and unchallengeable ancestral tradi­tions. The dialectical view is summed up by Engels in The Origins of the Family: “The power of these primordial communities had to be broken, and it was broken” - thus permitting humankind to free itself from the limitations enumerated above. “But it was broken by influences which from the outset appear to us as a degradation, a fall from the simple moral grandeur of the ancient gentile society”. A fall that is also an advance; elsewhere in the same work Engels writes that “Monogamy was a great historical ad­vance, but at the same time it inaugurated, along with slav­ery and private wealth, that epoch, lasting until today, in which every advance is likewise a relative regression, in which the well-being and development of one group are at­tained by the misery and repression of the other”. These are scandalous concepts to bourgeois common sense, but, just like the “revival on a higher level” which complements them, they make perfect sense from the dialectical point of view, which sees history moving forward through the clash of contradictions. 

It is important to quote Engels in this regard because there are many who consider that he deviated from Marx’s view of history into a version of bourgeois evolutionism. This is a broader question which we will have to take up elsewhere; for the moment suffice it to say that a whole body of literature, embracing academic “marxism”, aca­demic anti-marxism, and various strands of modernism and councilism, has emerged in recent years to try to prove the degree to which Engels was guilty of falling into economic determinism, mechanical materialism and even reformism, distorting Marx’s thinking on a whole number of vital questions. The argument is often closely linked to the idea of a total break in continuity between the First and Second Internationals, a concept dear to councilism. But particu­larly relevant here is the fact that Raya Dunayevskaya, echoed by Rosemont, has also accused Engels of failing to carry out Marx’s bequest when he transposed the Ethnological Notebooks into The Origins of the Family.

According to Dunayevskaya, Engels’ book is at fault for talking about a “world historic defeat of the female sex” as being coincident with the appearance of civilisation. For her this is a simplification of Marx’s thought; in the Notebooks, the latter finds that the seeds of the oppression of women are already developing along with the stratifica­tion of barbarian society, with the growing power of the chiefs and the resulting transformation of tribal councils into formal rather than real organs of decision. More gener­ally, she sees Engels as losing sight of Marx’s dialectical view, reducing his complex, multilinear views of historical development to a unilinear vision of progress through rigidly defined stages.

It may be the case that Engels’ use of the phrase “world historical defeat of the female sex” (which he took from Bachofen rather than Marx) gives more the impression of a one-off, concrete historical event than of a very long process which already has its origins inside the primitive commu­nity, especially its later phases. But this does not prove that Engels’ basic approach deviates from Marx: both are aware that the contradictions which led to the appearance of the “family, private property and the state” arise from contra­dictions within the old gentile order. Indeed, in the case of the state, Engels made considerable advances on the theo­retical level: the Notebooks themselves contain very little raw material for the important arguments about the emer­gence of the state contained in The Origins of the Family; and we have already shown how, in this matter, Engels was entirely in accord with Marx in seeing the state as a product of a long historical evolution within the old communities.

We have also shown that Engels was in accord with Marx in rebutting the linear bourgeois evolutionism which fails to understand the “price” mankind has paid for progress, and the possibility of reappropriating, on a higher level, what he has “lost’.

If anything, Dunayevskaya fails to make the most perti­nent criticism of Engels’ presentation of the history of class society in his book: its complete failure to integrate the concept of the Asiatic mode of production, its picture of a straightforward and universal movement from primitive so­ciety to slavery, feudalism and capitalism. Even as a de­scription of the origins of “western” civilisation this is sim­plistic, since the slave societies of antiquity were influenced at a number of levels by the Asiatic forms which pre-ex­isted them and co-existed with them. Engels’ omission here not only blots out a vast chapter in the history of civilisa­tions, but also gives the impression of a fixed, unilinear evolution valid for all parts of the globe, and in this respect adds some grist to the mill of bourgeois evolutionism. Most important of all, his error was exploited later on by the Stalinist bureaucrats who had a vested interest in obscuring the whole concept of Asiatic despotism, since it proved that class exploitation could exist without any discernible form of “individual” private property - and thus that the Stalinist system could itself be seen as a system of class exploitation. And of course, as bourgeois thinkers, the Stalinists felt much more at home with a linear view of progress advanc­ing inexorably from slavery to feudalism and capitalism, and culminating in the supreme achievement of history: the “real socialism” of the USSR.

Despite this important mistake, the attempt to drive a wedge between Marx and Engels is fundamentally at odds with the long history of collaboration between the two. Indeed, when it comes to explaining the dialectical move­ment of history, and of nature itself, Engels has given us some of the best and clearest accounts in the whole of marxist literature. The historical and textual evidence gives little support to this “divorce” between Marx and Engels. Those who argue for it often pose as radical defenders of Marx and scourges of reformism. But they generally end up by destroying the essential continuity of the marxist move­ment.

Marxism and the colonial question

The defence of the notion of primitive communism was a defence of the communist project in general. But this was not only the case at the most historical and global level. It also had a more concrete and immediate political relevance. Here it is necessary to recall the historical context in which Marx and Engels elaborated their works on the “ethnological” question. In the 1870s and 1880s, a new phase in the life of capital was opening up. The bourgeoisie had just vanquished the Paris Commune; and while this did not yet mean that the entire capitalist system had entered into its epoch of senility, it certainly brought to a definite end the period of national wars in the centers of capitalism, and, more generally, the period in which the bourgeoisie could play a revolutionary role on the stage of history. The capitalist system now entered into its last phase of expan­sion and world conquest, not through a struggle by rising bourgeois classes seeking to establish viable national states, but through the methods of imperialism, of colonial con­quests. The last three decades of the 19th century thus saw virtually the entire globe being seized and divided up amongst the great imperialist powers.

And everywhere the most immediate victims of this conquest were the “colonial peoples” - mainly peasants still tied to old communal forms of production, and numerous tribal groupings. As Luxemburg explained in her book The Accumulation of Capital, “Capitalism needs non-capitalist social strata as a market for its surplus value, as a source of supply for its means of production and as a reservoir of labour power for its wage system. For all these purposes, forms of production based upon natural economy are of no use to capital” (chapter XXVII, p 368, London 1951). Hence the necessity for capital to sweep aside, by all the military and economic force at its disposal, those remnants of communistic production which it encountered every­where in the newly-conquered territories. Of these victims of the imperialist juggernaut, the “savages”, those living in the most basic form of primitive communism, fared worst of all: as Luxemburg showed, while peasant communities could be destroyed by the “colonialism of the commodity”, by taxation and other economic pressures, the primitive hunters could only be exterminated or dragged into forced labour because not only did they range across wide territo­ries coveted by capitalist agriculture, they produced no sur­plus capable of entering into the capitalist circulation pro­cess.

The “savages” did not simply lie down and surrender to this process. The year before Morgan published his study of the Iroquois, an Indian tribe from the eastern parts of the USA, the “western” tribes had defeated Custer at the Little Big Horn. But “Custer’s Last Stand” was in reality the last stand of the native Americans against the definitive de­struction of their ancient way of life.

The question of understanding the nature of primitive society was thus of immediate political importance for communists in this period. First, because, just as Christianity had been the ideological excuse for colonial conquests in an earlier period of capitalism’s life, the 19th century ethnological theories of the bourgeoisie were often used as a “scientific” justification for imperialism. This was the period which saw the beginning of racist theories about the White Man’s Burden and the necessity to bring civilisa­tion to the benighted savages. The bourgeoisie’s evolution­ist ethnology, which posited a linear ascent from primitive to modern society, provided a more subtle justification for the same “civilising mission’. Furthermore, these notions were already beginning to seep into the workers’ move­ment, although they reached their apogee with the theory of “Socialist Colonialism” in the period of the Second International, with the “Jingo” socialism of figures like Hyndman in Britain. Indeed, the question of colonial policy was to be a clear line of demarcation between the right and the left fractions of social democracy, a test for internation­alist credentials, as in the case of the Italian Socialist Party (see our pamphlet on the Italian communist left).

When Marx and Engels were writing on ethnological questions, these problems were only just beginning to emerge. But the contours of the future were already taking shape. Marx had already recognised that the Commune marked the end of the period of revolutionary national wars. He had seen the British conquest of India, French colonial policy in Algeria (where he went for a rest cure shortly before his death), the pillaging of China, the slaughter of the native Americans; all this indicates that his growing interest in the problem of the primitive community was not simply an “archaeological” one; nor was it re­stricted to the very real necessity to denounce the hypocrisy and cruelty of the bourgeoisie and its “civilisation’. In fact it was directly connected to the need to elaborate a commu­nist perspective for the period then opening up. This was demonstrated above all by Marx’s attitude to the Russian question.

The Russian question and the communist perspective

Marx’s interest in the Russian question went back to the beginning of the 1870s. But the most intriguing angle on the development of his thought on the question is provided by his reply to Vera Zasulich, then a member of that frac­tion of revolutionary populism which later, along with Plekhanov, Axelrod and others, went on to form the Emancipation of Labour group, the first clearly marxist current in Russia. Zasulich’s letter, dated 16 February 1881, asked Marx to clarify his views on the future of the rural commune, the obschina: was it to be dissolved by the advance of capitalism in Russia, or was it capable, “freed of exorbitant tax demands, payment to the nobility and arbi­trary administration ... of developing in a socialist direc­tion, that is, gradually organising its production and dis­tribution on a collectivist basis”.

Marx’s previous writings had tended to see the Russian commune as a direct source of Russian “barbarism”; and in a reply to the Russian Jacobin Tkachev (1875), Engels had put the emphasis on the tendency towards the dissolution of the obschina.

Marx spent a number of weeks pondering his answer, which ran into four separate drafts, all of the rejected ones being much longer than the letter of reply he finally sent. These drafts are full of important reflections on the archaic commune and the development of capitalism, and explicitly show the degree to which his reading of Morgan had led him to rethink certain previously held assumptions. In the end, admitting that ill health was preventing him from completing a more elaborated response, he summed up his reflections firstly by rejecting the idea that his method of analysis led to the conclusion that every country or region was mechanically fated to go through the bourgeois phase of production; and secondly by concluding that “the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source-material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be as­sured the normal conditions for spontaneous development” (8 March 1881).

The drafts of the reply were not discovered until 1911 and were not published until 1924; the letter itself was “buried” by the Russian marxists for decades. Ryzanov, who was responsible for publishing the drafts, tries to find psychological reasons for this “omission” but it appears that the “founders of Russian marxism” were not very happy with this letter from the “founder of marxism’. Such an in­terpretation is strengthened by the fact that Marx tended to support the terrorist wing of populism, the People’s Will, against what he referred to as the “boring doctrines” of Plekhanov and Zasulich’s Black Repartition group, even though, as we have seen, it was the latter that formed the basis of the Emancipation of Labour group on a marxist programme. 

The leftist academics who specialise in studying the Late Marx have made much of this shift in Marx’s position in the final years of his life. Shanin, editor of Late Marx and the Russian Road, the main compilation of texts on this question, correctly sees the drafts and the final letter as a superb example of Marx’s scientific method, his refusal to impose rigid schemas on reality, his capacity to change his mind when previous theories did not fit the facts. But as with all forms of leftism, this basic truth is then distorted in the service of capitalist ends.

For Shanin, Marx’s questioning of the linear, evolu­tionist idea that Russia had to go through a phase of capi­talist development before it could be integrated into social­ism proves that Marx was a Maoist before Mao; that so­cialism could be the result of peasant revolutions in the pe­ripheries. “While on the level of theory Marx was being “engelsised” and Engels, still further, “kautskised” and “plekhanovised” into an evolutionist mould, revolutions were spreading by the turn of the century through the backward/’developing” societies: Russia 1905 and 1917, Turkey 1906, Iran 1909, Mexico 1910, China 1910 and 1927. Peasant insurrection was central to most of them. None of them were “bourgeois revolutions” in the West European sense and some of them proved eventually so­cialist in leadership and results. In the political life of so­cialist movements of the twentieth century there was an ur­gent need to revise strategies or go under. Lenin, Mao and Ho chose the first. It meant speaking with “double-tongues” - one of strategy and tactics, the other of doctrine and con­ceptual substitutes, of which the “proletarian revolutions” in China or Vietnam, executed by peasants and “cadres”, with no industrial workers involved, are but particularly dra­matic examples” (Late Marx and the Russian Road, p24-25).

All of Shanin’s sophisticated musings about the dialectic and the scientific method thus reveal their real purpose: to provide an apologia for the Stalinist counter-revolution in the peripheries of capital, and to trace Mao’s or Ho’s horri­ble distortions of marxism to none other than Marx himself.

Writers like Dunayevskaya and Rosemont consider that Stalinism is a form of state capitalism. But they are full of admiration for Shanin’s book (“a work of impeccable scholarship that is also a major contribution to the clarifi­cation of revolutionary perspective today” (Rosemont, “Karl Marx and the Iroquois’). And for good reason: these writ­ers may not share Shanin’s admiration for the likes of Ho and Mao, but they too consider that the crux of Marx’s “Late” synthesis is the search for a revolutionary subject other than the working class. For Rosemont, Late Marx was “diving headlong into the study of (for him) new expe­riences of resistance and revolt against oppression - by North American Indians, Australian aborigines, Egyptians and Russian peasants”; and these interests “also look ahead to today’s most promising revolutionary movements in the Third world, and the Fourth, and our own” (ibid). The “Fourth world” is the world of the remaining tribal peoples; ergo, today’s primitive peoples, like those in Marx’s day, are part of a new revolutionary subject. Dunayevskaya’s writings are similarly full of a search for new revolutionary subjects, and they are generally made up of a hotch-potch of categories such as Women, Gays, Industrial Workers, Blacks and Third World “National Liberation” movements.

But all these readings of the Late Marx take his contri­butions out of their real historical context. The period in which Marx was wrestling with the problem of the archaic commune was, as we have seen, a “transitional” period in the sense that while it pointed to the future demise of bour­geois society (the Paris Commune being the harbinger of the future proletarian revolution), there was still a vast field for the  expansion of capital into its peripheries. Marx’s recognition of the ambiguous nature of this period is summed up in a phrase from the “Second draft” of his reply to Zasulich: “...the capitalist system is past its prime in the West, approaching the time when it will be no more than a regressive social regime..” (Karl Marx and the Russian Road, p103).

In this situation, where symptoms of decay had already appeared in the centers of the system, but the system as a whole continued to expand at an extraordinary pace, com­munists were faced with a real dilemma. For, as we have already said, this expansion no longer took the form of bourgeois revolutions against feudal or other outmoded class societies, but of colonial conquests, the increasingly violent imperialist annexation of the remaining non-capi­talist areas of the globe. There could be no question of the proletariat “supporting” colonialism as it had supported the bourgeoisie against feudalism; the concern in Marx’s in­quiry into the Russian question was rather this: could hu­manity in these areas be spared being dragged through the inferno of capitalist development? Certainly, nothing in Marx’s analysis suggested that every single country had to pass mechanically through the phase of capitalist develop­ment before a world communist revolution was possible; he had in fact rejected the claim of one of his Russian critics, Mikhailovskii, that his theory was a “historico-philosophi­cal theory of Universal Progress” (letter to the editor of Otechesvennye Zapiski, 1878) which insisted that the pro­cess whereby the peasants were expropriated and turned into proletarians must inevitably be the same in all coun­tries. For Marx and Engels, the key was the proletarian revolution in Europe, as Engels had already argued in his reply to Tkachev, and as was made perfectly explicit in the introduction to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, published in 1882. If the revolution was suc­cessful in the industrialised centers of capital, then human­ity could be spared a great deal of torment right across the globe, and the vestigial forms of communal property could be directly integrated into the world communist system: “if the Russian revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two can supplement each other, then present Russian communal land ownership can serve as a point of departure for a communist develop­ment”.

This was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis at the time. Indeed, it is evident today that if the proletarian revolutions of 1917-23 had been victorious - if the proletarian revolu­tion in the West had come to the aid of the Russian revolu­tion - the terrible ravages of capitalist “development” in the peripheries could have been avoided, remaining forms of communal property could have become part of a global communism, and we would not now be faced with the so­cial, economic and ecological catastrophe that is most of the “third world’.

Furthermore, there is a great deal that is prophetic in Marx’s preoccupation with Russia. Ever since the Crimean War Marx and Engels had had the profound conviction that some kind of social upheaval in Russia was about to take place (which partially explains their support for the People’s Will, who were judged to be the most sincere and dynamic revolutionaries in the Russian movement); and that even if it did not assume a clearly proletarian character, it would indeed be the spark that lit the general revolutionary confrontation in Europe [2].

Marx was mistaken about the imminence of this up­heaval. Capitalism did develop in Russia, even without the emergence of a strong and independent bourgeois class; it did largely, though not completely, dissolve the archaic peasant commune; and the main protagonist of the actual Russian revolution was indeed the industrial working class. Above all, the revolution in Russia did not dawn until cap­italism as a whole had become a “regressive social regime”, ie had entered its phase of decadence, a reality demon­strated by the imperialist war of 1914-18.

Nevertheless, Marx’s rejection of the necessity for each country to go through mechanical stages, his reluctance to support the nascent forces of capitalism in Russia, his intu­ition that a social upheaval in Russia would be the opening shot of the international proletarian revolution - in all this he was brilliantly anticipating the critique of Menshevik gradualism and “stageism” initiated by Trotsky, continued by Bolshevism and practically vindicated by the October revolution. By the same token, it is no accident that the Russian marxists, who had been formally correct in seeing that capitalism would develop in Russia, should have “lost” Marx’s letter: the majority of them, after all, were the founding fathers of Menshevism...

But what for Marx was a series of profound anticipa­tions made in a particularly complex period in the history of capitalism, becomes with today’s “interpreters” of the Late Marx an ahistorical apology for new “roads to revolu­tion” and new “revolutionary subjects” at a time when capi­talism has been in decay for eighty years. One of the clearest indicators of this decay has been precisely the manner in which capitalism in the peripheries has destroyed the old peasant economies, the vestiges of the ancient com­munal systems, without being able to integrate the resulting mass of landless peasants into productive labour. The mis­ery, the slums, the famines and wars which ravage the “third world” today are a direct consequence of this barrier reached by capitalist “development’. Consequently, there can be no question today of using archaic communal ves­tiges as a stepping stone to communist production, because capitalism has effectively destroyed them without putting anything in their place. And there are no new revolutionary subjects waiting to be discovered among the peasants, the displaced sub-proletarians, or the tragic remnants of the primitive peoples. The remorseless “progress” of decadence this century has if anything made it clearer than ever not only that the working class is the only revolutionary sub­ject, but that the working class of the most developed capi­talist nations is the key to the entire world revolution.

The next article in this series will look more closely at the way that the founders of marxism treated the “woman” question.

CDW

The thick tissue of lies which covers up the criminal acts of the main imperialisms of the planet in this war has been torn a little bit more, revealing the sordid interests which really motivate them.

For the workers, especially those in Europe, the disquiet caused by all this butchery should not be a reason for impotent lamentations but must feed the development of their consciousness about the responsibility of their own governments, about the hypocrisy of the sermons of the ruling class; but also about the fact that the working class of the main industrial powers is the only force capable of putting an end to this war and to all wars.

The women, children and old people who, in Sarajevo as in many other towns in ex-Yugoslavia, are forced to hide in cellars and basements, without water and electricity, to escape the shells and the snipers' bullets; the young people who in Bosnia as in Croatia or Serbia are being forcibly mobilized to risk their lives at the front - do any of these people have anything to hope for from the latest massive influx of "soldiers of peace"? The 2,000 American marines who have accompanied the aircraft carrier Roosevelt dispatched to the Adriatic in May, the 4,000 French and British troops who have already begun to arrive with tons of new weapons - have they come, as their governments claim, to lighten the sufferings of a population which has already seen 250,000 dead and three and a half million people "displaced" in this war?

The UN Blue Berets look like benefactors when they escort convoys of food to the besieged cities, when they interpose themselves between the belligerents. They look like victims when, as recently, they are taken hostage by the local armies. But behind this appearance is the reality of the cynical policies of the ruling classes of the great powers which command them, and for whom the population of ex-Yugoslavia is just cannon- fodder in a war in which they are fighting each other to win spheres of influence in this strategically vital part of Europe. The latest aggravation of the war is a striking confirmation of this. The Croatian army's offensive which began in May in western Slavonia, the Bosnian offensive launched at the same moment following the end of the "truce" signed last December, but also the masquerade of the UN hostage crisis, are not local incidents determined by the logic of merely local confrontations. They are actions prepared and carried out with the active participation, and even at the initiative, of the great imperialist powers.

As we have shown in all the articles we have written in this Review about the war over the past four years, the five powers who constitute the so-called "Contact Group" (the USA, Russia, France, Germany, Britain), an entity which is supposed to be looking for ways to end this conflict, have actively supported one or other of the local camps. And the present aggravation of the war cannot be understood outside this logic, outside the action of the gangsters at the head of these powers. It was Germany, by pushing Slovenia and Croatia to declare their independence from the old Yugoslavia, which brought about the break-up of the country and played a primordial role in the unleashing of the war in 1991. In response to this thrust by German imperialism. The other four powers supported and encouraged the counter-offensive of the Belgrade government. This was the first phase of the war, a particularly murderous one. It led to the point in 1992 when Croatia saw nearly a third of its territory under the control of Serb armies and militias. Under the cover of the UN, France and Britain then sent the biggest contingent of Blue Berets who, under the pretext of preventing further confrontations, systematically maintained the status quo in favor of the Serbian army. In 1992 the US government pronounced itself in favor of the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina and supported the Muslim sector of this province in a war against the Croatian army (still supported by Germany) and the Serbs (supported by Britain, France and Russia). In 1994, the Clinton administration managed to set up a confederation between Bosnia and Croatia, an agreement against Serbia; at the end of the year, under the guidance of ex-President Carter, the US obtained a truce between Bosnia and Serbia. At the beginning of 1995 the main fronts in Croatia and Bosnia thus seemed to be relatively quiet. And Washington did not hesitate to present this state of affairs as the triumph of the peacemaking efforts of the great powers, especially its own. In reality all this was a partial respite to allow the rearmament of Bosnia, essentially by the USA, in order to prepare a counter-offensive against the Serb armies. After four years of war, the latter, with the support of Britain, France and Russia, still controlled 70% of Bosnia's territory and over a quarter of Croatia's. The Belgrade government itself recognized that its camp, which includes the recently "reunified" "Serb republics" in Bosnia and Croatia (Krajina), had to give, ground. But, despite the negotiations in which all the differences between the big powers came out[1], no agreement was reached. What could not be obtained through negotiation could thus only be won through military force. So what we are seeing today is the logical, premeditated follow-up to a war in which the great powers have played the preponderant role, although in an underhand way.

Contrary to what is hypocritically claimed by the great powers' governments, who present their increased involvement in the conflict as being aimed at limiting the violence of the new confrontations, the latter are in fact a direct product of their war-mongering activity.

The invasion of part of western Slavonia by Croatia, at the beginning of May, as well as the renewed fighting at various points along the 1,200 kilometer front between the Zaghreb government and the Krajina Serbs; the unleashing, at the same moment, of the Bosnian army's offensive around the Bihac pocket, in the region of the Serb corridor of Breko, and also around Sarajevo, aimed at reducing the pressure of the Sarajevo siege - none of this took place separately from the will of the big powers, and still less against a unified wish for peace on the latters' part. It is clear that these actions were undertaken with the agreement and initiative of the American and German governments[2].

The reaction of the opposing camp was no less significant of the commitment of the other powers, Britain, France and Russia, to the Serbian side. But here things were less obvious. Of the powers allied to Serbia, only Russia openly admits its involvement. France and Britain, by contrast, have always claimed to be "neutral" in this conflict. On numerous occasions, their governments have even made loud declarations of hostility to the Serbs. This has never stopped them assisting their allies both on the military and the diplomatic terrain.

The facts are well known. Following the Croatian-Bosnian offensive, the Serb army replied by intensifying the bombardments in Bosnia, especially against Sarajevo. NATO, ie essentially the Clinton government, carried out two air raids in reprisal, against a munitions depot close to Pale, the Serb capital in Bosnia. The Pale government replied by taking as hostages 343 Blue Berets, the majority of them French and British.

Some were placed as "human shields", chained up close to military installations at risk of being bombed. Immediately a huge media operation got underway, complete with photos of the chained-up soldiers. The French and British governments denounced this "odious terrorist action" against the UN forces, and in the first place against the countries who were supplying the most number of soldiers to the Blue Berets: Britain and France. The Milosevic government in Belgrade declared that it was not in agreement with the action of the Bosnian Serbs, while at the same time denouncing the NATO air raids. But very quickly, what at the beginning might have looked like a weakening of the Franco-British alliance with Serbia, as a verification of the neutral, humanitarian, and not pro-Serb role of the UN forces, showed its real face: that of yet another masquerade serving both the Serb governments and their big power allies.

For the governments of these two powers, the "hostage crisis" had two major advantages for their action in this war. First, in an immediate way, it forced NATO, ie the USA, to stop any further air raids against their Serb allies. At the beginning of the crisis, the French government was forced to accept the first air raid, but it openly and vigorously criticized the second. The Serb government's use of the hostages as shields made it possible to solve this problem straight away. Secondly, and above all, the taking of hostages, presented as an "unbearable humiliation" served as an excellent pretext to justify the immediate dispatch by the two powers of thousands of new troops to ex-Yugoslavia. Britain alone announced that its forces would be trebled. The play-acting was done very well. On the one side, the British and French governments demanded to be able to send in new forces in order to "save the honor and dignity of our soldiers humiliated by the Bosnian Serbs"; on the other, Karadzic, the head of the Pale government, justified his attitude by the necessity to protect his troops against NATO bombings; in the middle of all this, Milosevic, head of the Belgrade government, played the part of "mediator". The result was spectacular. Whereas for weeks the British and French governments had been "threatening" to withdraw their troops from ex-Yugoslavia if the UN didn't grant them greater freedom of action (in particular, the possibility of regrouping in order to "defend themselves" more effectively), now they had decided to increase massively the number of their ground forces[3].

At the beginning of the masquerade, at the moment when the first hostages were taken, the press suggested that the hostages might be tortured. A few days later, when the first French hostages were freed, some of them gave their testimonies: "we did weight training and played table tennis (...) we visited the whole of Bosnia, went for walks (...) The Serbs did not see us as enemies" (Liberation, 7.6.95). Equally eloquent is the conciliatory attitude taken by the French commander of the French UN forces on the ground, a few days after the French government had shouted from the rooftops about how firm it was being with the Serbs: "We will strictly apply the principles of peacekeeping until we get any new orders (...) We can try to establish contacts with the Bosnian Serbs, we can try to take food through and to supply our troops" (Le Monde, 14.6.95). The French paper Le Monde was openly shocked: "Calmly, while 144 UN soldiers were still hostages to the Serbs, UNPROFOR solemnly claimed to be paralyzed". And it cited an UNPROFOR officer: "For several days we have had the feeling that things are easing up. The emotion provoked by the images of the human shields is settling down, and we are afraid that our governments are going to say no more about it, in order to avoid a confrontation". If the Bosnian Serbs didn't consider the French "hostages" to be their enemies, if this UNPROFOR officer had the impression that the French and British governments wanted to avoid a confrontation, it is simply because, whatever problems may blow up between Serb troops and UN troops on the ground, their governments are allies in this war and the "hostage crisis" was just one more chapter in the book of lies and manipulations written by the ruling class to hide its murderous and barbaric work.

The main result of this farce was the formation of the Rapid Reaction Force. The definition of the function of this new Franco-British military corps, supposedly formed to assist the UN forces in ex-Yugoslavia, has varied during the weeks in which the two governments have tried, not without difficulty, to get their "partners" on the UN Security Council to accept its existence and to finance it[4]. But whatever the diplomatic formulations used in this debate between hypocrites, what is important is the profound significance of this initiative. This must be understood on two levels: on the one hand, the will of the great powers to reinforce their military involvement in this conflict; on the other hand, the necessity for these powers to disengage themselves, or at least to take their distance, from the framework of the "humanitarian" "UN" masquerade, which puts such limitations on their capacity for action.

The French and British bourgeoisies know that their pretension to continue playing a role as world powers depends, to a large extent, on their capacity to affirm their presence in this strategically crucial zone. The Balkans, like the Middle East, is a major stake in the planet-wide contest between the great powers. Being absent from this region means giving up any great power status. The reaction of the German government to the formation of the RRF is particularly significant of this concern, common to all the European powers: "Germany could not ask its French and British allies to do the dirty work for very long, while it remains a spectator in the Adriatic and at the same time lays claim to a global political role. It must also take some of the risks itself" (Liberation, 12.6.95). This declaration from Bonn government circles is particularly hypocritical: as we have seen, since the beginning of the war in ex-Yugoslavia, German capital has played a big part in the "dirty work" of the great powers. But it also shows up what really motivates the so-called "humanitarian peacemakers" when they set up a RRF to "come to the aid" of the civil population in the Balkans.

The other important aspect of the RRF's formation is the great powers' concern to give themselves the means to ensure the defense of their specific imperialist interests. Thus, at the end of May, a spokesman of the British Ministry of Defense, interviewed about whether the RRF would be under the control of the UN, replied that "the special reinforcements will be under UN command", but he added that "they will also have their own commanders" (Liberation, 31.5.95). At the same moment, French officers were saying that these forces would have "their own colors and battle insignia", that they would no longer be wearing blue berets and that their vehicles would not necessarily be painted white. At the time of writing, the question of the colors to be worn by the soldiers of the RRF remains in the air. But the significance of the constitution of this new military force is perfectly clear: the imperialist powers are affirming more clearly than before the autonomy of their imperialist acts.

No, the population of ex-Yugoslavia, which for four years has been subjected to the horrors of war, has nothing positive to expect from the arrival of these new "peacekeeping forces". The latter have come only to continue and intensify the bloody and barbaric work that the great powers have been carrying out since the conflict began.

All the governments in ex -Yugoslavia are now engaged in escalating the war. Izetbegovic, the head of the Bosnian government, has clearly announced the breadth of the offensive that his army has launched: Sarajevo must not go through another winter besieged by the Serb armies. UN experts have estimated that an attempt to break this siege would cost the Bosnian forces 15,000 men. Equally clearly, the Croatian government has stressed that the offensive in western Slavonia is only the beginning of an operation which will be extended throughout the front with the Krajina Serbs, especially on the Dalmatian coast. As for the government of the Bosnian Serbs, it has declared a state of war in the zone around Sarajevo and has mobilized the whole population. In mid-June, while the American diplomats were negotiating with the Serb governments to try to get them to recognize Bosnia, Slavisa Rakovic, one of the advisers to the Pale government coldly asserted that he was "pessimistic in the short term" and that he believed" there is more chance of the war flaring up than the negotiations succeeding, because summer is ideal for fighting" (Le Monde, 14.5.95).

The Bosnian Serbs are obviously not fighting alone. The "Serb Republics" of Bosnia and Krajina have just proclaimed their unification. As for the Belgrade government, which is supposed to be applying an arms embargo ion the Bosnian Serbs, it is well known that it has never done so and that whatever the more or less real divergences that may exist between the different Serb parties in power, their military cooperation against the Bosnian and Croatian armies is unquestioned[5].

But the antagonisms between the different nationalisms in ex-Yugoslavia would not be enough to fuel and intensify the war if the great imperialist powers were not fuelling and intensifying it, if their "pacifist" speeches were not just an ideological cover for their own imperialist policies. The worst enemy of peace in ex-Yugoslavia is none other than the pitiless war between the great powers. All of them, to different degrees, have an interest in maintaining the war in the Balkans. Apart from the geo-strategic positions which each one defends or is trying to conquer, they are there above all to prevent or destroy alliances between other rival powers: "In such a situation of instability, it is easier for each power to make trouble for its adversaries, to sabotage alliances that it objects to, than to develop solid alliances and ensure stability in its own spheres" (Resolution on the international situation, XIth Congress of the ICC).

For German and French capital, this war has been a powerful tool for breaking the alliance between the USA and Britain, and for sabotaging the structures of NATO, American capital's weapon of domination over the former members of the western bloc. A high official of the American State Department recognized this explicitly recently: "The war in Bosnia has caused the gravest strains in NATO since Suez" (International Herald Tribune, 13.6.95). Parallel to this, for Washington, the war is a means to prevent the consolidation of the European Union around Germany. Santer, the new president of the Commission of the European Union complained bitterly about this, at the beginning of June, when commenting on the evolution of the situation in the Balkans.

The present aggravation of military barbarism in ex-Yugoslavia is thus the concretization of the advance of capitalist decomposition, which exacerbates all the antagonisms between fractions of capital, imposing the reign of "every man for himself' and "each against all".

The war in ex-Yugoslavia is the bloodiest conflict in Europe since the Second World War. For half a century Europe was spared the numerous wars between the imperialist powers, all the "national liberation struggles" which ravaged the countries of the ‘Third World'. Europe was a "haven of peace" during this period. The war in ex-Yugoslavia, by bringing this period to an end, thus has a major historic significance. For the European proletariat, war is less and less an exotic reality which happens thousands of miles away, where you follow the developments on TV at dinner time.

Up till now this war has only been a minor preoccupation for the workers of the industrialized countries of Western Europe. The European bourgeoisies have been able to present this conflict as another "far off" war, where the "democratic" powers are undertaking a "humanitarian", "civilizing" mission, trying to bring peace to "ethnic" groups who are slaughtering each other for no reason. Even if four years of manipulated media images have not hidden the savage and sordid reality of this war, even if in the workers' minds this war is one of the horrors now emerging all over the planet, the predominant sentiment among the exploited has been a relatively resigned indifference. Without any great enthusiasm, they have accepted more or less the official speeches about the "humanitarian missions" of the UN and NATO soldiers.

The present evolution of the conflict, the new attitude that the main powers involved in it have had to adopt, are about to change this state of affairs. The fact that the French and British governments have decided to send in thousands of new troops; the fact that the latter are being sent not only as representatives of an international organization like NATO, but as soldiers bearing the uniform and the flag of their country, all this is giving a new dimension to the way this war is being perceived. The great powers' active participation in the conflict is being exposed to the light of day. The "humanitarian" cover used by the great powers is being ripped apart, revealing the sordid imperialist motives underneath.

The current aggravation of the war in ex-Yugoslavia is taking place at a time when the perspectives for the world economic situation are getting worse and worse, heralding new attacks on working class living conditions, especially in the most industrialized countries. War and economic crisis, barbarism and poverty, chaos and pauperization - more than ever, the bankruptcy of capitalism, the disaster that this decomposing system has become, will place the world proletariat in front of its historic responsibilities. The qualitative aggravation of the war in ex-Yugoslavia will in this context become a supplementary factor in the development of the proletariat's awareness of this responsibility. And it is up to revolutionaries to contribute to this process with all their might, because they are an indispensable part of it.

In particular, they must show that understanding the real role played by the big powers in this war makes it possible to fight against the feeling of impotence about the conflict that the ruling class has from the beginning tried to instill in the workers. The governments of the great industrial and military powers can only make war because the working class of these countries allows them to so, because they have not managed to unify consciously against capital. The proletariat of these countries, because of its historical experience, because the bourgeoisie has not succeeded in mobilizing it ideologically to the point where it could send it off to another world war, is the only force that can put an end to all this military barbarity, to capitalist barbarity in general. This is the message that the aggravation of the war in ex-Yugoslavia must bring home to the workers.

19.6.95

[1] It is particularly significant that the negotiations with the different Serb governments over the recognition of Bosnia have been carried out not through Bosnian representatives, but through diplomats from Washington, Equally telling about the involvement of the big powers in this war alongside this or that belligerent are the positions defended by each one of the former with regard to these negotiations, One of the deals proposed to the Milosevic government is that he should recognize Bosnia in exchange for a lifting of the international economic sanctions which are still in force against Serbia, But when it comes to defining how the sanctions will be lifted, there are big differences between the powers: the USA wants it to be entirely conditional, so that it can be suspended at any moment depending on the actions taken by the Serb government; France and Britain want it to be guaranteed for a period of at least six months; Russia wants it to be unconditional and without any time limit. 

[2] On 6th March this year, a military agreement was signed between the Croatian and Bosnian governments to "defend themselves against a common aggressor". However, this accord between Croatia and Bosnia, and parallel to that between the USA and Germany, to wage a counter-offensive against the Serb armies, can only be temporary and provisional. In the part of Bosnia controlled by Croatia, the two armies are face to face and conflict could resume at any moment, as during the first years of the war. The situation in the town of Mostar, the most important of the region, and the object of particularly bloody clashes between Croats and Muslims, is highly eloquent in this respect. Although it is supposed to be run by a joint Croatian-Bosnian government, with the active presence of members of the European Union, the town remains divided into two distinct parts and Muslim men of fighting age are strictly forbidden from entering the Croatian sector. But above all, the antagonism between American and German capital, in ex-Yugoslavia as in the rest of the world, is the main line of fissure in inter-imperialist tensions since the collapse of the eastern bloc (see "Each against all", International Review no 80) 

[3] The demand by France and Britain that UN forces on the ground should regroup in order to "defend themselves better against the Serbs" is also a hypocritical maneuver. Far from expressing any action against the Serbs, such a measure would mean the Blue Berets abandoning practically all the enclaves encircled by the Serbs in Bosnia (with the exception of the three main ones). This would give them every chance of taking them over once and for all, while making it possible to concentrate the Blue Berets' "aid" in the most important zones.

[4] The discussion on this point between the French president Chirac, when he went to the G7 summit in June, and the speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, was described as "direct" and "vigorous". The Russian government only accepted the principle after openly expressing its opposition and distrust.

[5] The Belgrade government had obtained an easing of the international economic embargo against Serbia in exchange for a commitment not to go on supplying arms to the Pale government. But the salaries of Serb officers in Bosnia are still being paid by Belgrade. The latter has not stopped secretly supplying arms to its "brothers" in Bosnia, while the anti-aircraft radar system of the two "republics" is still connected up.

IR82, 3rd Quarter 1995
 

The IBRP has responded, in the International Communist Review no 13, to our polemical article “The IBRP’s Conception of Decadent Capitalism” which appeared in no. 79 of our International Review.

The IBRP clearly expound their positions. Thus the article is a contribution to the necessary debate that must exist between the organisations of the Communist Left, which have a decisive responsibility in the struggle for the formation of the proletariat’s communist party.

The debate between the IBRP and the ICC is situated inside the framework of the Communist Left:

- it is not an academic or abstract debate, but constitutes a militant polemic in order to develop clear positions, free from any ambiguity or concession to bourgeois ideology, especially on the questions of the nature of imperialist wars and the fundamental conditions necessary for the communist revolution.

- it is a debate between supporters of the analysis of the decadence of capitalism: since the beginning of the century the system has entered into a permanent crisis which contains a growing threat of the annihilation of humanity and the planet.

Within this framework, the IBRP’s article of response insists on its vision of imperialist war as a means of the devaluation of capital and the renewal of the cycle of accumulation and explains this position by an explanation of the historic crisis of capitalism based on the tendency of falling rate of profit.

These two questions are the object of our response [1] [38].

What unites us with the IBRP

In a polemic between revolutionaries and precisely because of its militant character we begin from what unites us in order to approach what separates us within a global framework. This is the method that the ICC has always applied, following Marx, Lenin, Bilan etc, and which we used to polemicise with PCI (Programma) [2] [39] about the same question that we are now taking up with the IBRP. For us it is very important to underline this, because in the first place, polemics between revolutionaries always have as their guiding thread the struggle for clarification and regroupment within the perspective of the constitution of the world party of the proletariat. In the second place, because between the IBRP and the ICC, without denying or relativising the implications of the our disagreements about the understanding of the nature of imperialist war, what we share is much more important:

1. For the IBRP imperialist wars do not have objective limits but are total wars whose consequences far surpass anything that could have arisen in those of the ascendant period.

2. Imperialist wars unite the economic and political factors in an inseparable knot.

3. The IBRP rejects militarism and arms production as a means of the “accumulation of capital” [3] [40].

4. As the expression of the decadence of capitalism, imperialist wars contain the growing threat of the destruction of humanity.

5. There now exist in capitalism important tendencies to chaos and decomposition (although as we will see the IBRP does not give them the same importance that we do).

These elements of convergence express the common capacity that we have for denouncing and combatting imperialist wars as the supreme moments of the historic crisis of capitalism, calling on the proletariat not to choose between the different imperialist wolves, and calling for the world proletarian revolution as the only solution to the bloody impasse that capitalism has led humanity into, combating to the end the pacifist opium and denouncing the capitalist lies about how “we are moving out of the crisis”.

These elements, expressions of the common tradition of the Communist Left, make it necessary and possible that when confronted with events of the magnitude of the Gulf War or Yugoslavia, the groups of the Communist Left produce joint manifestoes which express the united voice of revolutionaries in front of the class. Therefore we proposed in the framework of the International Conferences of 1977-80 to make a joint declaration faced with the Afghan war and we regret that neither Battaglia Comunista nor the Communist Workers’ Organisation (who since have formed the present IBRP) did not accept this initiative. Far from this being a proposal for “circumstantial and opportunist union” such initiatives are tools in the struggle for clarification and delimitation of positions within the Communist Left because they establish a concrete and militant framework (an obligation to the working class confronted with important situations of historical evolution) within which seriously to debate divergences. This was the method of Marx or Lenin: at Zimmerwald despite the existence of divergences of greater importance than could exist today between the ICC and the IBRP, Lenin agreed to sign the Zimmerwald Manifesto. Likewise, when the 3rd International was constituted there were important disagreements between the founders not only on the analyses of imperialist war but on questions such as the utilisation of parliament or the unions; nevertheless this did not stop them uniting in order to struggle for the unfolding world revolution. This common struggle was not the framework for silencing divergences but, on the contrary, the militant platform within which they could be seriously confronted and not in an academic way nor according to sectarian impulses.

The function of imperialist war

The divergences between the IBRP and the ICC are not about the general causes of imperialist war. Adhering to the common tradition of the Communist Left we both see imperialist war as the expression of the historic crisis of capitalism. However the divergence arises when it comes to seeing the role of war within the progress of decadent capitalism. The IBRP thinks that imperialist war fulfils an economic function: allowing the massive devaluation of capital and, as a consequence, opening the possibility of capitalism embarking on a new cycle of accumulation.

This appreciation appears to be logically consistent: have there not been generalised crises before a war, as for example that of 1929? When there is a crisis of overproduction of men and goods is imperialist war not a “solution” because of the large-scale destruction of workers, machines and buildings? Isn’t there reconstruction after the war, and with this the overcoming of the crisis? However, this vision, apparently so simple and coherent, is extremely superficial. It takes - as we will see - a part of the problem (the fact that decadent capitalism goes through an infernal cycle of crisis-war-reconstruction-new crisis...) however, it does not pose the root of the problem: on the one hand, war is much more than a simple means of re-establishing the cycle of capitalist accumulation and, on the other hand, this cycle is profoundly degenerated and corrupted and is far from beginning the classical cycle of the ascendant period.

This superficial vision of imperialist war has important militant consequences that the IBRP is not capable of grasping. In fact, if war permits the re-establishing of the mechanism of capitalist accumulation, this amounts to saying that capitalism will always be able to get out of the crises through the painful and brutal mechanism of war. This is basically the vision that the bourgeoisie poses to us: war is a terrible thing that no government wants, but it is the inevitable means that will permit a new era of peace and prosperity.

The IBRP denounces such lies but does not comprehend that this denunciation is undermined by its theory of war as “the means of devaluation of capital”. In order to understand the dangerous consequences that its position has it should examine this declaration of the IBRP of the PCI (Programma): “The origin of the crisis lies in the impossibility of continuing accumulation, an impossibility which manifests itself when the growth of the mass of production can no longer compensate for the fall in the rate of profit. The mass of surplus labour is no longer sufficient to ensure a profit on the capital advanced, to reproduce the condition for a return on the investment. By destroying constant capital (dead labour) on a grand scale, war then plays a fundamental economic role (our emphasis): to the dreadful destruction of the productive apparatus, it permits a gigantic expansion of production later on to replace what has been destroyed, and thus a parallel expansion of profit, of the total surplus value, i.e. the surplus labour which is the source of capital. The conditions for the revival of the accumulation process have been re-established. The economic cycle picks up again... The world capitalist system enters into the war aged, but there receives a bath of blood which gives it a new lease of life and it comes out with the vitality of a robust new-born child” (Programma Comunista No 90 page 24, quoted in our polemic in International Review No 77 page 20).

To say that capitalism gains “a new lease of life” each time it emerges from a World War has clear revisionist consequences: World War could not make the Proletarian Revolution the order of the day but the reconstitution of capitalism which has returned to its beginnings. This uproots the IIIrd International’s analysis, which clearly says “A new epoch is born. The epoch of the disintegration of capitalism, of its internal collapse. The epoch of the communist revolution of the proletariat”. Purely and simply, it means a break with a fundamental position of marxism: capitalism is not an eternal system but a mode of production whose historic limits impose on it an epoch of decadence in which the communist revolution is the order of the day

In International Review no’s 77/78 we quote and criticise this declaration in our polemic dealing with the PCI’s (Programma) concept of war and decadence. This is ignored by the IBRP who in their reply appear to defend the PCI (Programma) when they affirm that: “Their (the ICC’s) debate with the Bordigists centres on the latter’s apparent view that there is a mechanical causal relation between war and the cycle of accumulation. We say “apparent” because typically the ICC doesn’t actually quote anything to show that the Bordigists view history so schematically. We are even less inclined to accept the assertions about Programme Communiste when we see the way they interpret our views” (Their reply “The Material Basis of Imperialist War” International Communist Review No.13).

The quotation that we have given in International Review no 77 speaks for itself, and reveals that there is a little more than “schematism” to the PCI’s position: if the IBRP avoids the issue by whining about our “misinterpretations”, it is because although they do not dare repeat the PCI’s aberrations, their own ambiguities lead them in the same direction: “We say that the economic function (emphasis in the original) of world war (i.e. its consequences for capitalism) is to devalue capital as the necessary prelude to a possible new cycle of accumulation” (International Communist Review No.13).

This view of the “economic function of imperialist war” comes from Bukharin. He puts it forward in a book he wrote in 1915 (Imperialism and the World Economy) which constitutes a contribution on such questions as state capitalism and national liberation, nonetheless slips into an important error, seeing imperialist war as an instrument of capitalist development: “Thus if war cannot halt the general development of world capital, if, on the contrary, it expresses the greatest expansion of the centralisation process... War in many aspects recalls to mind industrial crises, differing from the latter only by a greater intensity of social convulsions and devastations” (page 148, English edition).

Imperialist war is not a means to “devalue capital” but an expression of the historic process of destruction and sterilisation of the means of production and life, that globally characterises decadent capitalism.

The destruction and sterilisation of capital is not the same as the devaluation of capital The ascendant period of capitalism entailed periodic crises that led to the periodic devaluation of capital: “Simultaneously with the fall in the rate of profit, the mass of capital grows, and this is associated with a devaluation of existing capital, which puts a stop to this fall and gives an accelerating impulse to the accumulation of capital value... The periodic devaluation of the existing capital, which is a means, immanent to the capitalist mode of production, for delaying the fall in the profit rate and the accelerating the accumulation of capital value by the formation of new capital, disturbs the given conditions in which the circulation and reproduction process of capital takes places, and is therefore accompanied by sudden stoppages in the production process” (Capital Vol 3, part 3, chapter XV, part 2).

Capitalism, due to its nature, since its origins, as much in the ascendant period as in decadence, has constantly fallen into overproduction and, in this context, these periodic bleedings of capital were necessary in order to restart its normal movement of production and circulation of commodities with more force. In the ascendant period, each stage of devaluation of capital led to the expansion of the capitalist relations of production on a larger scale. And this was possible because capitalism encountered new pre-capitalist territories that could be integrated into its sphere submitting them to its wage and trade relations. For this reason: “The crises of the 19th century which Marx described were still crisis of growth, crises from which capitalism came out strengthened... After each crisis, there were still new outlets to be conquered by the capitalist countries” (“Theories of Crisis, from Marx to the Communist International”. International Review No 22, page 14).

In the decadent period these crises of the devaluation of capital continue and have become more or less chronic (see our polemical article with the IBRP in International Review no 79, the section “The nature of “cycles of accumulation” in capitalist decadence”). However, this inherent and consubstantial feature of capitalism, superimposes itself on another characteristic of its decadent epoch, which is the fruit of the extreme aggravation of the contradictions carried within this epoch: the tendency to the destruction and sterilisation of capital.

This tendency arises from the situation of historical blockage that determines the decadent epoch of capitalism: “What is imperialist world war?. It is the struggle by violent means, that the different capitalist groups are obliged to unleash, not in order to conquer new markets and sources of raw materials, but in order to divide up the already existing ones, a division from which some gain at the expense of others. The unfolding war has its roots, in the general and permanent economic crisis that has broken out, indicating that the capitalist regime has reached the end of its developmental possibilities” (“The Renegade Vercesi”. May 1944 in the International Bulletin of the Italian Fraction of the Communist Left No 5). In the same sense, “Decadent capitalism is the phase in which production can continue only as a condition (underlined in the original) for products and means of production to take a material form that does not bring about the development and expansion of production but its restriction and destruction” (Idem)

In decadence, the nature of capitalism has not changed at all. It continues to be a system of exploitation, it is still affected (to a much greater degree) by the tendency to the depreciation of capital (a tendency that has become permanent). However, the essence of decadence is the historical blockage of the system which has given birth to a powerful tendency towards self-destruction and chaos: “In the absence of a revolutionary class presenting the historic possibility of generating and presiding over the establishment of an economic system corresponding to historical necessity, society and its civilisation is driven into an impasse, where collapse and internal disintegration, are inevitable. Marx gave as an example the similar historic impasse of the Roman and Greek civilisations of antiquity. Engels applied this thesis to bourgeois society, coming to the conclusion that the absence, or the incapacity of the proletariat to solve, through overcoming it, the antithetical contradictions that arise in capitalist society, can have no other result than a return to barbarity” (Idem)

The position of the Communist International on imperialist war

The IBRP ridicules our insistence on this feature of decadent capitalism: “For the ICC everything is just “chaos” and “decomposition” and we need not trouble ourselves too much with a detailed analysis of anything. This is the crux of their position” (their reply, page 30). We will return to this question, but we want to make clear that this accusation of ‘simplism’ which in their opinion represents a negation of Marxism as a method of analysing reality, should also be directed at the 1st Congress of the Communist International, Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg.

The aim of this article is not to deal with the limitations of the CI’s positions [4] [41] but to support its clear points. Examining the founding documents of the Communist International we can see in them clear indications of a rejection of the idea of war as a “solution” to the capitalist crisis and the vision that capitalism would return to “normal” functioning in line with the cycles of accumulation of its ascendant period.

“Thus its “peace policy” conclusively reveals the essence of Entente imperialism, and of imperialism in general, to the international proletariat. It also shows that the imperialist governments are unable to conclude a just and stable peace and that finance capital is not capable of restoring the ruined economy. The continued rule of finance capital will lead either to the complete destruction of civilised society or to an unprecedented increase in the level of exploitation, and enslavement, to political reaction and a policy of armament, and eventually to new destructive wars” (“The International Situation and the Policy of the Entente” in Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of the Third International, page 58).

The CI made it clear that capital could not re-establish the ruined economy, that is to say, it could not re-establish, after the war, a “normal” cycle of accumulation and health, in short it could not become, “a new born child” as the PCI (Programma) said. More than this, a return to such a “re-establishment” would be profoundly corrupted and altered by the development of an “increase in levels of exploitation... political reaction and a policy of armament”.

In the Manifesto of the 1st Congress, the CI declared that: “The distribution of raw materials, the utilisation of Baku or Romanian oil, Donbas coal, Ukrainian wheat, the fate of German locomotives, freight cars and automobiles, the rationing of relief for starving Europe - all these fundamental questions of the world’s economic life are not being regulated by free competition, nor by associations of national and international trusts and consortiums, but by the direct application of military force, for the sake of its continued preservation. If the complete subjection of the state power of finance capital had led mankind into the imperialist slaughter, then through this slaughter finance capital has succeeded in completely militarising not only the state but also itself; and it is no longer capable of fulfilling its basic economic functions otherwise than by means of blood and iron” (Idem pages 29/30).

The perspective laid out by the CI is one of the “militarisation of the economy” a question that all Marxists in their analysis show to be an expression of the aggravation of the contradictions of capitalism and not as their alleviation or relativisation no matter how temporary (the IBRP in their reply, page 33, reject militarism as a means of accumulation). The CI also insisted that the world economy could not return either to the liberal period or to that of the trusts and, finally, expressed a very important idea that “capitalism is no longer capable of fulfilling its basic economic functions other than by means of blood and iron” This can only be interpreted as meaning: that after the world war the mechanism of accumulation could no longer function normally, in order to continue it needed “blood and iron”.

The CI pointed out that the perspective for the post-war period was one of the aggravations of wars: “The opportunist, who before the World War summoned the workers to practice moderation for the sake of the gradual transition to socialism, and who during the war demanded class docility in the name of civil peace and national defence, are again demanding self-renunciation of the proletariat - this time for the purpose of overcoming the terrible consequences of the war. If such preaching was to find acceptance amongst the working masses, capitalist development in new, much more concentrated and monstrous forms would be restored on the bones of several generations - with the perspective of new and inevitable world war” (Idem, page 30, our emphasis).

It was an historic tragedy that the CI was unable to develop this clear body of analysis and, furthermore, that in its stage of degeneration it openly contradicted this with positions that insinuated the concept of capitalism “returning to normality” reducing its analysis of the decline and barbarity of the system to mere rhetorical proclamations. Nevertheless, the task of the Communist Left is to deepen and detail the general lines arrived at by the CI and it is clear from the above quotes that this cannot lead to an orientation that goes in the direction of capitalism going through a constant cycle of accumulation-crisis-war devaluation-new accumulation... but rather in the sense of a profoundly altered world economy, incapable of returning to the conditions of normal accumulation and leading to new convulsions and destruction.

The irrationality of imperialist war

This underestimation of the CI’s (and Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin’s) fundamental analysis becomes clear in the IBRP’s rejection of our notion of the irrationality of war: “But the ICC article alters the issue by its next comment [on the function of war] that this means we are “according an economic rationality to the phenomenon of war”. Now this implies that we see the destruction of capital values as the capitalist’s aim i.e. that this is a direct cause [emphasis in the original] of war. But causes are not the same as consequences. The ruling classes of imperialist states do not consciously go to war to devalue capital” (their reply page 29).

In the ascendant period of capitalism the cyclical crises were not deliberately caused by the ruling class. Nevertheless, the cyclical crises had an “economic rationale”: allowing capital to devalue and, as a consequence, renewing capitalist accumulation at a new level. The IBRP think that the world wars of decadence fulfil the role of the devaluation of capital and the renewal of accumulation. That is to say, they attribute to them an economic rationality of a similar nature to that of the cyclical crises of the ascendant period.

This is precisely the central error that we pointed out to the IBRP 16 years ago in our article, “Economic Theories and the Struggle for socialism”: “We can see Bukharin’s error repeated in the analysis of the CWO: “Each crisis leads (through war) to a devaluation of constant capital, thus raising the rate of profit and allowing the cycle of reconstruction- boom, slump, war - to be repeated again” [a quote from the CWO taken from its publication Revolutionary Perspectives, No 6 page 18, its article “The accumulation of Contradictions”]. Thus, for the CWO, the crises of decadent capitalism are seen, in economic terms, as the cyclical crises of ascendant capitalism repeated at a higher level” (International Review, No. 16, page 15).

The IBRP situates the difference between ascendancy and decadence solely at the level of the magnitude of the periodic interruptions of the cycle of accumulation: “The causes of war stem from the bourgeoisie’s efforts to defend those capital values against their rivals. Under ascendant capitalism such rivalry was largely on the economic level and between rival firms. Those who could achieve a greater degree of concentration of capital (capital’s tendency to centralisation and monopoly) would be in a position... to drive their competitors to the wall. This rivalry also led to an over-accumulation of capital which resulted in the decennial crises of the nineteenth century. In these the weaker firms would collapse or be taken over by the more powerful rivals. Capital would be devalued in each crisis and thus a new round of accumulation could begin, but each time capital would become more centralised and concentrated... In the era of monopoly capitalism, however, that concentration has reached the level of the nation state. The economic and political have now become intertwined in the imperialist or decadent stage of capitalism... In this epoch the policies which demand the defence of capital values involve the states themselves and heighten the rivalries between the imperialist powers” (Their reply pages 29-30). As a consequence of this: “imperialist wars have no such limited objectives [ie as in ascendancy]. The bourgeoisie... once embarked upon them there is only a struggle to annihilation, until one nation or bloc of nations is militarily and economically destroyed. The consequences of war are that, not only has capital been physically destroyed, but that there has also been a massive devaluation of existing capital” (their reply).

At the root of this analysis there is a strong “economism” which conceives war only as an immediate and mechanical product of economic evolution. In our article in International Review No 79 we show that imperialist war has a global economic root (the historic crisis of capitalism) but from this we cannot deduce that each war has an immediate and direct economic motive. The IBRP searched for the economic cause of the Gulf War and fell onto the terrain of a very vulgar economism saying that it was a war for oil wells. Likewise they explain the Yugoslavian war as being due to the appetite of the great powers [5] [42] for who knows what markets. It is certain then, that under the pressure of our critique and the empirical evidence, they have corrected their analysis but they have not been able to put into question this vulgar economism which cannot conceive of war without an immediate and mechanical “economic” cause behind it [6] [43].

The IBRP confuses commercial and imperialist rivalries, which are not necessarily the same. Imperialist rivalries have a root cause in the economic situation of the general saturation of the world market, but this is not to say that they have mere commercial competition as their direct origins. Their origins are economic, strategic and military and within this are concentrated historic and political factors.

In the same way, in capitalism’s ascendant period, wars (of national liberation or colonial) had a global economic purpose (the constitution of new nations or the expansion of capitalism through the formation of colonies) that did not arise directly from commercial rivalries. For example, the Franco-German war had dynastic and strategic origins but it did not come out of an insoluble commercial crisis for either of the contenders nor from a particular commercial rivalry. The IBRP is capable of understanding this up to a certain point when it says: “Whilst the post-Napoleonic Wars of the nineteenth century world had their horrors (as the ICC correctly sees) the real difference is that they were fought for specific aims which allowed them to reach rapid and often negotiated solutions. The bourgeoisie in the nineteenth century still had its programmatic mission to get rid of old relics of previous modes of production and create truly national (i.e. bourgeois states)” (their reply page 30). Furthermore, the IBRP sees very well the difference with the decadent period: “The costs of further capitalist development of the productive forces are no longer materially inevitable. Moreover, these costs have reached such a scale that they threaten the destruction of civilised life both in the short term (environmental decay, famines, genocide) and longer term (generalised imperialist war)” (page 31).

We fully share these observations that the IBRP makes. But we have to ask them a very simple question: What are the “total aims” of wars of decadence and what is the cost of maintaining capitalism to the point of posing the destruction of humanity? Can these situations of convulsion and destruction, which the IBRP recognises as being qualitatively different to those of the ascendant period, correspond to an economic situation of normal reproduction and to the renewal of the cycles of accumulation of capital, which would be identical to those of the ascendant period?

The mortal illness of decadent capitalism the IBRP uniquely situates in the moments of generalised wars, but they do not see it in the moments of apparent normality, in the period where, according to them, the cycle of capital accumulation develops. This leads them into a dangerous dichotomy: on the one hand, they see times of the development of normal cycles of capital accumulation where we witness real economic growth, which produce “technological revolutions”, the growth of the proletariat. In these periods of the full operation of the cycle of accumulation, capitalism appears to return to its origins; its growth appears to show an identical situation to that of its youthful period (the IBRP dares not say this, while the PCI (Programma) openly affirms it). On the other hand, there are periods of generalised war in which the barbarity of decadent capitalism is manifested in all its brutality and violence.

This dichotomy is strongly reminiscent of what Kautsky said in his thesis of “super-imperialism”: on the one hand, he recognised that after the First World War capitalism would enter a period which could produce great catastrophes and convulsions, however, and at the same time, it could produce an “objective” tendency towards the supreme concentration of capitalism into a great imperialist trust which would allow a peaceful capitalism to be established. In the Prologue to the above quoted book of Bukharin (The World Economy and Imperialism) Lenin denounces this centrist contradiction of Kautsky: “Kautsky promised to be a Marxist in the coming restless and catastrophic epoch, which he was compelled to foresee and definitely recognise when writing his work in 1909 about the coming war. Now, when it has become absolutely clear that this epoch has arrived, Kautsky again only promises to be a Marxist in the coming epoch of ultra-imperialism, a period which he doesn’t know whether it will arrive or not! In other words, we have any number of his promises to be a Marxist some time in another epoch, but not under the present conditions, not at this moment” (page 13 of the English version).

Far be it from us to suggest that the same thing could happen to the IBRP. They zealously guard the Marxist analysis of the decadence of capitalism in relation to the periods when war breaks out, meanwhile in the periods of accumulation they allow an analysis which makes concessions to the bourgeoisie’s lies about the “prosperity” and “growth” of the system.

The underestimation of the gravity of the process of the decomposition of capitalism

This tendency to defend the Marxist analysis of decadence for the period of generalised war explains the difficulty the IBRP has in understanding the present stage of the historical crisis of capitalism: “The ICC have been consistent since their foundation twenty years ago in dismissing all attempts to analyse how the capitalists have managed the current crisis. Indeed they seem to think that any attempt to look at the historically specific features of the present crisis is tantamount to saying that capitalism has solved the crisis. This is not the case. What is incumbent on Marxists is to actually try to understand why this has been the longest drawn-out crisis in the present capitalist epoch and is now about to surpass that of the Great Depression of 1873-96. But while the latter was a crisis created as capitalism entered its monopoly phase and was still soluble by purely economic devaluation the crisis of today threatens humanity with a far greater catastrophe” (their response page 34).

They seem certain that the ICC has renounced an analysis of the features of the present crisis. The IBRP can convince itself of the contrary by studying the articles that we regularly publish in each issue of the International Review, following the crisis in all its aspects. For us the opening of the crisis in 1967 is the reappearance, in an open manner, of the chronic and permanent crisis of decadent capitalism, it is the manifestation of a profound and increasingly uncontrollable blockage of the mechanism of capitalist accumulation. The “specific features” of the present crisis constitute the different attempts by capital through the reinforcing of state intervention, the flight into debt and monetary and commercial manipulations, to avoid an uncontrollable explosion of its basic crisis and, simultaneously, the evident failure of such potions and their perverse effects of increasingly aggravating the capitalism’s incurable illness.

The IBRP sees explaining the longevity of the present crisis as the “main task” for Marxists. We are not surprised by the impact of the length of the crisis on the IBRP, given that they don’t understand the root of the problem: we are not at the end of the cycle of accumulation but in a situation of the historic prolongation of the blockage, the profound disturbance, of the mechanism of accumulation. A situation, as the CI said, where capitalism cannot assure its essential economic functions other than “by blood and iron”.

This fundamental problem that the IBRP has leads it once again to ridicule our position on the present historical situation of chaos and the decomposition of capitalism: “Whilst we can all agree that there are tendencies of decomposition and chaos (after twenty years of the end of the cycle of accumulation it is difficult to see how there could not be) these should not be used as slogans to avoid a concrete analysis of what is happening” (their reply page 35).

As we can see, that what most preoccupies the IBRP is our supposed “simplism”, a type of “intellectual laziness” that takes refuge in clichéd radical cries about the seriousness and chaos of capitalism’s situation, in order not to get into a concrete analysis of what is happening.

The IBRP’s preoccupation is correct. Marxists are and will have to be concerned (this is one of our duties in the proletariat’s struggle) to analyse events in detail instead of falling into rhetorical generalisations in the style of the Longuet’s “orthodox Marxism” in France, or the anarchist vagueness that comforts many but which in decisive moments leads to serious opportunist ravings when it’s not brazen treachery.

However in order to be able to make a concrete analysis of “what is happening” it is necessary to have a clear global framework and it is here that the IBRP has problems. Since they do not understand the seriousness and depth of the disturbances and the level of degeneration and contradictions of capitalism in the “normal times” of the phase of the cycle of accumulation the whole process of the decomposition and chaos of world capitalism, which has accelerated since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989, escapes their grasp and thus they are incapable of understanding it.

The IBRP ought to remember the lamentable stupidities they produced when faced with the collapse of the Stalinist countries: they speculated about the “fabulous markets” that these ruins could offer the countries of the West and believed that they could represent an easing of the capitalist crisis. Since then, overwhelmed by empirical evidence and thanks to our critique, the IBRP have corrected their errors. This is very good and shows their responsibility and seriousness in front of the proletariat. However, the IBRP have to go to the heart of the question: Why such blunders? Why is it that the change had to be brought about by events themselves? What vanguard is it that has to change position by being pulled along by events, always incapable of foreseeing them? The IBRP should study attentively the texts where we put forward the general lines of the process of the decomposition of capitalism [7] [44]. They would see that there is not a problem of “simplism” on our part but slowness and incoherence on their part.

These problems are once again demonstrated in the following speculation by the IBRP: “If further proof of ICC idealism was required their final accusation against the Bureau is that it has “no unitary and global vision of war” which leads to the “blindness and irresponsibility (sic)” of not seeing that the next war would mean “nothing other than the complete annihilation of the planet”. The ICC might be right, although we’d like to know the scientific basis on which they predict it. We ourselves have always said that the next war “threatens the continued existence of humanity”. However there is no certainty about this wiping out everything. The next imperialist war may actually lead to the final destruction of humanity. There have been weapons of mass destruction which have not been used in previous conflicts (e.g. biological and chemical weapons) and there is no guarantee that a nuclear holocaust would envelope the planet next time round. In fact the present war preparations of the imperialist powers include the de-commissioning of weapons of mass destruction whilst developing so-called conventional weapons. Even the bourgeoisie understand that a destroyed planet is of no value to anyone (even if the forces which lead to war and the nature of war are ultimately beyond their control)” (their reply pages 35-36).

The IBRP should learn a little history: in World War I all the gangs employed all the forces of destruction, while desperately searching for ever more lethal devices. In World War II, when Germany was already defeated there were the massive bombing raids on Dresden using incendiary and fragmentation bombs and the United States used the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when Japan was also already defeated. Since then, in 1971 the weight of bombs dropped on Hanoi in one night surpassed all that dropped on Germany in 1945. In turn, the “carpet bombing” of Baghdad carried out by the “allies” beat Hanoi’s terrible record. In the same Gulf War it is proven that the new chemical and nuclear-conventional type weaponry were tried out on North American soldiers by the US. It has now become known that in the 1950’s the United States carried out experiments on its own population with bacteriological weapons... Yet faced with this mass of evidence, which the IBRP could read in any bourgeois publication, they have the dishonesty and the ignorance to speculate about the bourgeoisie’s level of control, about “their interest” in avoiding a total holocaust. It is suicidal for the IBRP to dream about them using  “less destructive” arms when 80 years of history proves the opposite.

In this senseless speculation the IBRP not only don’t understand the theory but high-handedly ignore the crushing and repeated evidence of the facts. They have to understand the serious and revisionist nature of these stupid illusions of the impotent petty-bourgeois who clutch at the straw of the idea that “Even the bourgeoisie understand that a destroyed planet is of no value to anyone”.

The IBRP have to overcome their centrism, their oscillation between a coherent position on war and the decadence of capitalism and their speculative theorisations that we have criticised, about war as a means of the devaluation of capital and the renewal of accumulation. These errors lead them not to consider or take seriously as a coherent instrument their own analysis that tells us that: “the forces which lead to war and the nature of war are ultimately beyond their [the bourgeoisie’s] control”.

For the IBRP this phrase is a mere rhetorical parenthesis, whereas, if they want to place themselves fully in the ranks of the Communist Left and understand historical reality, it should be their analytical guide, the axis of their thinking in order concretely to comprehend the facts and historical tendencies of capitalism today.

Adalen 27-5-95

1) The recognition by the communists of the historically limited character of the capitalist mode of production, of the irreversible crisis in which the system is plunged today, constitutes the granite foundation upon which the revolutionary perspective of the combat of the proletariat is based. In this sense, all the attempts, such as those that we see at the present moment, on the part of the bourgeoisie and of its agents to make believe that the world economy is "coming out of crisis" or that certain "emerging" national economies can boost the old exhausted economic sectors, constitute a systematic attack against proletarian consciousness.

2) The official speeches on the "recovery" make a big thing out of the evolution of the indicators for industrial production, or the redressment of company profits. While we have indeed, in particular in the Anglo-Saxon countries, seen such a phenomenon recently, the foundation on which this rest must be pointed out:

- the recovery of profits is very often, especially for the big companies, the result of speculative windfalls; its counterpart is a new upsurge of public debts; it also flows from the elimination of "dead wood" by the big companies, in other words of their less productive sectors;

- the progress of industrial production results to a large extent from a very substantial increase in the productivity of labor based on the massive utilization of automation and informatics.

It is for these reasons that one of the major characteristics of the present "recovery" is that it has not been able to create employment, to significantly reduce unemployment or temporary employment, which, on the contrary, can only increase, since capital constantly wants to keep a free hand in order to be able to throw its superfluous work force onto the streets at any moment.

3) While it is above all an attack against the working class, a brutal factor of the development of misery and exclusion, unemployment also constitutes a major indication of capitalism's bankruptcy. Capital lives from the exploitation of living labor: in the same way as the shutting down of entire parts of the industrial apparatus, and indeed even more so, the laying off of a considerable part of labor force constitutes a real self-mutilation on capital's part. It shows the definitive bankruptcy of the capitalist mode of production, whose historic function was precisely to extend wage labor across the globe. This definitive bankruptcy of capitalism is also illustrated by the dramatic indebtedness of states which in the past years has reached a new crescendo: between 1989 and 1994 the public debt has gone up from 53% to 65% of the gross national product in the United States, from 57% to 73% in Europe, reaching 142% in the case of Belgium. In fact, the capitalist states are defaulting on their debts; if they were to be subjected to the same laws as private companies, they would already have been officially declared bankrupt. This situation only expresses the fact that the capitalist state constitutes the system's response to its impasse, but a response which is in no way a solution and which it cannot use forever.

4) The growth rates, sometimes in two figures, of the famous "emerging economies", do not in any way contradict the judgment on the general bankruptcy of the world economy. They result from a massive influx of capital drawn by the incredibly low cost of labor in these countries, from a ferocious exploitation of proletarians, something the bourgeoisie impudently refers to as "relocating'. This means that this economic development cannot but affect the production of the most advanced countries, whose states, increasingly, protest against the" dishonest commercial practices" of these "emerging" countries. Apart from this, the spectacular performances which they like to point to coincide very often with a wiping out of entire sectors of the economy of these countries: the "economic miracle" of China means more than 250 million unemployed by the year 2000. Finally, the recent financial collapse of another "exemplary" country, Mexico, whose money lost half of its value overnight, necessitating an urgent injection of close to $50 billion of credit (by far the largest "rescue" operation in capitalism's history), sums up the reality of the mirage of the" emergence" of certain Third World countries. The "emerging" economies are not the new hope of the world economy. They are but the very fragile and aberrant manifestation of a system gone mad. And this reality is not going to be contradicted by the situation of Eastern European countries, whose economies were not long ago supposed to be flowering under the sun of liberalism. If a few countries (such as Poland) have been able for the moment to avoid the worst, the chaos unfurling in the Russian economy (a 30% fall in production in two years, a more than 2,000% price rise over the same period) shows conclusively to what extent the talk which went on in 1989 was a lie. The state of the Russian economy is so catastrophic, that the Mafia, which controls a large part of the apparatus, appears, not as a parasite as in certain western countries, but as one of the pillars assuring a minimum of stability.

5) Finally, the state of potential bankruptcy in which capitalism finds itself, the fact that it cannot live forever by borrowing from the future, trying to get round the general and definitive saturation of the market by a headlong flight into debt, makes stronger and stronger the threat to the entire world financial system. The nervousness caused by the collapse of the British Barings Bank in the wake of the acrobatics of a "golden boy", the panic which followed the announcement of the crisis of the Mexican peso, out of all proportion with Mexico's weight in the world economy, are the undeniable indications of the real anguish which grips the ruling class in face of the perspective of a "true world catastrophe" of its finances, according to the words of the head of the IMF. But this financial catastrophe is nothing other than the revelation of the catastrophe into which the capitalist mode of production is plunging, and which hurls the whole world into the greatest convulsions in history.

6) The terrain on which these convulsions are most cruelly manifested is that of imperialist confrontations. Hardly five years have passed since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, since the promises of a "new world order" given by the leaders of the main western countries, and never has the disorder in the relations between states been so striking. Although it was based on the threat of a terrifying confrontation between the nuclear superpowers, and although its two super-powers without cease confronted each other through interposed countries, the "order of Yalta" contained, precisely, a certain element of "order". In the absence of the possibility of a new world war because the proletariat of the central countries is not mobilized, the two world policemen had to maintain imperialist confrontations within an "acceptable" framework. They had to avoid notably the sowing of chaos and destruction in the advanced countries and particularly on the principle terrain of two world wars, Europe. This edifice has fallen apart. With the bloody confrontations in ex-Yugoslavia, Europe has ceased to be a "sanctuary". At the same time, these confrontations have shown how difficult it is to set up a new "equilibrium", a new "division of the world" to succeed that of Yalta.

7) While the collapse of the Eastern Bloc was to a large extent unpredictable, the disappearance of its western rival was not in the least so. One would need to understand nothing of marxism (and follow Kautsky's thesis of "super-imperialism", swept away by the revolutionaries in World War I) to think that a single bloc could maintain itself alone. Fundamentally, all the bourgeoisies are rivals against each other. One can see this clearly in the domain of trade, where "the war of each against all" dominates. Diplomatic and military alliances are but the concretization of the fact that no bourgeoisie can choose to pursue its strategic interests alone against all the others. The common adversary is the only cement of such alliances, not any kind of "friendship between peoples". We can see today how far these are elastic and dishonest, since the enemies of yesterday (such as Russia and the United States) have discovered a sudden "friendship" and a friendship of decades (such as between Germany and the United States) is replaced by dispute.

In this sense, while the events of 1989 signified the end of the division of the world coming out of the Second World War, with Russia ceasing definitively to be able to lead an imperialist bloc, they contain the tendency towards the reconstruction of new imperialist constellations. However, although its economic power and its geographic location designate Germany to be the only country able to succeed Russia in the role of leader of an eventual future bloc opposed to the United States, its military situation is very far from allowing it for the moment to realize such an ambition. And in the absence of any new imperialist alignments able to replace the one swept away by the upheaval of 1989, the world arena is submitted as never before in the past, due to the unprecedented gravity of the economic crisis which kindles military tensions unleashing "each for himself", to a chaos aggravating even more the general decomposition of the capitalist mode of production.

8) The situation resulting from the end of the two blocks of the "cold war" is thus dominated by two contradictory tendencies - on the one hand disorder, instability in aIIiances between states, and on the other the process of the reconstruction of two new blocks - but which nevertheless are complimentary since the second factor cannot but aggravate the first one. The history of these past years illustrates this clearly:

- the crisis and the Gulf war of 90-91, sparked off by the United States, were part of the attempt of the American policeman to maintain its tutelage over its cold war aIlies, a tutelage which the latter are led to put in question with the end of the soviet menace;

- the war in ex -Yugoslavia is the direct result of the affirmation of the new ambitions of Germany, the main instigator of the Slovenian and Croatian secession, setting fire to the powder keg in the region;

- the pursuit of this war sows discord both within the German-French couple associated in the leadership of the European Union (which constitutes the first foundation stone of the edifice of a potential new imperialist bloc), and within the Anglo-American couple, the oldest and most faithful one which the 20th century has seen.

9) Even more than the peckings between the French cock and the German eagle, the extent of the present infidelities between Perfidious Albion and Uncle Sam constitute an irrefutable indication of the state of chaos of the system of international relations today. If, after 1989, the British bourgeoisie at first showed itself to be the most loyal ally of its American colleague, notably at the moment of the Gulf war, the slightness of the advantages it gained from this fidelity, as weIl as the defense of its specific interests in the Mediterranean area and in the Balkans, dictating a pro-Serbian policy, led it to distance itself considerably from its ally and to systematically sabotage the American policy of supporting Bosnia. With this policy, the British bourgeoisie has succeeded in setting up a solid tactical aIliance with the French bourgeoisie, with the objective of enforcing the discord in the German-French tandem, an approach towards which this latter is favorably disposed to the extent that the increase in power of its German ally worries it. This new situation is notably concretized by an intensification of the military collaboration between the British and the French bourgeoisie, for example with the proposed creation of a common air force unit and above all with the agreement creating an inter-African force "to maintain peace and prevent crises in Africa", which constitutes a spectacular revision of the British attitude after its support for the American policy in Ruanda aimed at banishing French influence in that country.

10) This evolution of the attitude of Britain towards its great ally, whose discontent was expressed with particular vigor on 17 March when Clinton welcomed Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, is one of the major events of the last period in the world arena. This reveals the scale of the defeat for the United States represented by the evolution of the situation in ex-Yugoslavia, where the direct occupation of the terrain by the British and French armies in the uniform of UNPROFOR has greatly contributed to thwarting American attempts to take position solidly in the region, via its Bosnian ally.

It is a significant fact that the first world power encounters more and more difficulties in playing its role of world gendarme, a role supported less and less by the other bourgeoisies who are trying to exorcise the past, when the soviet menace obliged them to submit to the orders corning from Washington. There exists today a serious weakening, even a crisis of American leadership which is confirmed throughout the world, and the image of which is given by the pitiful departure of the GI's from Somalia, 2 years after their spectacular, mediatized arrival. This crisis of leadership of the United States permits us to explain why certain other powers have permitted themselves to come and tease it in its Latin American backyard:

- the attempt of the French and Spanish bourgeoisies to promote a "democratic transition" in Cuba with Castro, and not without him, as Uncle Sam would like;

- the Peruvian bourgeoisie's rapprochement with Japan, confirmed by the re-election of Fujimori;

- the support of the European bourgeoisie, notably through the Church, for the Zapatista guerilla in Mexico.

11) In fact, this serious weakening of American leadership is expressed through the fact that the dominant tendency, at the present moment, is not the one towards a new bloc, but towards "every man for himself". For the first world power, equipped with overwhelming military superiority, it is much more difficult to master a situation marked by generalized instability, the precariousness of alliances in all corners of the globe, than by the obligatory discipline of states under the threat of the great imperialist powers and nuclear apocalypse. In such a situation of instability, it is easier for each power to stir up trouble for its adversaries, to sabotage the alliances that threaten it, than to develop for their own part solid alliances, and to assure stability on their own ground. Such a situation evidently favors the game of secondary powers, to the extent that it is always easier to stir up trouble than to maintain order. This reality is accentuated even more by the plunging of capitalist society into generalized decomposition. That is why the United States itself is called on make abundant use of this kind of policy. That is how we can explain, for instance, American support for the recent Turkish offensive against the Kurdish nationalists in northern Iraq, an offensive which the traditional ally of Turkey, Germany, has considered to be a provocation, and has condemned. It is not a kind of "overthrow of the alliance" between Turkey and Germany, but a (large) spanner thrown in the works of this "alliance", which reveals the importance of a country like Turkey for the two imperialist godfathers. Similarly, it is a sign of the state of the world situation today, that the USA should be led, in a country like Algeria for example, to use the same weapons as a Gadhafi or a Khomeini: support for terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. This said, in this reciprocal practice of destabilizing each other's positions by the US and the other countries, there is no equality: while American diplomacy can allow itself to intervene in the internal political game of countries like Italy (support for Belusconi), Spain (the GAL scandal stirred up by Washington), Belgium (the Augusta affair) or Britain (the opposition to Major by the "Eurosceptics"), the opposite is not the case. In this sense, the trouble which may appear within the American bourgeoisie faced with its diplomatic failures, or the internal debates about delicate strategic choices (eg over its alliance with Russia) cannot be put on the same level as the political convulsions which may affect other countries. Thus, for example, the dissensions which appeared over the sending of US troops to Haiti were essentially the result of a division of labor between bourgeois sectors and not of real divisions.

12) Despite its enormous military superiority and the fact that this can no longer be used to the same degree as in the past, despite the fact, owing to its budget deficits, that it has been obliged to reduce somewhat its military spending, the US has not given up the modernization of its armaments, developing ever more sophisticated weapons, notably by carrying on with the" Star Wars" project. The use or threat of brute force is now the main means at the US disposal to make its authority respected (even though it does not hesitate to use the weapons of economic war: pressure on international institutions such as the WTO, trade sanctions, etc). The fact that that this weapon has proved to be impotent, or even a factor that increases chaos, as could be seen after the Gulf war and as Somalia has illustrated more recently, can only confirm the insurmountable the capitalist world. The considerable reinforcement we are now seeing of the military capacities of powers like China and Japan, who are competing with the US in South East Asia and the Pacific, can only push the US to develop and to make use of its weaponry.

13) The bloody chaos in imperialist relations which characterizes the world situation today has a privileged place in the peripheral countries, but the example of ex-Yugoslavia a few hundred kilometers from the big industrial concentrations of Europe proves that this chaos is approaching the central countries also. To the tens of thousands of deaths provoked by the troubles in Algeria in the last few years, to the million corpses in Rwanda can be added the hundreds of thousands killed in Croatia and Bosnia. In fact, there are now dozens of bloody confrontations in Africa, Asia and Latin America, witness to the indescribable chaos which decomposing capitalism is engendering in society. In this sense, the more or less general complicity over the massacres in Chechnya perpetrated by the Russian army, which is trying to prevent the break-up of Russia in the wake of the dislocation of the old USSR, reveals the anxiety of the ruling class about the prospect of intensifying chaos. It has to be said clearly: only the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat can prevent this growing chaos leading to the destruction of humanity.

14) More than ever, the struggle of the proletariat represents the only hope for the future of human society. This struggle, which revived with great power at the end of the 60s, putting an end to the most terrible counter-revolution the working class has ever known, went into a major retreat with the collapse of the Stalinist regimes, the ideological campaigns which accompanied them, and all the events which followed (Gulf war, war in Yugoslavia). The working class suffered this reflux in a massive way at the level both of its combativity and its consciousness, without this putting the historic course towards class confrontation into question, as the ICC affirmed already at the time. The struggles waged by the proletariat in recent years confirm this. Particularly since 1992 these struggles have been testimony to the proletariat's capacity to get back onto the path of struggle, thus confirming that the historic course has not been overturned. They are also testimony to the enormous difficulties which it is encountering on this path, owing to the breadth and depth of the reflux. The workers struggles are developing in a sinuous, jagged manner full of advances and retreats.

15) The massive movements in Italy in the autumn of 92, those in Germany in 93 and many others showed the huge potential combativity growing in the workers' ranks. Since then, this combativity has expressed itself slowly, with long refuted. The massive mobilizations in Italy in the autumn of 94, the series of strikes in the public sector in France in the spring of 95, are expressions, among others, of this combativity. However, it is important to show that the tendencies towards going beyond the unions, which appeared in 1992 in Italy, have not been confirmed - far from it. In 1994 the "monster" demonstration in Rome was a masterpiece of union control. Similarly, the tendency towards spontaneous unification, in the street which appeared (although only embryonically) in autumn 1993 in the Ruhr in Germany, has since given way to large scale union maneuvers, such as the engineering "strike" of early 1995, which have been entirely controlled by the bourgeoisie. By the same token, the recent strikes in France, in fact union days of action, have been a success for the latter.

16) Apart from the depth of the reflux that began in 1989, the difficulties facing the workers today in their efforts to move forward are the result of a whole series of further obstacles set up or exploited by the enemy class. These difficulties have to be put in the context of the negative weight exerted by the general decomposition of capitalism on the consciousness of the workers, sapping the proletariat's confidence in itself, and in the perspectives of its struggle. More concretely, although it is an indisputable sign of the bankruptcy of capitalism, a major effect of the massive and permanent unemployment developing today has been to provoke a strong feeling of demoralization and despair in important sectors of the working class, some of whom have been plunged into social exclusion and even lumpenisation. This unemployment is also used by the bourgeoisie as an instrument to threaten and repress sectors of the class who still have a job. Similarly, the sermons about the "recovery", and the few positive results shown by the economies of the main countries (in terms of profits and growth rates), have been amply exploited to justify union talk about "the bosses can pay". This talk is especially dangerous in that it strengthens the reformist illusions of the workers, making them much more vulnerable to union containment; at the same time it contains the idea that if the bosses 'can't pay' there's no use struggling. This is another factor of division (apart from the one between employed and unemployed) between the different sectors of the working class working in branches unequally affected by the crisis.

17) These obstacles have allowed the unions to get their grip on the workers' combativity, channeling them towards "actions" entirely under union control. However, the unions' present maneuvers have also, and above all, a preventative aim: that of strengthening their hold on the workers before the latter display a lot will necessarily result from their growing anger faced with the increasingly brutal attacks demanded by the crisis. In the same way, we have to underline the recent change in the way the ruling class has been talking. Whereas the first years after the fall of the eastern bloc were dominated by campaigns about the death of communism, the impossibility of the revolution, we are now to the extent seeing that it has again become fashionable to talk in favor of marxism, revolution, and communism on the part of the leftists - obviously - and even elsewhere. This again is a preventative measure on the part of the bourgeoisie, aimed at derailing the reflection that is tending to develop in the working class faced with the increasingly obvious bankruptcy of the capitalist mode of production. It is up to revolutionaries, in their intervention, to denounce with the greatest vigor both the rotten maneuvers of the unions and these so-called "revolutionary" speeches. It falls to them to put forward the real perspective of the proletarian revolution and communism, as the only way out capable of saving humanity, and as the final outcome of the workers' struggle.

In the article in the last International Review we showed that the working class' response developed more forcefully as the First World War went on. At the beginning of 1917 - following two and a half years of barbarism - the working class managed to develop an international balance of forces that subjected the bourgeoisie to increasing pressure. In February 1917 the workers in Russia rose up and overthrew the Tsar, but they could only put an end to the war after they had deposed the bourgeois government and seized power in October 1917. Russia had shown that it was impossible to bring peace without overthrowing the ruling class. The victorious seizure of power was to encounter a powerful echo in the working class in other countries. For the first time in history the working class had managed to take power in a country. This was bound to act as a beacon for the workers of other countries, in particular those of Austria, Hungary and the whole of central Europe, and above all in Germany.

In fact, after the initial wave of patriotic chauvinism, the working class in Germany struggled increasingly against the war. Spurred on by the revolutionary development in Russia and in the wake of several precursory movements, a mass strike broke out in April 1917. In January 1918 about a million workers threw themselves into a new strike movement and formed a workers' council in Berlin. Under the influence of the Russian events combativity on the military fronts crumbled more and more throughout the summer of 1918. The factories were at boiling point; more and more worker gathered in the streets to strengthen the response to the war. The ruling class in Germany was aware that the Russian revolution was reaching out toward the workers and did their utmost to raise a barrier against the extension of the revolution - in order to save their own hides.

Learning from the revolutionary events in Russia, when faced with a very strong movement of workers' struggles, the army forced the Kaiser to abdicate (at the end of September) and installed a new government. But the working class' combativity forged ahead and there was no let-up in the agitation.

On 28th October there began in Austria, in the Czech and Slovak provinces as well as in Budapest, a wave of strikes which led to the overthrow of the monarchy. Workers' and soldiers' councils in the image of the Russian soviets sprang up everywhere.

The ruling class, and also the revolutionaries, prepared for the decisive phase in the confrontations. The revolutionaries prepared for the uprising. Although the majority of the Spartakist leaders (Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Jogiches) were in prison, and in spite of the fact that the party's illegal printing press had been paralyzed for some time by a police raid, the revolutionaries nevertheless continued to prepare the insurrection around the Spartakus group.

At the beginning of October the Spartakists held a conference with the Linksradikale of Bremen and other towns. This conference recognized the beginnings of open revolutionary confrontations, drafted an appeal and distributed it widely throughout the country as well as at the front. The main ideas defended in it were: the soldiers have begun to free themselves from their yoke, the army is crumbling; but this first step of the revolution meets with a counter-revolution that is ready at its post, As the means of repression of the ruling class was weakening, the counter-revolution tried to staunch the movement by reconciling the "democratic" pseudo-right wing. The aim of parliamentarianism and the new voting system was to make the proletariat go on putting up with its situation.

"During the discussion on the international situation it was pointed out that the Russian revolution had given a fundamental moral support to the movement in Germany. The delegates decided to convey their gratitude, solidarity and fraternal sympathy to their comrades in Russia and promised to confirm that solidarity not in words but in deeds that followed the Russian example.

We must support in every way the mutinies of the soldiers, go on to the armed insurrection, broaden the armed insurrection into a struggle to transfer power to the workers and soldiers and ensure victory through the workers' mass strikes. This is the task of the coming days and weeks".

We can see that from the beginning of these revolutionary confrontations the Spartakists also exposed the political maneuvers of the ruling class. They stripped bare the lie of democracy and unhesitatingly identified the steps that were vital if the movement were to advance: to prepare the insurrection was to support the working class in Russia not only in words but also in deeds. They understood that the solidarity of the working class in this new situation could not be restricted to declarations, that it was necessary for the workers to go into struggle themselves. This lesson forms a red thread throughout the history of the workers' movement and its struggles.

The bourgeoisie too refurbished its arms. On 3rd October 1918 they deposed the Kaiser and replaced him with a new prince, Max von Baden; they also included the SPD in the government.

The leadership of the SPD (a party that was founded in the previous century by the working class itself) had betrayed in 1914 and had excluded the internationalists, regrouped around the Spartakists and the Linksradikalen, as well as the centrists. From that time on the SPD harbored no proletarian life whatsoever within it. From the beginning of the war it supported an imperialist policy. It was also to act against the revolutionary upsurge of the working class.

For the first time the bourgeoisie included in the government a party that came from the working class and had recently passed into the camp of capital, in order to protect the capitalist state in this revolutionary situation. Although many workers still had illusions, the revolutionaries immediately understood the new role that fell to the social-democracy. In October 1918 Rosa Luxemburg wrote: "By entering the ministry, governmental socialism is putting itself forward as capitalism's defender and is barring the way to the mounting proletarian revolution".

From January 1918, when the first workers' council appeared during the mass strike in Berlin, the "revolutionary Delegates" (Revolutionare Oblate) and the Spartakists met regularly and secretly. The Delegates were very close to the SPD. On the basis of the growing combativity, the disintegration of the front and the fact that the workers were pushing for action, at the end of October they began to discuss concrete plans for an insurrection in the context of an action committee formed after the conference mentioned above.

On 23rd October Liebknecht was freed from prison. More than 20,000 workers came to greet him when he arrived in Berlin.

After the German government had expelled the members of the Russian embassy from Berlin at the insistence of the SPD, and after the demonstrations of support for the Russian revolution organized by the revolutionaries, the action committee met to discuss the situation. Liebknecht insisted on the need for the general strike and mass, armed demonstrations. At the "Delegates" meeting of 2nd November he even proposed a date - the 5th - with the slogan: "Peace at once and the removal of the state of siege, the socialist German republic, the formation of a government of workers' and soldiers' councils" (Drabkin, pg 104).

The "Delegates" who thought that the situation was not ripe enough pleaded that it was necessary to wait longer. During this time the members of the USPD in the various towns waited for new instructionsbecause no one wanted to go into action before Berlin. However the news of an imminent uprising spread to other towns of the Reich. All this was to be accelerated by the events in Kiel.

When on 3rd November the fleet in Kiel was to go to sea to continue the war, the sailors mutinied. Soldiers' councils were created and workers' councils followed in the same wave. The army high command threatened to bomb the town but, realizing that they could not stem the mutiny through violence, they sent for their Trojan horse, the SPD leader Noske. The latter turned up there and succeeded fraudulently in getting himself onto the workers' council.

But this movement of workers' and soldiers' councils had already sent out a signal to the whole proletariat. The councils formed massive delegations of workers and soldiers that made their way to other towns. Enormous delegations were sent to Hamburg, Bremen, Flensburg, to the Ruhr and even as far as Cologne. They addressed assemblies of workers and called for the formation of workers' and soldiers' councils. Thousands of workers travelled from towns in the north of Germany to Berlin and other towns in the provinces. A number of them were arrested by soldiers remaining loyal to the government (more than 1,300 arrests in Berlin alone on 6th November) and were retained in the barracks - where they continued agitating however.

Within a week workers' and soldiers' councils appeared in the main towns in Germany and the workers themselves took control of the extension of their movement. They did not leave it in the hands of the unions or parliament. They no longer fought by branch, isolated from each other, with demands specific to their sector; on the contrary in each town they united and formulated common demands. They acted on their own initiative and sought to unite with workers in other towns[1].

Less than two years after their brothers in Russia, the German workers demonstrated their capacity to direct their struggle themselves. Up until 8th November workers' and soldiers' councils were set up in almost every city, except Berlin.

On 8th November the "men of confidence" of the SPD made this report: "It is impossible to stop the revolutionary movement; if the SPD were to try and oppose the movement it would be swept away by the current".

When the first news from Kiel reached Berlin on 4th November, Liebknecht made a proposal to the executive committee for an insurrection on 8th November. Although the movement was spreading spontaneously throughout the country it was clear that an uprising in Berlin (the seat of government) made it necessary for the working class to have an organized trajectory and be clearly oriented towards one objective: to gather together all its forces. But the executive committee continued to hesitate. It was only after the arrest of two of its members who were in possession of the proposal for the insurrection that it decided in favor of action for the following day. On 8th November 1918 the Spartakists published the following appeal:

"Now that the moment to act has arrived there must be no hesitation. The same "socialists" who have spent four years supporting the government and in its service (...) are now doing all they can to weaken your struggle and undermine the movement.

Workers and soldiers! What your comrades have managed to do in Kiel, Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck, Rostock, Flensburg, Hanover, Magdeburg, Brunswick, Munich and Stuttgart you too must do. Because the victory of your brothers there, and the victory of the proletariat of the whole world depends on the height that your struggle is able to reach, its tenacity and success. Soldiers! Do what your comrades of the fleet have done; unite with your brothers in workmen's clothes. Don't let yourselves be used against your brothers, don't obey the orders of your officers, don't fire on those who are fighting for freedom. Workers and soldiers! The immediate aims of your struggle must be:

1) The freeing of all civilian and military prisoners.

2) The abolition of all states and the elimination of all dynasties.

3) The election of workers' and soldiers' councils, the election of delegates in all factories and all military units.

4) The immediate establishing of relations with other workers' councils and German soldiers.

5) The government to be controlled by the commissars of the workers' and soldiers' councils.

6) Immediate liaison with the international proletariat and particularly with the Russian Workers' Republic.

Long live the socialist Republic!
Long live the International!"

The "International" group (Spartakus group), 8th November.

The events of 9th November

In the early hours of 9th November the revolutionary uprising began in Berlin.

"Workers, soldiers, comrades!

The moment of decision has come! We must be up to our historic task...

We aren't simply demanding the abdication of one man, we're demanding the republic!

The socialist republic and all that it entails. Forward with the struggle for peace, freedom and bread.

Come out of the factories! Come out of the barracks! Hold out your hands! Long live the socialist republic" (Spartakus leaflet).

Hundreds of thousands of workers answered the call of the Spartakus group and the executive committee, stopped work and surged towards the city center in huge processions. At their head marched groups of armed workers. The great majority of the troops united with the demonstrating workers and fraternized with them. By midday Berlin was in the hands of the revolutionary workers and soldiers. A column of demonstrators made their way to the residence of the Hohenzollern. Liebknecht addressed them: "Capitalist domination, that has transformed Europe into a cemetery, is now broken. (...) We mustn't think that our task is finished because the past is dead. We must use all our strength to build the workers' and soldiers' government (...) We hold out our hands to the workers of the whole world and invite them to make the world revolution (...). I proclaim the free socialist republic of Germany" (Liebknecht, 9th November).

In addition he warned the workers not to make do with what they had achieved, and called on them to seize power and for the international unification of the working class.

The old regime did not use force on 9th of November to defend itself. However this was not because it hesitated to shed blood (it had millions of dead on its conscience) but because the revolution had disorganized the army by withdrawing a large number of soldiers who could have fired on the people. Just as in Russia in February 1917, when the soldiers sided with the workers in struggle, the reaction of the German soldiers was an important factor in the balance of class forces. But it was only because the working class organized itself, came out of the factories to "occupy the street" and unified en masse that the crucial question of the workers in uniform could be resolved. By convincing them of the need to fraternize the workers showed that it was they who had the leading role!

In the afternoon of 9th November thousands of delegates met at Cirque Busch. R. Muller, one of the main leaders of the revolutionary "Delegates" made an appeal that "the election of workers' and soldiers' councils be organized in every factory and military unit on 10th November. The councils elected must hold an assembly at Cirque Busch at 17:00 hours to elect a provisional government. The factories must elect one member to the workers' council for every 1,000 workers (male and female). Likewise the soldiers must elect one member to the soldiers' council per battalion. The smaller factories (less than 500 workers) must each elect a delegate. The assembly insists that an organ of authority be nominated by the assembly of councils".

In this way the workers took the first steps to create a situation of dual power. Would they manage to go as far as their class brothers in Russia?

The Spartakists, for their part, were in favor of strengthening the pressure and initiatives emanating from the local councils. The living democracy of the working class, the active participation of the workers, general assemblies in the factories, the designation of delegates who are responsible to these and are revocable; this is what the practice of the working class must be!

The revolutionary workers and soldiers occupied the print works of the Berliner-Lokal-Anzeiger on the evening of 9th November and printed the first issue of the newspaper Die rote Fahne; which promptly warned that: "There is no community of interests with those who have betrayed you for the last four years. Down with capitalism and its agents! Long live the revolution! Long live the International!".

The question of the seizure of power by the working class: the bourgeoisie stands to its guns

The first workers' and soldiers' council in Berlin (called the Executive) soon saw itself as an organ of authority; in its first proclamation on 11th November it declared itself to be the supreme unit of control over the whole of the public administration of the districts, the Lander and the Reich as well as the military administration.

But the ruling class did not cheerfully cede territory to the working class. On the contrary, it was to put up a most bitter resistance.

In fact, when Liebknecht declared the socialist republic in front of the Hohenzollern residence, the prince Max von Baden abdicated and handed over government affairs to Ebert as chancellor. The SPD proclaimed the "free republic of Germany".

So the SPD took official charge of governmental affairs; they called "for calm and order" and announced the holding of early ''free elections"; they realized that they could only oppose the movement by sapping it from within.

They set up their own workers' and soldiers' council that was composed entirely of SPD functionaries and upon which no-one had conferred any sort of legitimacy. Following this the SPD announced that the movement would be directed by itself and the USPD in unison.

Since then this tactic of encircling the movement and destroying it from within has been re-used constantly by the leftists with their bogus, self-proclaimed strike committees and their co-ordinations. Social-democracy and its successors, the groups on the extreme left of capital, specialize in placing themselves at the head of the movement and giving the impression that they are its legitimate representatives.

While trying to cut the ground from beneath the feet of the Executive by acting directly within it, the SPD announced the formation of a government including the USPD. The latter accepted but the Spartakists (who were still members of the USPD at the time) declined the offer. Although the difference between the USPD and the Spartakists was not very clear to the vast majority of workers, the Spartakists nevertheless were correct on the formation of the government. They sensed the trap and understood that you should not get into the same boat as the class enemy.

The best way to combat the workers' illusions in the left parties is not, as the Trotskyists and other leftists repeat unceasingly today, to put them into power and let them unmask themselves. What is necessary for the development of the class' consciousness is an absolutely clear and strict demarcation between classes, nothing less.

On the evening of 9th November the SPD and the leadership of the USPD proclaimed themselves the people's commissars and the government invested by the Executive Council.

The SPD demonstrated all its dexterity. It could now act against the working class from the government benches as well as in the name of the Executive of the councils. Ebert was both chancellor of the Reich and commissar of the people elected by the Executive of the councils; in this way he could seem to be on the side of the revolution. The SPD already had die confidence of the bourgeoisie but to succeed so skillfully in winning that of the workers, it demonstrated its ability to maneuver and mystify. There is a lesson for the working class here too: about the deceitful way the left forces of capital work.

Let us examine more closely how the SPD worked, specifically at the assembly of the workers' and soldiers' council on 10th November where there were about 3, 000 delegates present. No control over the mandates was exercised which meant that the soldiers' representatives were in the majority.

Ebert was the first to speak. According to him "the old fratricidal dispute" had ended now that the SPD and the USPD had formed a common government, it was now a matter of "undertaking the development of the economy together on the basis of socialist principles. Long live the unity of the German working class and the German soldiers". In the name of the USPD Haase celebrated "the refound unity": "We want to consolidate the victories of the great socialist revolution. The government will be a socialist government".

"Those who only yesterday were against the revolution are no longer against it" (E. Barth, 10th November 1918). "Everything must to done to prevent the coming of a counter-revolution".

So while the SPD did all in its power to mystify the working class, the USPD helped serve as a cover for its maneuvers. The Spartakists were aware of the danger; during this assembly Liebknecht stated: "I must water down the wine of your enthusiasm. The counter-revolution is already on the march, it's already in action ... I tell you this: the enemy is all around you! (He listed the counter-revolutionary aims of social-democracy). I realize how disagreeable this disturbance is to you, but even if you shoot me I'll say what I think it's essential to say".

So the Spartakists warned against the presence of the class enemy and insisted on the need to overthrow the system. For them what was at stake was not a change of personnel but the overthrow of the system itself.

On the other hand the SPD, with the USPD in its wake, worked to keep the system in place, pretending that by changing the leaders and installing a new government the working class had obtained a victory.

Here too the SPD have provided a lesson for the defenders of capital; a lesson on how to turn to anger of the workers against individual leaders in order to prevent it from being directed against the system as a whole. This way of working has been constantly used since then[2].

The SPD hammered this home in its newspaper of 10th November where it wrote, under the title "Unity and not a fratricidal struggle":

Capital's two weapons of political sabotage

From this moment on, the SPD threw a whole arsenal of weapons into the campaign against the working class. Alongside the "call to unity", it injected the poison of bourgeois democracy. According to the SPD, the introduction of "universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage for all men and women was presented both as the revolution's most important political conquest, and as the means to transform the order of capitalist society into socialism, by the will of the people and following a methodical plan". The SPD made believe that the goal had been reached, with the proclamation of the republic and the appointment of its own ministers; and that the Kaiser's abdication and Ebert's nomination as Chancellor meant the creation of a free People's State. In reality, all that had happened was the elimination of an unimportant anachronism, since the bourgeoisie had long been the politically dominant class; now the head of state was no longer a monarch, but a bourgeois. That did not change things much ... Moreover it is clear that the call for democratic elections was aimed directly against the workers' councils. The SPD bombarded the working class with an intensive, lying and criminal propaganda:

"Whoever wants bread, must want peace. Whoever wants peace, must want the Constituant, the freely elected representation of the whole German people. Whoever goes against the Constituant, or hesitates, is taking peace, bread and liberty away from you, is robbing you of the immediate fruits of the victory of the revolution: he is a counter-revolutionary.

Socialization will and must take place (...) by the will of the working people who, fundamentally, want to abolish this economy driven by the individual search for profit. But it will be a thousand times easier to impose if it is decreed by the Constituant, than ordered by the dictatorship of some revolutionary committee or other (...)

If we cite the SPD at such length, it is only to get an idea of the cunning and specious arguments used by Capital's left wing.

This reveals a classic characteristic of the bourgeoisie's action against the class struggle in highly industrialized countries: when the proletariat expresses its strength and aspires to its own unification, it is always the left forces who intervene with the most adroit demagogy. It is they who pretend to act in the interest of the workers, and try to sabotage the struggle from the inside, preventing the movement from taking its decisive steps.

In Germany, the revolutionary working class confronted a far stronger adversary than had the Russian workers. To deceive the class, the SPD adopted a radical language, supposedly in the interest of the revolution, and took the head of the movement when in reality it was the main agent of the bourgeois state. It acted against the working class, not as a party outside the state, but as its spearhead.

The first days of revolutionary confrontation had already shown the general nature of the class struggle in highly industrialized countries: a bourgeoisie versed in every cunning ruse confronted a strong working class. It would be an illusion to think that the class could gain a victory so easily.

As we will see later, the unions acted as Capital's second pillar, and collaborated with the bosses immediately after the movement's outbreak. After organizing military production during the war, they intervened with the SPD to defeat the movement. A few concessions were made, including the eight-hour day, in order to prevent any further radicalization of the working class.

But even political sabotage and the SPD's undermining of the working class' consciousness were not enough: the traitor party simultaneously made an agreement with the army for military action.

Repression

General Groener, the army Chief of Staff, who had collaborated daily with the SPD and the unions throughout the war, explained:

"We allied ourselves to fight Bolshevism. It was impossible to restore the monarchy (...) I had advised the Feldmarschall not to combat the revolution by force, because given the state of mind of the troops, it was to be feared that such a method would end in failure. I proposed that the military high command should ally with the SPD, since there was no party with enough influence among the people, and the masses, to rebuild a governmental force with the military command. The parties of the right had completely disappeared, and it was out of the question to work with the radical extremists. In the first place, we had to snatch power from the hands of the Berlin workers' and soldiers' councils. An undertaking was planned with this aim in view. Ten divisions were to enter Berlin. Ebert agreed (...) We had worked out a program which planned, after the arrival of the troops, to clean up Berlin and disarm the Spartakists. This was also agreed with Ebert, to whom I was especially grateful for his absolute love for the fatherland (...) This alliance was sealed against the Bolshevik danger and the system of councils" (October-November 1925, Zeugenaussage).

With this aim in view, Groener, Ebert and their accomplices maintained a daily telephone contact between 11: 00 at night and 1:00 in the morning, on secret telephone lines, and met to concert their action.

Contrary to October in Russia, where power fell into the workers' hands with scarcely a drop of blood shed, the German bourgeoisie immediately prepared, alongside its political sabotage, to unleash civil war. For the very first day, it began gathering the means necessary for military repression.

The intervention of revolutionaries

To evaluate the intervention of revolutionaries, we need to examine their ability to analyses correctly the movement of the class, the evolution of the balance of class forces, what had been achieved, and their ability to put forward the clearest perspectives. What were the Spartakists saying?

"The revolution has begun. What is called for now is not jubilation at what has been accomplished, not triumph over the beaten foe, but the strictest self-criticism and iron concentration of energy in order to continue the work we have begun. For our accomplishments are small and the foe has not been beaten.

What has been achieved? The monarchy has been swept away, supreme governing power had been transferred into the hands of the workers' and soldiers' representatives. But the monarchy was never the real enemy; it was only a facade, the frontispiece of imperialism (...)

The abolition of the rule of capitalism, the realization of the social order of socialism

- this and nothing less is the historical theme of the present revolution. This is a huge work which cannot be completed in the twinkling of an eye by a few decrees from above; it can be born only of the conscious action of the mass of workers in the cities and in the country, and brought successfully through the maze of difficulties only by the highest intellectual maturity and unflagging idealism of the masses of the people.

The path of the revolution follows clearly from its ends, its method follows from its task. All power in the hands of the working masses, in the hands of the workers' and soldiers' councils, protection of the work of the revolution against its lurking enemies - this is the guiding principle of all measures to be taken by the revolutionary government.

Every step, every act by the government must, like a compass, point in this direction:

- re-election and improvement of the local workers' and soldiers' councils so that the first chaotic and impulsive gestures of their formation are replaced by a conscious process of understanding the goals, tasks and methods of the revolution;

- regularly scheduled meetings of these representatives of the masses and the transfer of real political power from the small committee of the Executive Council into the broader basis of the workers' and soldiers' councils;

- immediate convocation of the national council of workers and soldiers in order to establish the proletariat of all Germany as a class, as a compact political power, and to make them the bulwark and impetus of the revolution;

- immediate organization, not of the "farmers ", but of the agrarian proletariat and smallholders who, as a class, have until now been outside the revolution;

- formation of a proletarian Red Guard for the permanent protection of the revolution, and training of a workers' militia in order to prepare the whole proletariat to be on guard at all times;

- suppression of the old organs of administration, justice and the army of the absolutist militarist police state;

- immediate confiscation of dynastic property and possessions, and of landed property as initial temporary measures to guarantee the people's food supply, since hunger is the most dangerous ally of the counter-revolution;

- immediate convocation of a World Labour Congress in Germany in order to emphasize clearly and distinctly the socialist and international character of the revolution, for only in the International, in the world revolution of the proletariat, is the future of the German revolution anchored" (Rosa Luxemburg, "The Beginning", Die Rote Fahne, 18th November 1918).

Destruction of the counter-revolution's positions of political power, erection and consolidation of the proletarian power, these were the two tasks that the Spartakists put to the fore with remarkable clarity.

"The result of the first week of the revolution is as follows: in the state of the Hohenzollerns, not much has basically changed; the workers' and soldiers' government is acting as the deputy of the imperialist government that has gone bankrupt. All its acts and omissions are governed by fear of the working masses (...)

The reactionary state of the civilized world will not become a revolutionary people's state within twenty-four hours. Soldiers who yesterday, were murdering the revolutionary proletariat in Finland, Russia and the Ukraine, and workers who calmly allowed this to happen, have not become in twenty-four hours supporters of socialism or clearly aware of their goals" (Luxemburg, op cit).

The Spartakists' analysis, that this was no bourgeois revolution but the counter-revolution already on the march, their ability to analyze the situation clearly and with a grasp of the overall situation, show how vital for the class' movement are its revolutionary political organizations.

The workers' councils, spearhead of the revolution

As we have said above, in the great cities workers' and soldiers' councils were formed everywhere during the first days of November. Although the councils appeared "spontaneously", this came as no surprise to the revolutionaries. They had already appeared in Russia, and also in Austria and Hungary. As Lenin said in March 1919, speaking for the Communist International: "This form is the Soviet regime with the dictatorship of the proletariat: these words were "Greek" to the masses until recently. Now, thanks to the system of Soviets, this Greek has been translated into all the world's modern languages; the practical form of the dictatorship has been discovered by the working masses" (Speech at the opening of the first Congress of the Communist International).

The appearance of the workers' councils reflects the determination of the working class to take its own destiny in hand. The workers' councils can only appear when there is a massive activity throughout the class, and a massive and profound development of class consciousness is under way. This is why the councils are no more than the spearhead of a profound global movement within the class, and why they are so strongly dependent on the activity of the class as a whole. If the class' activity in the factories weakens, if its combativity and its consciousness retreat, this necessarily affects the life of the councils. They are the means of centralizing the class struggle; they are the lever whereby the class lays claim to and imposes its power in society.

In many towns, the councils did indeed begin to take measures to oppose the bourgeois state. As soon as the councils came into existence, the workers tried to paralyze the bourgeois state apparatus, to take decisions themselves in the place of the bourgeois government, and to put them into practice. This was the beginning of the period of dual power, just as it had been in February 1917 in Russia. This happened everywhere, but it was most visible in Berlin, the seat of government.

Bourgeois sabotage

Because the workers' councils are the lever for centralizing the workers' struggle, because all the initiative of the masses converges within them, it is vital for the class to keep control of them.

In Germany, the capitalist class used a real Trojan horse against the councils, thanks to the SPD. A workers' party up until 1914, the SPD fought the councils, then sabotaged them from inside and turned them away from their real objective, all in the name of the working class.

The SPD used every trick imaginable to get its own delegates into the councils. The Berlin Executive Council was at first composed of six delegates each from the SPD and USPD, and a dozen soldiers' delegates. And yet, in Berlin the SPD used the pretext of a necessary parity of votes and unity of the working class to introduce many of its own men into the Executive Council, without any decision being taken by any kind of workers' assembly. Thanks to this tactic of insisting on "parity of votes between the parties", the SPD received more delegates than its real influence in the class warranted. In the provinces, things were much the same: out of 40 major cities, about 30 workers' and soldiers' councils were under the dominant influence of the SPD and USPD leaders. Only in those towns where the Spartakists had more influence did the workers' councils take a more radical direction.

As far as the councils' tasks were concerned, the SPD tried to sterilize them. Whereas the councils by their very nature tend to act as a counter-power to that of the bourgeois state, and even to destroy the latter, the SPD managed to weaken the class' organs, and subject them to the bourgeois state. It did so by spreading the idea, first that the councils should consider themselves as transitional organs, until the elections for the national assembly, but also, to strip them of their class character, that they should be opened to the whole population, to all strata of the population. In many towns, the SPD created "committees of public safety", which included all sections of the population - from peasants and small shopkeepers to the workers - with the same rights in these organisms.

From the outset, the Spartakists pushed for the formation of Red Guards, to impose the councils' decisions by force if necessary. The SPD torpedoed this initiative in the soldiers' councils on the pretext that it "expressed a lack of confidence in the soldiers".

In the Berlin Executive Council, there were constant confrontations on the measures to be adopted and the direction to be taken. Although it cannot be said that all the workers' delegates were sufficiently clear or determined on every question, the SPD did everything it could to undermine the council's authority from both inside and out:

- as soon as the Executive Council gave one set of orders, others would be imposed by the Council of People's Commissars (led by the SPD);

- the Executive never disposed of its own press, and had to beg for space in the bourgeois press in order to publish its own resolutions. The SPD delegates did everything to keep it this way;

- when, in November and December, strikes broke out in the Berlin factories, the Executive Committee under the influence of the SPD took position against them, although they expressed the strength of the working class, and could have made it possible to correct the errors of the Executive Council;

- finally, the SPD - as a leading force in the bourgeois government - used the threat of the Allies, supposedly ready to intervene militarily and occupy Germany to prevent its "Bolshevization", to make the workers hesitate, and put a break on the movement. For example, they put it about that if the workers' councils went too far, then the USA would stop the delivery of food supplies to the starving population.

Whether through the threat of outside intervention, or by internal sabotage, the SPD used every possible means against the working class in movement.

From the outset, the SPD did everything in its power to isolate the councils from their base in the factories.

In every enterprise, the councils were made up delegates elected by the general assemblies, and responsible to them. If the workers were to lose their power of decision in the general assemblies, or if the councils became detached from their roots, their base in the factories, then they would themselves be weakened and would inevitably fall victim to the bourgeois counter-offensive. This is why, from the outset, the SPD pushed for the councils to be constituted by sharing out seats proportionally among the political parties. The assemblies' power to elect and revoke their delegates is no formal principle of workers' democracy, but the lever whereby the proletariat can - from its most basic component - direct and control its struggle. The experience in Russia had already shown how essential was the activity of the factory committees. If the workers' councils were no longer required to account for themselves before the class, before the assemblies which elected them, and if the class is no longer capable of exercising its control over them, then this means that its movement is weakening, and that power is slipping from its hands.

In Russia, Lenin had made this clear:

"To control, it is necessary to hold power (...) If I put control to the fore, masking this fundamental condition, then I am telling an untruth and playing the game of the capitalists and imperialists (...) Without power, control is a hollow petty-bourgeois phrase which hinders the march and development of the revolution" (Lenin, "Report on the Present Situation" to the April Conference).

Whereas in Russia, from the very first weeks the councils based on the workers and soldiers disposed of real power, the Executive of Berlin Councils had none. As Rosa Luxemburg rightly said: "The Executive of the united Russian councils is - whatever may be written against it - something else again from the Berlin executive. One is the head and brain of a powerful revolutionary proletarian organization, the other is the fifth wheel on the carriage of a crypto-capitalist governmental clique; the first is the inexhaustible fountain of total proletarian power, the other is without strength and without orientation; the first is the living spirit of the revolution, the other is its tomb" (Rosa Luxemburg, 12th December 1918).

The national Congress of councils

On 23rd November, the Berlin Executive called a national congress of councils, to be held ill Berlin on 16th December. This initiative was supposed to unite all lie forces of lie working class: in fact, it would be used against them. The SPD imposed the election, in the different regions of the Reich, of one worker delegate per 200,000 inhabitants and one soldier delegate per 100,000 soldiers, whereby the workers' representation was diminished, while that of the soldiers was increased. Instead of reflecting the strength and activity of the class in the factories, this congress, under the impetus of the SPD, was to slip from the workers' control.

Moreover, according to these same saboteurs, only "workers' delegates", of the "workers by hand or brain" should be elected. All the SPD bureaucrats were present, under the pretext of their original trades; by contrast, the members of the Spartakus League, who appeared in the open, were excluded. By pulling every imaginable string, the forces of the bourgeoisie managed to impose themselves, whereas the revolutionaries who acted openly were prevented from speaking.

When the Congress of councils met on 16th December, it began by rejecting the participation of delegates from Russia. "The general assembly meeting on 16th December does not deal with international deliberations, but only with German affairs in which foreigners cannot of course participate (...) The Russian delegation is nothing other than a representative of the Bolshevik dictatorship". This was the justification given in Vorwarts (no 340, 11th December 1918). By getting this decision adopted, the SPD immediately stripped the conference of what should have been its most fundamental character: as an expression of the world proletarian revolution which had begun in Russia.

In the same logic of sabotage and derailment, the SPD got the Congress to vote the call for the election of a constituent assembly for the 19th January 1919.

The Spartakists understood the maneuver, and called for a mass demonstration in front of the Congress. More than 250,000 demonstrators gathered under the slogan: "For the workers' and soldiers' councils, no to the national assembly!".

As the Congress acted against the interests of the working class, Liebknecht addressed the demonstrators: "We demand that the Congress take all political power into its hands to bring in socialism, and that it should not transfer it to the constituent assembly, which will not be in any way a revolutionary organ. We demand that the Congress of councils stretch out its hand to our class brothers in Russia, for them to join in the work of this Congress. We want the world revolution and the unification of all the workers in every country, in the workers' and soldiers' councils" (17th December 1918).

The revolutionaries understood the vital necessity of mobilizing the working masses, of putting pressure on their delegates, of electing new ones, of developing the initiative of the general assemblies in the factories, of defending the councils' autonomy against the bourgeois national assembly, and of insisting on the international unification of the working class.

Yet even after this massive demonstration, the congress continued to refuse the participation of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, on the pretext that they were not workers, while the bourgeoisie had already managed to get its own men into the councils. During the Congress, the SPD representatives took the defense of the army, to prevent its further disintegration by the soldiers' councils. The congress also decided not to receive any more delegations from workers and soldiers, so as not to be put under pressure by them.

At the end of its sessions, the congress made the confusion still worse by blathering on about the so-called first measures of socialization, when the workers had not even taken power. "Carrying out socio-political measures in isolated, individual companies is an illusion, as long as the bourgeoisie still hold political power in its hands" (IKD, Der Kommunist). The central questions of disarming the counter-revolution and overthrowing the bourgeois government were pushed aside.

What should the revolutionaries do against such a development?

On 16th December in Dresden, Otto Ruhle - who had meanwhile moved towards councilism - threw in the towel as soon as the town's social-democrats got the upper hand in the local workers' and soldiers' councils. The Spartakists, however, did not abandon the battlefield to the enemy. After denouncing the national congress of councils, they called for the initiative of the working class: "The congress of councils has overstepped its powers, it has betrayed the mandate it was given by the workers' and soldiers' councils, it has cut away the ground on which its existence and authority were based. The workers' and soldiers' councils must henceforth develop their power and defend their right to exist with tenfold energy. They will declare null and void the counter-revolutionary work of their unworthy men of confidence" (Rosa Luxemburg, Ebert's Janissaries, 20th December 1918).

The revolution's lifeblood is the activity of the masses

The Spartakists' responsibility was to push forward the masses' initiative, to intensify their activity. This is the orientation that they were to put forward ten days later at the founding Congress of the KPD. We will deal with the work of this congress in a later article.

The Spartakists had understood that the pulse of the revolution beats in the councils; the proletarian revolution is the first to be carried out by the great majority of the population, by the exploited class. Unlike the bourgeois revolutions which could be carried out by minorities, the proletariat can only be victorious if the revolution is constantly fed and pushed forward by the activity of the whole class. The councils, and the council delegates, are not a separate pan of the class which can isolate themselves from the rest, or even protect themselves from it, or maintain the rest of the class in a state of passivity. No, the revolution can only advance through the conscious, vigilant, active and critical activity of the entire class.

For the working class in Germany, this meant entering into a new phase, where it would have to increase the pressure coming from the factories. As for the Communists, the absolute priority was their agitation in the local councils. The Spartakists thus followed the policy that Lenin had already advocated in April 1917, when the situation in Russia was comparable to that now in Germany:

"The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers' Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.

As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticizing and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience" (Lenin, April Theses no 4).

We cannot properly understand the dynamic in the councils unless we analyze closely the role of the soldiers.

Liebknecht reported: "this had the effect of destabilizing the army. But as soon as the bourgeoisie put an end to the war, a split appeared within the army. The mass of soldiers is revolutionary against militarism, against the war and against the open representatives of imperialism. With regard to socialism, they are still undecided, hesitant and immature" (Liebknecht, 19th November 1918). While the war continued and the troops remained mobilized, soldiers' councils were formed.

"The soldiers' councils are the expression of a mass composed of all the classes in society, within which the proletariat is by far the largest, but certainly not the proletariat conscious of its aims and ready for the class struggle. Often they are formed directly from above, on the initiative of officers and circles of the high nobility, who by adapting adroitly seek to keep their influence over the soldiers by getting themselves elected as the latter's representatives" (Liebknecht, 21st November 1918).

As such, the army is a classic instrument of repression and imperialist conquest, controlled and led by officers under the exploiting state. In a revolutionary situation, where thousands of soldiers are in effervescence, where normal hierarchical relations are no longer respected, but where the workers in uniform take decisions collectively, all this can lead to the disintegration of the army, especially since they are armed. But to arrive at such a situation, it is necessary that the working class, by its activity, should provide a sufficiently strong reference point for the soldiers.

This dynamic existed during the final phase of the war. And this is why the bourgeoisie, feeling the danger rising, stopped the war to prevent a still further radicalization in the army. The new situation that was thus created allowed the ruling class to "calm" the soldiers and to separate them from the revolution, while the movement of the working class was not itself strong enough to attract the majority of the soldiers to its own side. This allowed the bourgeoisie all the better to manipulate the soldiers in its own favor.

The weight of the soldiers was important during the movement's ascendant phase - and indeed was vital in putting an end to the war; but their role was to change when the bourgeoisie began its counter -offensive.

The revolution can only be carried out internationally

The capitalists had fought for four years, sacrificing millions of human lives, but no sooner had the revolution broken out in Russia, and above all when the German proletariat began to move, than they all united against the working class. The Spartakists understood the danger that could result from the isolation of the working class in Germany and Russia. On 25th November, they raised the following call: "To the proletarians of all countries! The hour has struck to settle accounts with capitalist rule. But this great task cannot be carried out by the German proletariat alone. It can only struggle and win by calling on the solidarity of the proletarians of the entire world. Comrades of the belligerent nations, you know our situation. You know that your governments, because they have gained the victory, are blinding many elements of the people with the sparkle of victory (...) Your victorious capitalists are ready to drown in blood our revolution, which they fear as much as yours'. "Victory" has not made you more free, it has only enslaved you more. If your ruling classes succeed in stifling the revolution in Russia and Germany, they will turn against you with redoubled ferocity (...) Germany is giving birth to the social revolution, but only the international proletariat can build socialism" (To the proletarians of all countries, Spartakusbund, 25th November 1918).

While the SPD did everything it could to separate the German workers from those in Russia, the revolutionaries committed all their strength to unify the working class.

In this respect, the Spartakists were aware that "Today there naturally reigns among the peoples of the Entente a strong intoxication of victory; and the jubilation at the ruin of German imperialism and the liberation of France and Belgium makes so much noise that we cannot expect for the moment a revolutionary echo from the working classes in those countries which were our enemies until yesterday" (Liebknecht, 23rdDecember 1918). They knew that the revolution had created a serious split in the ranks of the working class. Capital's defenders, and in particular the SPD, began to set the workers in Germany against those in other countries. They even brandished the threat of foreign intervention. All this has often been used since by the ruling class.

The bourgeoisie learnt the lessons of Russia

Under the SPD's leadership, the bourgeoisie signed the armistice putting an end to the war on 11th November for fear that the working class would continue its radicalization, and go down "the Russian road". This ushered in a new situation.

As R Muller, one of the leading revolutionary "Delegates", put it: "The whole war policy, with all its effects on the workers' situation, the Sacred Union with the bourgeoisie, everything that had provoked the workers' anger, was forgotten".

The bourgeoisie had learnt its lesson from Russia. If the Russian bourgeoisie had put an end to the war in April of March 1917, the October Revolution would certainly have been either impossible, or at the least far more difficult. It was therefore necessary to stop the war, in the hope of cutting the ground from under the feet of the revolutionary class movement. Here also, the German workers faced a different situation from that confronting their class brothers in Russia.

"If we place ourselves on the terrain of historical development, then we cannot expect, in a Germany which has given us the frightful spectacle of 4th August and the four years that followed, a sudden upsurge, the 9th November 1918, of a grandiose class revolution conscious of its goals; what we experienced on 9th November, was three quarters the collapse of the existing imperialism, rather than the victory of a new principle. It was simply that for imperialism, a colossus with feet of clay, rotten from within, its time had come, it had to collapse; what followed was a more or less chaotic movement, without any battle plan, and with very little consciousness; the only coherent link, the only constant and liberating principle was summed up in one slogan: creation of workers' and soldiers' councils" (R Luxemburg at the founding Congress of the KPD).

This is why we should not confuse the beginning of the movement with its final goal, for "no proletariat in the world, not even the German proletariat, can rid itself overnight of the stigmata of thousands of years of servitude. The proletariat's situation does not reach its highest level, either politically or spiritually, on the first day of the revolution. It is only the struggle of the revolution that will, in this sense, raise the proletariat to its complete maturity" (R Luxemburg, 3rd December 1918).

The weight of the past

The Spartakists were right to seek the causes of these great difficulties of the class, in the weight of the past. The confidence that many workers still had in the policies of the SPD was a serious weakness. There were many who thought that the party's war policy had been due to a passing confusion. Worse, many saw the war being solely due to the ignoble machinations of the governmental clique which had just been overthrown. Remembering the more or less tolerable situation prior to the war, they hoped to escape soon and for good, from the misery of the present. Moreover, US President Wilson's promises of the unity of nations and democracy seemed to offer guarantee against new wars. The democratic republic they were "offered" appeared, not as the bourgeois republic, but as the soil where socialism could blossom. In short, the pressure of democratic illusions, and the lack of experience in confronting the sabotage of the unions and the SPD were determining.

"In all previous revolutions, the combatants confronted each other openly, class against class, program against program, shield against sword (...) [Beforehand] it was always the supporters of the system under threat or overthrown who took counter-revolutionary measures in the hope of saving it (...) In the revolution today the troops defending the old order are drawn up, not under their own flag and in the uniform of the ruling class, but under the flag of the social-democratic party (...) Bourgeois class rule is today fighting its last historic world struggle under a foreign flag, under the flag of the revolution itself. It is a socialist party, in other words the most original creation of the workers' movement and the class struggle, which has transformed itself into the most important instrument of the bourgeois counter-revolution. The basis, the tendency, the politics, the psychology, the method, are all capitalist to the core. All that remains is the flag, the apparatus and the phraseology of socialism" (R Luxemburg, A Pyrrhic VIctory, 21st December 1918).

The SPD's counter-revolutionary character could not be more clearly described.

This is why the Spartakists defined the next stage of the movement as follows:

"The passage from the predominantly soldiers' revolution of 9th November 1918 to a specifically workers' revolution, the passage from a superficial, purely political upheaval, to the long-term process of a general economic confrontation between Capital and Labor, demands of the working class quite another degree of political maturity, education and tenacity than that which has sufficed for the first phase of the beginning" (R Luxemburg, 3rd January 1919).

Certainly, the movement at the beginning of November was not solely a "soldiers' revolution", for without the workers in the factories the soldiers would never have reached such a level of radicalization. The Spartakists saw the perspective of a real step forward when in late November and early December, strikes broke out in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia. This revealed the activity of the working class in the factories and a diminution in the weight of the war and the role of the soldiers. With the end of hostilities, the economic collapse led to a still greater deterioration in the working class' living conditions. In the Ruhr many miners stopped work, and to impose their demands they would travel to other mines to seek the solidarity of their class brothers, and so build a powerful front. The struggles were thus to develop, then retreat, then go forward again with new strength.

Once the bourgeoisie had put an end to the war under the pressure of the working class, and had passed onto the offensive to counter the proletariat's first attempts to take power, the movement entered a new phase. Either the factory workers were to prove capable of developing a new thrust, to pass to a "specifically workers' revolution", or the bourgeoisie would be able to continue its counter-offensive.

In the next article, we will look at the question of the insurrection, the fundamental conceptions of the workers' revolution, the role that revolutionaries must and did, play in it.

DV

[1] The revolutionary movement was especially strong in Cologne. Within the space of 24 hours, on 9th November, 45,000 soldiers refused to obey their officers and deserted. On 7th November the revolutionary soldiers from Kiel were already on the way to Cologne. The future chancellor K. Adenauer, who was at that time the city's mayor, and the leadership of the SPD took measures to "calm the situation".

[2] From that time on capital has repeatedly used the same tactic: in 1980, when Poland was in the grip of a workers' mass strike, the bourgeoisie changed the government. The list of examples, where the dominant class has changed personnel to prevent the workers' anger being directed against capitalist domination, is endless.

In April, the ICC held its 11th International Congress. In so far as communist organizations are a part of the proletariat, a historic product of the class and an active factor in its struggle for emancipation, their Congresses, which are their supreme body, are extremely important to the working class. This is why communists have to give an account of this essential moment in the life of their organization.

Organizational problems in the history of the workers' movement...

The historic experience of the revolutionary organizations of the proletariat demonstrates that questions regarding their functioning are political questions in their own right and need to be looked at with considerable attention and depth.

There are many examples in the workers' movement of this importance of the organizational question, but we can speak more particularly here of the IWMA (International Working Men's Association, later known as the 1st International), and of the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), held in 1903.

The IWMA was founded in September 1864 in London, on the initiative of a number of French and English workers. It adopted a centralized structure straight away, with a central Council, which after the 1866 Geneva Congress was known as the General Council. Marx was to play a leading role within the Council, since it fell to him to write a large number of its basic texts, such as the IWMA's founding address, its statutes, and the address on the Paris Commune (The Civil War in France, May 1871). The IWMA (or "The International", as the workers called it) quickly became a "power" in the advanced countries (above all in Western Europe). Up till the 1871 Paris Commune, it regrouped a growing number of workers and was a leading-factor in the development of the proletariat's two essential weapons: its organization and its consciousness. This is why, indeed, the International was subjected to increasingly bitter attacks by the bourgeoisie: slander in the press, infiltration by informers, persecution of its members, etc. But the IWMA ran the greatest danger from the attacks of some of its own members against the International's very mode of organization.

Already, when the IWMA was founded, the provisional rules were translated by the Parisian sections, strongly influenced by Proudhon's federalist conceptions, in a way which considerably weakened the International's centralized character. But the most dangerous attacks were to come later, with the entry into its ranks of the "Alliance de la democratic socialiste" founded by Bakunin. This latter was to find fertile ground within important sections of the International, due to its own weaknesses which were in turn the result of the weaknesses of the proletariat at the time, a proletariat which had still not disengaged itself from the weaknesses of its previous stage of development.

Against the whimsical and antagonistic organizations of the sects, the International is a real, militant organization of the proletarian class of every country, linked together in their common struggle against the capitalists, the landowners, and their class power organized in the state. The statutes of the International therefore only recognize simple workers' societies, all pursuing the same aim, and all accepting the same program which limits itself to sketching the main traits of the proletarian movement, leaving the theoretical elaboration to the impulse given by the demands of the practical struggle, by the exchange of ideas in the sections, admitting all socialist convictions in their publications and congresses.

Just as, in any new historical phase, the old mistakes reappear for an instant only to disappear soon afterwards, so in the International we have seen the rebirth of sectarian sections within it ..." (The fictitious splits in the International, chapter IV, Circular of the General Council of 5th March 1872)

This weakness was especially marked in the most backward sectors of the European proletariat where it had only just emerged from the peasant and artisan classes. Bakunin, who entered the International in 1868 after the collapse of the "League for Peace and Liberty" (which regrouped bourgeois republicans, and of which he was a leading member), used these weaknesses to try to subject the International to his anarchist conceptions, and to bring it under his control. The tool for this operation was to be the "Alliance de la democratic socialiste"; which he had founded as a minority in the "League for Peace and Li berry". The AIIiance was both a public and a secret society, which in fact intended to form an International within the International. Its secret structure and the collusion this allowed amongst its members was supposed to ensure its "influence" over as many of the IWMA's sections as possible, especially those where anarchist conceptions encountered the greatest echo. In itself, the existence of several different trends of thought within the IWMA did not pose any problem[3]. By contrast, the activity of the Alliance, aimed at replacing the official structure of the International, was a serious factor of disorganization, and endangered the latter's very existence. The Alliance first tried to take control of the International at the Basle Congress in September 1869. With this aim in view, its members, in particular Bakunin and James Guillaume, warmly supported an administrative resolution strengthening the powers of the General Council. Failing in this, however, the Alliance (which itself had adopted secret statutes based on an extreme centralization[4] began a campaign against the "dictatorship" of the General Council, which it aimed to reduce to the role of a "statistical and correspondance bureau" to use the Alliancists terms, or to a mere "letter-box" as Marx answered them. Against the principle of centralization as an expression of the proletariat's international unity, the Alliance preached "federalism", the complete "autonomy of the sections", and the non-obligatory nature of Congress decisions. In fact, the Alliance wanted to do whatever it liked in the sections which had come under its control. The way would be open to the complete disorganization of the IWMA.

IWMA out of the hands of the Alliance, they also proposed that the General Council be moved to New York, far from the conflicts that were dividing the International. This was also a means for allowing the International to die a natural death (confirmed by the 1876 Philadelphia Conference), without its prestige being hijacked by the Bakuninist intriguers.

The latter, and the anarchists have perpetuated this legend, claimed that Marx and the General Council excluded Bakunin and Guillaume because of their different vision of the question of the state5] (when they did not explain the conflict between Marx and Bakunin by questions of personality). In short, Marx was supposed to have wanted to settle a disagreement on general theoretical questions with administrative measures. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Hague Congress took no measures against the members of the Spanish delegation, who shared Bakunin's ideas and had belonged to the Alliance, but who declared that they no longer did so. Similarly, the "anti-authoritarian" IWMA formed after the Hague Congress from the Federations which refused to accept its decisions was not made up solely of anarchists, since it also included the German Lassalleans, who were great defenders of "state socialism" to use Marx's words. In fact, the real struggle within the IWMA was between those who stood for the unity of the workers' movement (and therefore the binding nature of Congress decisions), and those, who demanded the right to do whatever they pleased, each isolated from the others, treating the Congresses as mere assemblies, where everyone could exchange "points of view" without taking any decisions. With this informal mode of organization, it would fall to the Alliance to carry out, in secret, a real centralization of the Federations, as indeed Bakunin's correspondence explicitly stated. Putting these "anti-authoritarian" conceptions to work in the International would have been the best way to deliver it up to the intrigues, and the hidden and uncontrolled power of the Alliance, in other words the adventurers who led it.

The 2nd Congress of the RSDLP was the occasion for a similar confrontation between the defenders of a proletarian conception of the revolutionary organization, and the petty-bourgeois conception.

There are similarities between the situation in the West European workers' movement at the time of the IWMA, and the movement in Russia at the turn of the century. In both cases, the workers' movement was still in its youth, the separation in time being due to Russia's late industrial development. The IWMA's purpose was to regroup in a united organization, the different workers' societies that the proletariat's development had created. Similarly, the aim of the RSDLP's 2nd Congress was to unite the different committees, groups and circles of the social democracy which had developed in Russia and in exile. Following the disappearance of the Central Committee which had been formed by the RSDLP's 1st Congress in 1897, there had been almost no formal links between these different formations. The 2nd Congress thus saw, as with the IWMA, a confrontation between a conception of the organization representing the movement's past, that of the "Mensheviks" ("minorityites") and a conception expressing the requirements of the new situation, that of the "Bolsheviks" ("majorityites"):

"Under the name of the "minority" heterogeneous elements are regrouped in the Party who are united by the desire, conscious or not, to maintain the relations of a circle, the previous organizational form to the Party. Certain eminent militants of the most influential old circles, not having the habit of organizational restrictions that the Party must impose, are inclined to mechanically confuse the general interests of the Party and their circle interests, which can coincide in the period of circles" (Lenin, One step forward, two steps back).

Like the anarchists after the Hague Congress, the Mensheviks refused to recognize and apply the decisions of the 2nd RSDLP Congress, declaring that "the Congress is not divine" and that "its decisions are not sacred". In particular, just as the Bakuninists went to war against the principle of centralization and the "dictatorship of the General Council" after failing to take control of it, one reason that the Mensheviks began to reject centralization after the Congress was the fact that several of them had been removed from the central organs elected by the Congress. There are even likenesses in the way the Mensheviks campaigned against the Lenin's "personal dictatorship" and "iron fist", which echo Bakunin's accusations of Marx's "dictatorship" over the General Council.

"When I consider the approach of the friends of Martov after the Congress (...) I can only say that this is an insane attempt, unworthy of Party members, to tear the Party apart (...) And why? Solely because one is discontented at the makeup of the central organs, because objectively this is the only question which separated us, since the subjective appreciations (such as offence, insults, expulsions, pushing aside, casting slurs, etc) were nothing but the fruit of wounded pride and a sick imagination. This sick imagination and wounded pride lead straight to the most shameful gossiping: without waiting to find out about the activity of the new centers, nor having seen them in action, some go about spreading gossip about their "inadequacy" or about the "iron glove" of Ivan Ivanovitch, or the "fist" of Ivan Nikiforovitch, etc (...) Russian social-democracy still has a difficult step to take, from the circle spirit to the party spirit from a petty-bourgeois mentality to a consciousness of its revolutionary duty; gossip and the pressure of circles considered as a means of action, against discipline" (Lenin, Report on the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP).

Given the examples of the IWMA and the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, we can see the importance of questions linked to the mode of organization of revolutionary formations. In fact, these were the questions which were to produce the first decisive decantation between the proletarian current on the one hand, and the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois currents on the other. This importance is no accident. It springs precisely from the fact that one of the main channels for the infiltration of ideologies foreign to the proletariat - bourgeois or petty-bourgeois - is precisely that of their functioning.

The history of the workers' movement is full of examples like this. We have only spoken of these two cases here, partly of course for reasons of space, but also because, as we will see later, there are striking similarities in the circumstances in which the IWMA, the RSDLP, and the ICC were formed.

... and in the history of the ICC

The ICC has already had to pay close attention to such questions on a number of occasions. This was the case for example, at its Founding Conference in January 1975, where it examined the question of international centralization (see "Report on the question of organization in our current", International Review no 1). A year later, at its First Congress, our organization returned to this question, adopting its statutes (see "The statutes of the revolutionary organization of the proletariat", International Review no 5). Finally, in January 1982, the ICC held an extraordinary international conference on this question following the crisis it had been through in 1981[6]. The I CC did not hide from the working class and the proletarian political milieu the difficulties it had faced at the beginning of the 80s. This is how they were described in the resolution adopted by its 5th Congress, cited in International Review no 35:

"Since its Fourth Congress, the ICC has been through the most serious crisis in its existence[7]. A crisis which wasn't limited to the vicissitudes of the "Chenier affair" and which profoundly shook the organization, very nearly making it fall apart, resulting, directly or indirectly in the departure of forty members and cutting in half the membership of its second largest section. A crisis which took the form of a blindness and disorientation the like of which the ICC has not seen since its creation. A crisis which demanded the mobilization of exceptional methods if it was to be overcome: the holding of an extraordinary international conference, the discussion and adoption of basic orientation texts on the functions and functioning of the revolutionary organization, the adoption of new statutes."

Such a transparent attitude vis-à-vis the difficulties encountered by our organization has nothing to do with any 'exhibitionism' on our part. The experience of communist organizations is an integral part of the experience of the working class. This is why Lenin devoted an entire book, One step forward, two steps back to the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP. By giving an account of its organizational life, the ICC is thus doing nothing other than assuming its responsibility in the face of the working class.

Obviously, when a revolutionary organization publicizes its problems and internal discussions, this is a choice dish for all the adversaries waiting to denigrate it. This is also, and even especially the case for the ICC. Certainly, we won't find any jubilation in the bourgeois press over the difficulties that our organization is going through today: the ICC is still too small, both in its size and in its influence amongst the working masses, for the bourgeoisie to have any interest in talking about it and trying to discredit it. It is preferable for the bourgeoisie to erect a wall of silence around the positions and even the existence of revolutionary organizations. This is why the work of denigrating them, and sabotaging their intervention, is undertaken by a whole series of groups and parasitic elements whose function is to drive away individuals who are coming towards class positions, to disgust them with any participation in the difficult task of developing a proletarian political milieu.

time sympathizers of the organization, whom the organization decided not to integrate, judging their clarity inadequate, or who gave up of themselves for fear of losing their "individuality" within the collective framework (this is the case, for example, with the late" Alptraum collective" in Mexico, or with Kamunist Kranti in India). In every case, they are elements whose frustration at their own lack of courage, flabbiness and impotence has been converted into a systematic hostility towards our organization. Obviously, these elements are absolutely incapable of building anything whatever. By contrast, they are often very effective, with their petty agitation and their concierge's chatter, at discrediting and destroying what the organization is trying to build.

However, it is not the wriggling of the parasites that will prevent the ICC from setting before the whole proletarian milieu the lessons of its own experience. In the preface to One step forward .... in 1904, Lenin wrote:

"They [our adversaries] exult and grimace at the sight of our discussions; obviously, they will try, to serve their own purposes, to brandish my pamphlet devoted to the defects and weaknesses in our Party. The Russian social-democrats are sufficiently tempered in battle not to be troubled by such pinpricks, and to continue in spite of everything with their task of self-criticism, mercilessly unveiling their own weaknesses, which will be overcome necessarily and without fail by the growth of the workers' movement. Let our adversaries try to give us an image of the situation in their own "parties" which comes close to that presented by the minutes of our 2nd Congress!".

It is in exactly the same spirit that we put before our readers substantial extracts from the resolution adopted at our XIth Congress. This is not a sign of the ICC's weakness, but on the contrary a testimony to its strength.

The problems faced by the ICC in the recent period

- "The 11th Congress thus clearly affirms: the ICC was in a situation of latent crisis, a crisis much deeper than the one which hit the organization at the beginning of the 80s, a crisis which, if the roots of the weaknesses weren't identified, threatened the very life of the organization." (Activities resolution, point I)

- "The causes of this grave illness threatening the organization are numerous, but we can highlight the main ones:

- the fact that the extraordinary conference of January 1982, which had the task of setting the organization back on its feet after the crisis of 1981, did not go far enough in analyzing the weaknesses that affect the ICC;

- even more, the fact that the ICC had not fully assimilated the acquisitions of this conference (...);

- the reinforcement of the destructive pressure of capitalist decomposition on the class and its communist organizations.

In this sense the only way the ICC could effectively deal with the mortal danger it faced was:

- to identify the importance of this danger (... );

- to mobilize the whole ICC, its militants, sections and organs around the priority of the defense of the organization;

- to reappropriate the acquisitions of the 1982 conference;

- to deepen these acquisitions on the basis of the framework they had provided." (ibid, point 2)

The struggle to redress the ICC began in autumn 1993 when we opened a discussion throughout the organization on an orientation text which recalled and updated the lessons of 1982 while going further into the historical origins of our weaknesses. The following concerns were at the center of this approach: the reappropriation of the acquisitions of our own organization and of the workers' movement as a whole, the continuity with the struggles of the movement, especially the fight against the penetration of alien ideologies, bourgeois and petty bourgeois.

"The framework of analysis the ICC adopted for laying bare the origins of its weaknesses was in continuity with the historic struggle waged by marxism against the influence of petty bourgeois ideology that weighed on the organization of the proletariat. More precisely, it referred to the struggle of the General Council of the IWMA against the activities of Bakunin and his followers, and of Lenin and the Bolsheviks against the opportunist and anarchistic conceptions of the Mensheviks during and after the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP. In particular, it was vital for the organization to have as its central concern, as it was for the Bolsheviks after 1903, the struggle against the circle spirit and for the party spirit. This was a priority for the ICC given the kinds of weaknesses which weighed on the ICC because of its origin in the circles which appeared in the wake of the historic resurgence of the proletariat and the end of the 60s; circles strongly marked by affinity type conceptions, contestationism, individualism, in a word, the anarchistic conceptions which came with the student revolts that accompanied and polluted the proletarian revival. It is in this sense that becoming aware of the weight of the circle spirit in our origins was an integral part of a general analysis elaborated long before, the one which saw the basis of our weaknesses in the break in the organic continuity with previous communist organizations, the result of the counter-revolution which descended on the working class at the end of the 20s. However, this realization allowed us to go further than we had done before and to go to the deeper roots of our difficulties, In particular, it allowed us to understand the phenomenon - already noted in the past but not sufficiently elucidated - of the formation of clans in the organization: these clans were in reality the result of the decomposition of the circle spirit which kept going long after the period in which circles had been an unavoidable step in the reconstruction of the communist vanguard. In so doing, those clans in turn became an active factor. The best guarantee for the large-scale survival of the circle spirit in the organization." (ibid, point 4).

Here the resolution makes a reference to a point from the autumn 93 orientation text, which highlighted the following question:

"One of the grave dangers which permanently threaten the organization, which put its unity in question and risk destroying it, is the constitution, even if it is not deliberate or conscious, of 'clans'. In a dynamic of the clan, common approaches do not share a real political agreement but links of friendship, loyalty, the convergence of specific personal interests or shared frustrations. Often, such a dynamic, to the extent that it is not founded on a real political convergence, accompanied by the existence of 'gurus', clan leaders, who guarantee the unity of the clan, and who may draw their power from a particular charisma, can even stifle political capacities and the judgment of other militants as a result of the fact they are presented or present themselves, as victims of such or such policy of the organization. When such a dynamic appears, the members or sympathizers of the clan can no longer decide for themselves, in their behavior or the decisions that they take, as a result of a conscious and rational choice based on the general interests of the organization, but as a result of the interests of the clan which tends to oppose itself to those of the rest of the organization."

This analysis was based on previous experiences of the workers' movement (for example, the attitude of the former editors of Iskra grouped around Martov who, unhappy with the decisions of the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, had formed the Menshevik fraction), but also on precedents in the history of the ICC. We can't go into detail here but what we can say is that the 'tendencies' which have appeared in the ICC (the one which split in 1978 to form the Groupe Communiste International, the 'Chenier tendency' in 1981, the 'tendency' which left the ICC at its 6th Congress to form the 'External Fraction of the ICC') corresponded much more to such a clan dynamic than to real tendencies based on an alternative positive orientation. The principal motor of these 'tendencies' wasn't the divergences their members may have had with the orientations of the organization (these divergences were completely heterogeneous, as the later trajectory of these 'tendencies' proved). Instead they were based on an agglomeration of elements frustrated and discontented with the central organs, of those 'loyal' to individuals who saw themselves as being 'persecuted' or insufficiently recognized.

The recovery of the ICC

While the existence of clans no longer had the same spectacular character as in the past, it still continued to undermine the organizational tissue in a quiet but dramatic way. In particular, the whole ICC (including the militants most directly involved in it) recognized that it was faced with a clan which occupied a particularly important position in the organization and which, while it was not simply an organic product of the ICC's weaknesses, had "concentrated and crystallized a great number of the deleterious characteristics which affected the organization and whose common denominator was anarchism ..." (Activities resolution, point .5).

This is why: "The ICC's understanding of the phenomenon of the clans and their particularly destructive role has allowed it to put its finger on a large amount of the bad functioning which affected most of the territorial sections. (...) It has also allowed it to understand the loss, pointed out by the activities report of the 10th Congress, of the 'spirit of regroupment' which characterized the first years of the ICC." (ibid).

Finally, after several days of very animated debates, in which there was a profound commitment from and a real unity between the delegations, the 11th Congress reached the following conclusions:

"... the Congress notes the overall success of the combat engaged by the ICC in the autumn of 1993 (...) the -sometimes spectacular - redressment of some of the sections with the greatest organizational difficulties in 1993 (...), the deepening that has come from a number of sections in the ICC (...), all these facts confirm the full validity of the combat both in its theoretical bases and its concrete application (...) The Congress emphasizes particularly the organization's deepening in its understanding of a whole series

"On the basis of these elements, the Xlth ICC Congress notes that the ICC is stronger today than it was at the previous Congress, that it is incomparably better armed to confront its responsibilities in future upsurges of the class struggle, although it is obviously still in a state of convalescence." (ibid, point 11).

This recognition of the positive outcome of the combat waged by the organization since the autumn of 1993 did not however lead to any feelings of euphoria in the Congress. The ICC has learned to mistrust any tendency to get carried away, which expresses less a proletarian approach than the penetration into the communists' ranks of petty bourgeois impatience. The combat waged by communist organizations and militants is a patient, long-term, often obscure process, and a real militant enthusiasm is not measured by outbursts of euphoria but the capacity to hold out against storms and stress, to resist the pernicious pressure of the ideology of the ruling class. This is why a recognition that the organization's struggle has been a success has not at all led us into any triumphalism:

"This does not mean that the combat we have conducted to date should come to an end. (...) The ICC will have to continue this combat through a permanent vigilance, the determination to identify every weakness and to confront it without delay. (...) In reality, the history of the workers' movement, including that of the ICC, teaches us, and the debate has fully confirmed this, that the struggle for the defence of the organization is a permanent one, and without respite. In particular, the ICC must remember that the Bolsheviks' struggle for the party spirit and against the circle spirit continued for many years. It will be the same for our organization, which will have to watch for and eliminate any demoralization, any feeling of impotence as a result of the length of the combat." (ibid, point 13).

Before concluding this part on the questions of organization discussed at the Congress, it is important to point out that the debates conducted by the ICC for 18 months did not lead to any splits (contrary, for example, to what happened at the Vlth Congress or in 1981). This is because right from the start the organization expressed an agreement with the theoretical arguments put forward for understanding the difficulties it was encountering. The absence of disagreement on this framework made it possible to avoid the crystallization of any "tendency" or even a "minority" theorizing its own particularities. A great part of the discussions were focused on how this framework should be concretized in the ICC's daily functioning, with a constant concern to attach such concretization to the experience of the workers' movement. The fact that there was no split is a testimony to the I CC's strength, its greater maturity, the determination shown by the majority of its militants to carry on the combat for its defense, and to renew the health of its organizational fabric, to overcome the circle spirit, and all the anarchistic conceptions which consider the organization as a sum of individuals or of little groups based on affinity.

Perspectives of the international situation

Obviously a communist organization does not exist for its own sake. It is an actor, not a spectator, in the struggles of the working class, and the intransigent defense of the organization has precisely the aim of enabling it to carry out its role.

To this end the Congress devoted part of its debates to examining the international situation. It discussed and adopted several reports on this question as well as a resolution which synthesized the latter, which is published in this issue of the International Review. This is why we will not deal at greater length here with this aspect of the Congress. Here, we will simply consider, briefly, the last of the three aspects (evolution of the economic crisis, imperialist conflicts, and the balance of class forces) of the international situation which were discussed at the Congress.

This resolution declares clearly that: "More than ever, the struggle of the proletariat represents the only hope for the future of human society." (point 14).

However, the Congress confirmed what the ICC had already put forward in the autumn of 1989: "This struggle, which revived with great power at the end of the 60s, putting an end to the most terrible counter-revolution the working class has ever known, went into a major retreat with the collapse of the stalinist regimes, the ideological campaigns which accompanied them, and all the events which followed (Gulf war, war in Yugoslavia)." (ibid).

And it is mainly for this reason that today: "The workers' struggles are developing in a sinuous, jagged manner full of advances and retreats." (ibid).

However, the bourgeoisie knows very well that the aggravation of attacks against the working class can only provoke increasingly conscious struggles. It is preparing for this by developing a whole series of union maneuvers as well as entrusting certain of its agents with the task of reviving talk about 'revolution', 'Communism' or 'marxism. This is why: "It is up to revolutionaries, in their intervention, to denounce with the greatest vigor both the rotten maneuvers of the unions and these so-called 'revolutionary' speeches. They have to put forward the real perspective of the proletarian revolution and of communism as the only way of saving humanity and as the ultimate result of the workers' struggles." (point 17).

Having reconstituted and gathered together its forces, the ICC is ready, after its Xlth Congress, to assume this responsibility.

[1] Germany, Belgium, USA, Spain, France, Britain, India, Italy, Mexico, Holland, Sweden, Venezuela.  

[2] We had also planned 10 have an item on the proletarian political milieu which is a permanent concern of our organization. For lack of time, we had to drop this but this in no way means that we will let our attention slip on this question. On the contrary: it is by overcoming our own organizational difficulties that we can make our best contribution to the development of the proletarian milieu as a whole.

[3] "The sections of the working class in various countries being placed in different conditions of development, it necessarily follows that their theoretical opinions, which reflect the real movement, are also different. However, the community of action established by the International Working Men's Association, the exchange of ideas made easier by their publication in the organs of the different national sections, and finally the direct discussions at the General Congresses, will not fail gradually to engender a common theoretical program" (Response by the General Council to the Alliance's request for membership, 9th March 1869). It should be noted that the Alliance first asked to join with its own statutes, where it was planned that it would adopt an international structure parallel to that of the IWMA (with a central committee and Congress held separately from those of the IWMA). The General Council refused this request, pointing out that the Alliance's statutes were contrary to those of the IWMA. It made it clear that it was ready to admit the Alliance sections, if the latter gave up its international structure. The Alliance accepted these conditions, but continued to existence in conformity to its secret statutes.

[4] In an appeal "To the officers of the Russian army", Bakunin boasted the merits of the secret organization "whose strength lies in discipline, in the passionate devotion and abnegation of its members, and in blind obedience to a single Committee which knows everything and is known to nobody".

[6] See 'The crisis of the revolutionary milieu', 'Report on the structure and functioning of the organization of revolutionaries' and 'Presentation of the 5th Congress of the ICC' in International Reviews 28, 33 and 35 respectively.

[7] Chenier, exploiting our organization's lack of vigilance, became a member of the French section in 1978. From 1980, he undertook a whole subterranean work aimed at destroying our organization. To do this, he very skillfully exploited both the ICC's lack of organizational rigor and the tensions that existed in our section in Britain. This situation had led to the formation of two antagonistic clans in the section, blocking its work and leading to the loss of half the section as well as a number of resignations in other sections. Chenier was excluded from the ICC in September 81 and we published in our press a communiqué warning the proletarian milieu against this "shady and dangerous" element. Shortly after this, Chenier began a career in trade unionism, the Socialist Party and the state apparatus for which he had very probably been working for some time.

Faced with the growing anarchy of international relations since the Eastern bloc collapsed six years ago, the United States is once again applying strong pressure, as it did during the Gulf War, to reassert its threatened leadership and its role as policeman of the "New World Order". One of the most significant examples of this pressure is to be found in the Middle East, which remains a choice terrain for the maneuvers of the American bourgeoisie. The USA is using its grip on a regionally isolated Israeli state, and Arafat's situation of dependence, to accelerate the process of the pax americana, and strengthen its control over this vital strategic zone which is more than ever subject to upheaval.

In reality, the proliferation and growing size of these police operations are nothing but the expression of a headlong flight into the militarization of the entire capitalist system, and its plunge into the barbarism of war.

Reality has dealt a stunning blow to the myth that the war unleashed for four years on ex-Yugoslavia is merely a matter of inter-ethnic confrontations between local nationalist cliques.

The number of air strikes against Serb positions around Sarajevo and other "safe areas" (almost 3,500 sorties in twelve days of the operation known as "Deliberate Force") makes this operation NATO's biggest military engagement since its creation in 1949.

The great powers are the real culprits

For four years, the same powers have been playing their pawns against each other on the Yugoslav chess-board. We need only look at the composition of the "contact group" which pretends to be seeking a means to put an end to the conflict - the United States, Germany, Russia, Britain, and France - to see that it includes all the greatest imperialist powers of the planet (except Japan and China, which are too far from the theatre of operations) .

As we have already shown, "It was Germany, by pushing Slovenia and Croatia to declare their independence from the old Yugoslavia, which brought about the break-up of the country and played a primordial role in the unleashing of the war in 1991. In response to this thrust by German imperialism, the other four powers supported and encouraged the counter -offensive of the Belgrade government. This was the first phase of the war, a particularly murderous one (...) Under the cover of the UN, France and Britain then sent the biggest contingent of Blue Berets who, under the pretext of preventing further confrontations, systematically maintained the status quo in favor of the Serbian army. In 1992 the US government pronounced itself in favor of the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina and supported the Muslim sector of this province in a war against the Croatian army (still supported by Germany) and the Serbs (supported by Britain, France and Russia). In 1994, the Clinton administration managed to set up a confederation between Bosnia and Croatia, an agreement against Serbia; at the end of the year, under the guidance of ex-President Carter, the US obtained a truce between Bosnia and Serbia (...) But, despite the negotiations in which all the differences between the big powers came out, no agreement was reached. What could not be obtained through negotiation could thus only be won through military force. So what we are seeing today is the logical, premeditated follow-up to a war in which the great powers have played the preponderant role, although in an underhand way.

Contrary to what is hypocritically claimed by the great powers' governments, who present their increased involvement in the conflict as being aimed at limiting the violence of the new confrontations, the latter are in fact a direct product of their war-mongering activity.

The invasion of part of western Slavonia by Croatia, at the beginning of May, as well as the renewed fighting at various points along the 1,200 kilometer front between the Zaghreb government and the Krajina Serbs; the unleashing, at the same moment, of the Bosnian army's offensive around the Bihac pocket, in the region of the Serb corridor of Brcko, and also around Sarajevo, aimed at reducing the pressure of the Sarajevo siege - none of this took place separately from the will of the big powers, and still less against a unified wish for peace on the tatters' part. It is clear that these actions were undertaken with the agreement and initiative of the American and German governments"[1]. The reaction of the opposite camp is no less significant of the other powers' involvement.

In our previous issue (1), we developed at length the content and the meaning of the Franco-British maneuver, in collusion with the Serb forces, which led to the creation of the Rapid Reaction Force (RRF), and the dispatch of troops from the two powers, under their national flags. This maneuver, by sabotaging the NATO forces, was a stinging rebuff for the imperialist power which claims to play the role of the world's policeman.

The United States needed to strike hard, in order to recover the situation to their benefit. To do so, they used the civilian population with the same cynicism as their opponents.

All these imperialist brigands are fighting each other, through the intermediary of Slav cliques. Each is defending its own sordid interests, at the direct expense of the population, which is transformed into permanent hostages and victims of their fighting.

The great powers are the real culprits in the massacres, and the exodus which since 1991 has thrown more than 4.5 million refugees, men, women and children, old and young, onto the road, pushed from one combat zone to the next. It is the great capitalist powers and their bloody imperialist rivalries which have encouraged the "mopping up" operations, the "ethnic cleansing" carried out on the ground by the rival nationalist cliques.

The American bourgeoisie has used the same disgusting methods. To cover the Croat offensive in Krajina, the US inundated the media with satellite photos of freshly dug earth, supposedly revealing the presence of mass graves resulting from the Serbian massacre at Srebrenica. The NATO counter-attack was justified by the horrifying pictures of the aftermath of the mortar attack on Sarajevo market. The pretext for a military response was as clear as day. And it is indeed unlikely that Karadzic should have been mad enough to invite heavy reprisals by shelling the Sarajevo market, leaving 37 dead and 100 injured. When we consider that the shells were fired from the front line separating the Serb and Bosnian armies (each of which laid the blame for the massacre on the other), we can presume that this was a "provocation" planned in advance. An operation on the scale of the NATO bombings cannot be improvised, and the attack on the market served US interests very conveniently. This would not be the first time that the world's greatest imperialist power organized such a show. We should remember, amongst other examples, that Lyndon Johnson used the pretext of a North Vietnamese attack on a US ship to start the war in Vietnam. It was only some years later that we learnt that nothing of the kind had happened, and that the whole operation had been set up by the Pentagon. The use of such pretexts to justify their actions proves the great powers' gangster methods.

For the United States, the pretentions of the French and British, their growing arrogance and bellicosity, were becoming more and more intolerable. It was necessary to respond with other maneuvers, to lay other traps, to demonstrate a superior imperialist capability, a real military supremacy.

After its failure to do anything but mark time for three years in Bosnia, the American bourgeoisie had to reassert its world leadership.

It was not possible for me world's greatest power, which had given its support to the Muslim fraction that turned out to be the weakest in the conflict, to be pushed aside in a vital conflict, on European soil. It was absolutely vital to reassert its hegemony.

However, the US was confronted with a major difficulty, which emphasizes the fundamental weakness of their situation in Yugoslavia. Their recourse to successive changes in tactics, supporting Serbia in 1991, then Bosnia in 1992 and Croatia in 1994 (on condition that the latter collaborate with the Bosnian army), demonstrates that they do not dispose of any reliable allies in the region.

Behind the Croat offensive, joint action by the United States and Germany

In the first phase, the United States found itself obliged to move to center stage of the imperialist game by using the stronger partner, Croatia, and abandoning its previous ally, Bosnia. The White House used the Croat-Muslim federation, and the latter's confederation with Croatia which it had supervised in the spring of 1994. Their role, and the Pentagon's logistical support, was determinant in ensuring the success of the Croat army's "blitzkrieg" in Krajina (notably thanks to the localization by satellite of Serb positions). The United States moreover were alone in welcoming the success of the Croat offensive. The Croat offensive was thus planned in advance masterfully organized and directed by both the German and the American bourgeoisies. Paradoxically, the American ruling class has accepted a "pact with the devil", by allying Itself temporarily with its most dangerous imperialist adversary, Germany, and assisting the interests which are the most directly antagonistic to its own.

Germany has given powerful assistance to the formation of a real Croat army (100,000 men occupied the Krajina), and has given discreet but constant and effective support, in particular through the delivery of heavy weapons from me ex-DDR, via Hungary. The reconquest of the Krajina is an undoubted success and advance for Germany. First and foremost, it allows the German bourgeoisie to take a big step towards its main strategic objective: .access to the Dalmatian ports on the Adriatic coast, which would give it a deep-water outlet to the Mediterranean. The liberation of the Krajina, and especially of Knin, has opened up for Croatia and its old German ally a rail and road crossroads, linking north and south Dalmatia. Like Croatia, the German bourgeoisie was particularly interested in the elimination of the Serb threat to the Bihac pocket, which locked up the whole Dalmatian coast.

This strategy, by inflicting their first defeat on the Serbs[2], was fundamentally directed against the French and British. The RRF has been humiliated and has been made to appear still more useless, in that it was busy creating an unnecessary narrow access route towards Sarajevo, while the Croat bulldozer was demolishing the Serb defences in Krajina. Stuck on Mount Igman, in the pseudo-defense of Sarajevo, the RRF is for the moment discredited both internationally, and with the Serbs themselves, which can only benefit another rival: the Russians who have shown themselves to be the best and most reliable ally in the Serbs' eyes.

The anti-Serb bombings conceal a struggle between the US and the other imperialist powers

In the next stage, the American bourgeoisie's scenario recalls the Gulf War. The intensive NATO bombardment of exclusively Serb positions reasserted American supremacy, and was addressed still more directly to all the other great powers.

In particular, it was necessary to put an end to all the military stratagems[3] and diplomatic maneuvering between the Serbs and the Anglo-French couple.

In fact, in this second part of the operation, the USA acted on its own account, and forced all the other imperialisms to submit to its will. German aircraft took part for the first time in a N ATO action, but it was without enthusiasm. Confronted with the American Lone Ranger's fait accompli, the German bourgeoisie could only follow in an action which did not serve its own plans. Similarly, Russia, which has been the Serbs' main ally, despite noisy objections and gestures like the appeal to the UN Security Council, appeared impotent to confront the NATO bombings, and caught in a situation which had been imposed on it.

The USA has succeeded in marking an important point. They have managed to reassert their imperialist supremacy with a crushing display of military superiority. They have shown once again that the strength of their diplomacy is based on force of arms. They have shown that they are the only ones able to impose a real negotiation because they were able to weigh in the bargaining with the threat of their armed force, backed up by an impressive arsenal.

This situation confirms the fact that in the logic of imperialism, the only real force is to be found on the military terrain. The policeman can only intervene by hitting harder than any of the other powers are able to.

Nonetheless, this offensive has come up against a number of obstacles, and the NATO strike force is only a pale shadow of the Gulf War.

- The air raids' effectiveness can only be limited, and has allowed the Serbian troops to bury most of their artillery without suffering too much damage. In modern war, air power is a decisive weapon, but it cannot win a war by itself. Armor and infantry remain vital.

- American strategy is itself limited: the USA has no interest in wiping out Serbian forces and making total war on them, inasmuch as they intend to preserve Serbian military power, to turn it later against Croatia as part of the more fundamental rivalry with Germany. Moreover, all-out war against Serbia would run the risk of poisoning relations with Russia, and compromising the privileged alliance with the Yeltsin government.

These limitations encourage sabotage by the "allies" who have been forced to join in the American raids. Their maneuvers appeared barely four days after the Geneva agreement, which should have been the jewel in the crown of American diplomatic skill.

On the one hand, the French bourgeoisie returned to the fore of those demanding an end to the NATO bombing raids, "to let the Serbs evacuate their heavy weapons", whereas the US ultimatum demanded exactly the opposite: a stop to the bombing on condition that heavy weapons were withdrawn from around Sarajevo. On the other hand, when the US wanted to turn up the pressure on the Bosnian Serbs by bombing Karadzic's HQ in Pale, it was UNPROFOR that put a spanner in the works, by hesitating and opposing the bombardment of "civilian targets"[6].

The Geneva agreement signed by the belligerents on 8th September, under the aegis of the American bourgeoisie and in the presence of all the Contact Group members, is not in the least a ''first step towards peace" , contrary to the claims of the American diplomat Holbrooke. It merely sets the seal on a temporary balance of forces which in fact is a further step in the barbarism whose appalling cost is borne by the local population. They are the ones paying the price of the operation in new massacres.

Just as they did during the Gulf War, the media have the nerve to talk to us about a clean war, about "surgical strikes". What vile lies! It will need months or years just to lift a corner of the veil being drawn over the horror for the population of these new massacres by the "democratic" and "civilized" nations.

In the confrontation, each great power feeds its warmongering propaganda over ex-Yugoslavia. In Germany, virulent anti-Serb campaigns are organized over the atrocities committed by the Chetnik partisans. In France, the campaign has a variable geometry depending on the camp being supported for the moment: one day, no opportunity is missed to recall the role of the Croat Ustachis alongside the Nazi troops during World War II, another they talk about the bloodthirsty madness of the Bosnian Serbs, while on yet another the Islamic fanaticism of the Bosnian muslim comes under fire.

Capitalism's plunge into decomposition

The present situation has become a real detonator, which runs the risk of touching off a real explosion in the Balkans.

With NATO's intervention, never has there been such an impressive accumulation and concentration of instruments of death on Yugoslav soil.

The new perspective is for a new direct confrontation between the Serb and Croat armies, not just between rag-tag militias.

The continuing military operations by the Bosnian, Croat, and Serb armies has already proved that the Geneva agreement and its consequences have only sharpened the tensions between the belligerents, who all tend to turn the new situation to their own benefit:

- while NATO's massive and deadly bombardments are aimed at reducing the ambitions of the Serbian forces, the latter will try to resist the reverse they have suffered, and will contest still more bitterly the fate of the enclaves of Sarajevo and Gorazde, and of the Brcko corridor;

- the Croatian nationalists have been encouraged by their recent military success, and pushed by Germany they can only reassert their aim of reconquering the rich territory of Eastern Slavonia, on the border with Serbia;

- the Bosnian forces will do everything they can not to be left out of the "peace plan", and will continue their offensive in the north of Bosnia, around the region of Banja Luka.

The influx of all kinds of refugees creates a major risk of dragging into the conflict not just other regions, especially Macedonia and Kosovo, but also other European nations from Albania to Romania and Hungary.

The situation threatens to snowball and involve more closely the great European powers, including neighbors of major strategic importance like Turkey and Italy[7].

France and Britain, which have been forced for the moment to play second fiddle, can only make more attempts to put a spanner in the works of the other protagonists, especially the United States[8].

A new step has been taken in the escalation of barbarism. Far from moving towards a settlement of the conflict, ex-Yugoslavia is heading for ever bloodier and more violent disorder, thanks to the "muscular" action of the great powers. All these elements confirm the preponderance and acceleration of "every man for himself", at work since the dissolution of the imperialist blocs, and at the same time they express an acceleration of the imperialist dynamic into military adventure.

The proliferation of all these military efforts is the pure product of capitalism's decomposition, like the metastases of a generalized cancer, gangrening society's weakest organs first, where the proletariat does not have the ability to oppose the most abject and hysterical nationalism. The bourgeoisie of the advanced countries is hoping to profit from the Yugoslav imbroglio, and from the humanitarian robes in which it cloaks its activity, to build an atmosphere of national unity. For the working class, it must be clear that it has no choice to make here, nor can it let itself by drawn onto this rotten terrain.

CB, 14th September 95

[1] See International Review, no.82, 3rd Quarter 1995, the article "The more the great powers talk of peace, the more they stir up war".

[2] Milosevic preferred to let the Croatian army take the Krajina without resistance, in order to try to bargain with the USA for the Gorazde enclave, and above all for the removal of economic sanctions against Serbia.

[3] Apart from the simulated "kidnapping" of UN soldiers and observers - an operation set up in June by France and Britain together with Serbia - the French bombing of the Serb capital Pale in July should be seen as a fake reprisal to mask the real action of the RRF, since we know that the bombardment was not directed against any strategic target, and caused no inconvenience to Serbia's military operations. On the contrary, it provided a pretext for the Serbian coup against the Srebrenica and Zepa enclaves.

[4] The French and British appeared alongside Milosevic to try to exploit the divisions within the Bosnian Serb camp. Their open support for general Mladic against "president" Karadzic, and the pressure they put on the latter, was designed to show him that the real enemies of Serbia were no longer the Bosnians, but the Croats.

[5] It is instructive that it was a British paper - The Times - which revealed the existence of the famous Tudjman drawing dividing Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia, provoking fury in the Bosnian camp.

[6] As Le Monde put it on 14th September, with delicate euphemism: "The UN forces, essentially made up of French troops, have the impression that day after day, they are losing control over operations to NATO's benefit. True, the Atlantic Alliance is conducting air raids on targets jointly designated with the UN. But operational details are planned in the NATO bases in Italy and in the Pentagon. Last Sunday's use of Tomahawk missiles against Serb installations in Banja Luka [without any prior consultation with the UN or with any of the other governments associated in the raids. ed. note] has only strengthened these fears".

[7] It is particularly significant to see Italy demanding a greater share in the management of the Bosnian conflict, and refusing to host American F-117 stealth bombers in the NATO bases on its territory, to protest at being left out of the Contact Group and of NATO's deciding bodies.

[8] In the first place, to be capable of answering the American offensive at the necessary level, to avoid being thrown out of the region, the Franco-British couple can only be pushed further into the conflict, by reinforcing their military commitment.

IR 83, 4th Quarter 1995

100 years ago...

Friedrich Engels: A Great ‘Builder of Socialism’

"Friedrich Engels died in London on 5th August 1895. After the death of his friend Karl Marx (in 1883) (...) Marx and Engels were the first to show that the working class and its demands are the necessary product of the present economic system, which inevitably creates and organises the proletariat at the same time as the bourgeoisie; they showed that humanity will not be delivered from the ills which weigh on it today, by the well-intentioned efforts of generous hearted men, but by the class struggle of the organised proletariat. Marx and Engels were the first to explain, in their scientific works, that socialism is not a chimera, but the final and necessary result of the development of the productive forces of today's society".

With these lines, written a month after the death of Marx's companion, Lenin began a short biography of one of the best militants of the communist struggle.

An exemplary militant life

Born at Barmen in 1820, in what was then the Rhenish province of Prussia, Engels was an example of a militant devoted all his life to the struggle of the working class. He came from a family of industrialists, and could have lived in wealth and comfort without paying any attention to the political struggle. But like Marx, and many other young students revolted by the misery of the world in which they lived, while still young he acquired an exceptional political maturity, in contact with the workers' struggle in Britain, France, and then Germany. It was inevitable that the proletariat should attract a certain number of intellectual elements to its ranks, in this period when it was forming itself as a class, and developing its political struggle.

Engels was always modest about his individual trajectory, pointing out the important contribution of his friend Marx. Nonetheless, at the age of only 25, he acted as a forerunner. In England, he witnessed the catastrophic march of industrialisation and pauperism. He perceived both the promise and the weaknesses of the workers' movement in its beginnings (Chartism). He became aware that the "enigma of history" lay in this despised and unknown proletariat, he went to workers' meetings in Manchester where he saw them attacking Christianity, and laying claim to their right to control their own future.

In 1844, Engels wrote an article for the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher (a review published in Paris by Arnold Ruge, a young democrat, and Marx, who at the time still stood on the terrain of the struggle for democracy against Prussian absolutism), a "Contribution to the critique of political economy". It was this text which opened Marx's eyes to the fundamental nature of the capitalist economy. His work on The Condition of the Working Class in England, published in 1845, was to become a reference book for a whole generation of revolutionaries. As Lenin wrote, Engels was thus the first to declare that the proletariat is "not only" a class that suffers, but that the shameful economic situation in which it suffers pushes it irresistibly forwards, and forces it to struggle for its final emancipation. Two years later, it was also Engels who drew up "The Principles of Communism", in the form of a questionnaire, which was to serve as a preliminary sketch for the composition of the world-famous Communist Manifesto, signed jointly by Marx and Engels.

In fact, most of Marx' and Engels' immense contribution to the workers' movement was the fruit of their mutual collaboration. They first really got to know each other in Paris during the summer of 1844. Henceforth, there began a joint work, which lasted all their lives, a rare mutual confidence which was based not just on an exceptional friendship, but on a shared conviction in the historic role of the proletariat and a constant struggle for the party spirit, to win over more and more elements to the revolutionary combat.

From the time they met, Marx and Engels together quickly went beyond their philosophical visions of the world, to devote themselves to this unprecedented historical event: the development of an exploited class, the proletariat, which was also a revolutionary class. A class all the more revolutionary in that it could acquire a clear "class consciousness", rid of the prejudices and self-mystifications that weighed on past revolutionary classes like the bourgeoisie. This common reflection produced two books: The Holy Family, published in 1844, and The German Ideology, which was written between 1844 and 1846 bit only published in the 20th century. In these books, Marx and Engels settled accounts with the philosophical conceptions of the "young Hegelians", their first comrades in struggle who had proved incapable of going beyond a bourgeois, or petty bourgeois vision of the world. At the same time, they set out a materialist and dialectical vision of history, which broke both with idealism (which considers that "the world is governed by ideas"), but also with vulgar materialism, which recognises no active role for consciousness. Marx and Engels considered that "when theory takes hold of the masses, then it becomes a material force". And the two friends, utterly convinced of this unity between being and consciousness, were never to separate the proletariat's theoretical from its practical combat, nor their own participation from either.

Contrary to the image which has often been given by the bourgeoisie, neither Marx nor Engels were ever "savants in an ivory tower", cut off from reality and the practical struggle. The Manifesto which they wrote in 1847 was in fact called the Manifesto of the Communist Party, and was to serve as the programme of the Communist League, an organisation which was preparing for the struggle that was brewing. In 1848, a series of bourgeois revolutions broke out across the European continent. Marx and Engels took part actively, in order to contribute to the emergence of conditions which would allow the political and economic development of the proletariat. Returning to Germany, they published a daily - the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, which became an instrument of the struggle. More concretely still, Engels joined the revolutionary troops fighting in the state of Baden.

After the defeat of this European revolutionary wave, both Marx and Engels were pursued by the all police of Europe for their participation in the struggle, which forced them into exile in Britain. Marx settled for good in London, while Engels worked until 1870 in the family business in Manchester. Exile did not for a moment put an end to their participation in the class struggle. They continued their activity in the Communist League until 1852, when they announced its dissolution to prevent it degenerating as a result of the reflux in struggle.

In 1864, in the midst of an international recovery in workers' struggles, they took an active part in the formation of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA). Marx became a member of the IWA's General Council, to be joined in 1870 by Engels when he managed to escape from his job in Manchester. It was a crucial moment in the life of the IWA, and the two friends took part side by side in the struggles of the International: the Paris Commune of 1871, the solidarity with its refugees (on the General Council, it was Engels organised the material assistance given to the Communards who emigrated to London), and above all the defence of the IWA against the activities of Bakunin's Alliance for Socialist Democracy. In September 1872, Marx and Engels were present at the Hague Congress which blocked the way against the Alliance, and it was Engels who wrote most of the report, which the Congress had entrusted to the General Council, on the Bakuninists' intrigues.

The destruction of the Commune dealt a brutal blow to the European proletariat, and the IWA - the "old International" as Marx and Engels called it thereafter - died in 1876. Nonetheless, the two comrades did not retire from the political strugle. They followed closely the formation and development of socialist parties in most European countries, and Engels continued to do so energetically after Marx' death in 1883. They paid special attention to the movement developing in Germany, and which became a beacon for the international proletariat. They intervened against all the confusions that weighed on the party, as can be seen from the Critique of the Gotha Programme (written by Marx in 1875), and the Critique of the Erfurt Programme (by Engels in 1891).

Engels, like Marx, was thus above all a militant of the proletariat, and an active participant in its struggle.

At the end of his life, Engels confided that nothing in it had been so exciting as the struggle for militant propaganda, and he spoke especially of the pleasure of taking part in an illegal daily publication: the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1848, and then the Sozialdemokrat during the 1880s, when the party was subjected to the rigours of Bismarck's anti-socialist laws.

The collaboration between Marx and Engels was particularly fruitful. Even when they were separated, or when their organisations were dissolved, they continued to struggle, with comrades faithful like them to the vital work of the fraction during periods of reflux, keeping alive the minority's activity through a mass of correspondance.

It is thanks to this collaboration that we now have the major theoretical works of both Marx and Engels. Those written by Engels were in large part the result of his permanent exchange of ideas with Marx. This is the case with the Anti-Dhring (which was published in 1878, and proved an essential instrument in training socialist militants in Germany), and with Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884), which sets forward with great precision the communist conception of the state that later revolutionaries were to take as a foundation (notably Lenin in State and Revolution). Even Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, published after Marx' death, could not have been written without the two friends' joint reflection ever since their youth.

Likewise, without Engels' contribution Marx' great work Capital would never have seen the light of day. As we have seen, it was Engels in 1844 who first showed Marx the need to deal with the critique of political economy. Thereafter, every step forward, every hypothesis contained in Capital was the object of long correspondance: Engels, for example, was able to provide first hand information on the functioning of a capitalist enterprise in which he was directly involved. Engels' permanent encouragement and advice played a large part in getting the book's first part published in 1867. Finally, after Marx's death, it was Engels who worked to bring together a vast mass of rough notes for publication as books 2 and 3 of Capital (published in 1885 and 1894).

Engels' and the IInd International

Although Engels never claimed to be anything but second fiddle, he nonetheless left the proletariat a profound and very readable theoretical work. But also, and above all after Marx' death he made it possible for the "party spirit", a continuity of organisational principles and experience, to be transmitted right up to the IIIrd International.

Engels took part in the foundation of the Communist League in 1847, and then of the IWA in 1864. After the dissolution of the Ist International, Engels played an important part in maintaining its principles during the constitution of the IInd International to which he gave untiring and critical advice. He had considered the Internationa;'s foundation premature, but to combat the reappearance of intriguers like Lassalle, or the resurgence of anarchistic opportunism, he threw all his weight in the balance to defeat opportunism at the international founding congress in Paris in 1889. In fact, until the day he died Engels did his utmost to struggle against the opportunism which was raising its head again especially in the German social-democracy, against the influence of petty-bourgeois spinelessness, against the anarchist element which threatened to destroy all organisational life, and against the reformist wing, increasingly seduced by the siren song of bourgeois democracy.

At the end of the last century, the bourgeoisie tolerated the development of universal suffrage in Germany in particular, and the number of socialist deputies gave an impression of strength within the legal framework, to the opportunist and reformist elements within the party. Bourgeois historiography and the enemies of Marxism have used Engels' - partly justified - declarations against the outdated "barricade mentality" to give the impression that the old militant had also become a pacifist reformist [1] [61]. In particular, in 1895, his preface to Marx' texts on The class struggles in France has been used to show that Engels thought that the time for revolution was passed. It is true that this introduction contained formulations that were incorrect [2] [62], but the published text had precious little to do with the original. In fact, it was first cut by Kautsky to avoid legal problems, then expurgated by Wilhelm Liebknecht. Engels wrote to Kautsky to express his indignation at finding in Vorw„rts an extract of his introduction which made him "seem like a partisan of legality at all costs" (1st April, 1895). Two days later, he complained to Lafargue: "Liebknecht has just played my a fine trick. He has taken from my introduction to Marx's articles on Frnace 1848-50, everything that could serve to support his tactic of peace and non-violence at all costs, which it has pleased him to preach for a while now".

Despite Engels' many warnings, the IInd International's domination by the opportunism of Bernstein, Kautsky and Co was to lead to its breakup in 1914, in the storm of social-chauvinism. But this International was still an arena of revolutionary combat, contrary to the denials of our modern storytellers of the GCI variety [3] [63]. Its political gains, the internationalism asserted at its congresses (in particular at Stuttgart in 1907 and Basle in 1912), and its organisational principles (defence of centralisation, combat against intrigues and young climbers etc) were not lost for the left wing of Engels' International, since Lenin, Luxemburg, Pannekoek and Bordiga, amongst many others, were to raise anew the revolutionary standard that the old fighter had so fiercely defended to the end of his days.

Marx's daughter, Eleanor, paid a deserved homage to Engels the man and the militant: "There is only one thing that Engels never forgives: falseness. A man who is untrue to him, or worse still untrue to the party, can look for no pity from Engels. For him, these are unforgivable sins. Engels does not know any other sins... Engels, who is the most precise man in the world, who more than anyone has a lively sense of duty and above all discipline towards the party, is not in the least a puritan. Nobody has his ability to understand everything, and yet nobody forgives so easily our little weaknesses". As she wrote these lines, Eleanor did not know that Engels was dying. The socialist press of the day, when it published this letter, saluted the memory of the great man: "A man has died, who stayed in the background, when he could have been in the limelight. The idea, his idea, is upright, and alive everywhere, more alive than ever, defying all attacks, thanks to the weapons which, with Marx, he helped to arm it. We will no longer hear this valiant blacksmith's hammer ring on the anvil; the good workman has fallen; the hammer has dropped from his powerful hands to the ground, and will perhaps remain there a long time; but the weapons he forged are still there, solid and bright. Not many will be able to forge new ones, but what we can and must do, is not to let rust those he has left us; on this condition, there will win for us the victory for which they were made".

Mederic

With the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bourgeoisie has plumbed new depths of cynicism and mendacity. For this high point of barbarity was executed, not by some dictator or bloodcrazed madman, but by the very "virtuous" American democracy. To justify the monstrous crime, the whole world bourgeoisie has shamelessly repeated the lie peddled at the time that the atomic bomb was only used to shorten and limit the suffering caused by the continuation of the war with Japan. The American bourgeoisie even proposed to issue an anniversary stamp, inscribed: "atomic bombs accelerated the end of the war. August 1945". Even if this anniversary was a further opportunity to mark the growing opposition in Japan towards the US ex-godfather, the Japanese Prime Minister nonetheless made his own precious contribution to the lie about the necessity of the bomb, by presenting for the first time Japan's apologies for its crimes committed during World War II. Victors and vanquished thus came together to develop this disgusting campaign aimed at justifying one of history's greatest crimes.

The justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki: a gross falsehood

In total, the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in August 1945 claimed 522,000 victims. Many cancers of the lung and thyroid only became apparent during the 50s and 60s, and even today the effects of radiation still claim victims: cases of leukemia are ten times more frequent in Hiroshima than in the rest of Japan.

If we examine Japan's military situation when Germany capitulated, it is clear that the country was already completely defeated. Its air force, that vital weapon of World War II, had been reduced to a handful of aircraft, generally piloted by adolescents whose fanaticism was only matched by their inexperience. Both the navy and the merchant marine had been virtually wiped out. The anti-aircraft defences were so full of holes, that the US B29s were able to carry out thousands of raids throughout the spring of 1945, almost without losses. Churchill himself points this out in Volume 12 of his war memoirs.

A 1945 study by the US secret service, published by the New York Times in 1989, revealed that: "Realizing that the country was defeated, the Japanese emperor had decided by 20th June 1945, to end all hostilities and to start negotiations from 11th July onwards, with a view to bringing hostilities to an end" (Le Monde Diplomatique August 1990).

Truman was perfectly well aware of the situation. Nonetheless, once he was told of the success of the first experimental atomic test in the New Mexico desert in July 1945[1], he decided in the middle of the Potsdam Conference between himself, Churchill, and Stalin[2], to use the atomic weapon against Japanese towns. This decision had nothing to do with a desire to hasten the end of the war with Japan, as is testified by a conversation between Leo Szilard, one of the fathers of the bomb, and the US Secretary of State for War, J. Byrnes. When Szilard expressed concern at the dangers of using the atomic weapon, Byrnes replied that "he did not claim that it was necessary to use the bomb to win the war. His idea was that the possession and use of the bomb would make Russia more controllable" (Le Monde Diplomatique, August 1990).

And if any further argument were necessary, let us leave some of the most important US military leaders to speak for themselves. For Chief of General Staff Admiral Leahy, "The Japanese were already beaten and ready to capitulate. The use of this barbaric weapon made no material contribution to our fight against Japan" (Le Monde Diplomatique, August 1990). This opinion was also shared by Eisenhower.

The idea that the atomic bomb was used to force Japan to capitulate, and to stop the slaughter, has nothing to do with reality. It is a lie which has been constructed to meet the needs of the bourgeoisie's war propaganda, one of the greatest achievements of the massive brain-washing campaign needed to justify the greatest massacre in world history: the 1939/45 war.

We should emphasize that, whatever the hesitations or short-term view of certain members of the ruling class, faced with this terrifying weapon, Truman's decision was anything but that of a madman, or an isolated individual. On the contrary, it expressed the implacable logic of all imperialisms: death and destruction for humanity, so that one class, the bourgeoisie, should survive despite the historic crisis of its system of exploitation, and its own irreversible decadence.

The real objective of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs

Contrary to all the lies that have been peddled since 1945, about the supposed victory of a democracy synonymous with peace, World War II was barely over when the new front line of imperialist confrontation was being drawn. Just as the Treaty of Versailles contained inevitably within itself the seeds of another war, so Yalta already contained the split between the main victor of 1945, the USA, and its Russian challenger. Thanks to World War II, Russia had risen from being a minor economic power to a world ranking imperialism, which could not but threaten the American superpower. In spring 1945, the USSR was already using its military strength to carve out a bloc in Eastern Europe. Yalta did nothing but sanction the existing balance of forces between the main imperialist sharks. What one balance of forces could set up, another could undo. In the summer of 1945, the real problem facing the American state was thus not, as the schoolbooks tell us, how to make Japan capitulate as soon as possible, but how to confront and contain the imperialist drive of its "great Russian ally".

Winston Churchill, the real leader on the Allied side of World War II, was quick to understand that a new front was opening, and constantly to exhort the Americans to face up to it. He wrote in his memoirs: "The closer a war conducted by a coalition comes to its end, the more importance is taken by the political aspects. Above all, in Washington they should have seen further and wider (...) The destruction of Germany's military power had provoked a radical transformation of the relationship between Communist Russia and the Western democracies. They had lost that common enemy which was practically the only thing uniting them". He concluded that "Soviet Russia had become a mortal danger for the free world, that it was necessary without delay to create a new front to stop its forward march, and that this front should be as far East as possible" (Memoirs, Vol 12, May 1945). Nothing could be clearer. Churchill analyzed, very lucidly, the fact that a new war was already beginning while World War II had not yet come to an end.

In the spring of 1945, Churchill was already doing everything he could to oppose the advance of Russian armies into Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc). Doggedly, he sought to bring the new American president Truman around to his own opinion. The latter, after some hesitations[3] completely accepted Churchill's thesis that "the Soviet threat had already replaced the Nazi enemy" (Memoirs, Vol 12, May 1945).

It is not difficult to understand the complete and unanimous support that the Churchill government gave to Truman's decision to begin the atomic bombardment of Japanese cities. On 22nd July, 1945, Churchill wrote: "[with the bomb] we now have something in hand which will re-establish the equilibrium with the Russians. The secret of this explosive and the ability to use it will completely transform the diplomatic equilibrium, which had been adrift since the defeat of Germany". That this should cause the deaths, in atrocious suffering, of hundreds of thousands of human beings, left this "defender of the free world" and "savior of democracy" cold. When he heard the news of the Hiroshima explosion, he jumped for joy, and Lord Allenbrooke, one of Churchill's advisers, even wrote: "Churchill was enthusiastic, and already saw himself with the ability to eliminate all Russia's industrial major population centers" (Le Monde Diplomatique, August 1990). This is what was in the mind of this great defender of civilization and irreplaceable humanist values, at the end of five years of carnage that had left 50 million dead!

The nuclear holocaust which broke over Japan in August 1945, this terrifying expression of war's absolute barbarity in capitalist decadence, was thus not designed by the "clean" American democracy to limit the suffering caused by a continuation of the war with Japan, any more than it met a direct military need. Its real aim was to send a message of terror to the USSR, to force the latter to restrain its imperialist ambitions, and accept the conditions of the pax americana. To give the message greater strength, the American state dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki, a town of minor importance at the military level, which wiped out the main working class district. This was also why Truman refused the suggestion of some of his advisers, that the explosion of a nuclear weapon over a sparsely populated region would be amply sufficient to force Japan to capitulate. No, in the murderous logic of imperialism, two cities had to be vitrified to intimidate Stalin, and to restrain the one-time Soviet ally's imperialist ambitions.

The lessons of these terrible events

What lessons should the working class draw from this terrible tragedy, and its revolting use by the bourgeoisie?

In the first place, there is nothing inevitable about the unleashing of capitalist barbarism. The scientific organization of such carnage was only possible because the proletariat had been beaten worldwide by the most terrible and implacable counter-revolution of its entire history. Broken by the stalinist and fascist terror, completely confused by the enormous lie identifying stalinism with communism, the working class allowed itself to be caught in the deadly trap of the defense of democracy, with the stalinists' active and indispensable complicity. This reduced it to a great mass of cannon-fodder completely at the mercy of the bourgeoisie. Today, whatever the proletariat's difficulty in deepening its struggle, the situation is quite different. In the great proletarian concentrations, this is not a time of union with the exploiters, but of the expansion and deepening of the class struggle.

Contrary to the bourgeoisie's endlessly repeated lie, which presents the 1939-45 imperialist war as one between the fascist and democratic "systems", the war's 50 million dead were victims of the capitalist system as a whole. Barbarity, crimes against humanity, were not the acts of fascism alone. Our famous "Allies", those self-proclaimed "defenders of civilization" gathered under the banner of "democracy", have hands as red with blood as do the Axis powers. The nuclear storm unleashed in August 1945 was particularly atrocious, but it was only one of many crimes perpetrated throughout the war by these "white knights of democracy"[4].

The horror of Hiroshima also opened a new period in capitalism's plunge into decadence. Henceforth, permanent war became capitalism's daily way of life. The Treaty of Versailles heralded the next world war; the bomb dropped on Hiroshima marked the real beginning of the "Cold War" between the USA and USSR, which was to spread bloodshed over the four comers of the earth for more than forty years. This is why, unlike the years after 1918, those that followed, 1945 saw no disarmament, but on the contrary a huge growth in arms spending amongst all the victors of the conflict (the USSR already had the atomic bomb in 1949). Within this framework, the entire economy, under the direction of state capitalism in its various forms, was run in the service of war. Also unlike the period at the end of World War I, state capitalism everywhere strengthened its totalitarian grip on the whole of society. Only the state could mobilize the gigantic resources necessary, in particular for the development of a nuclear arsenal. The Manhattan Project was thus only the first in a long and sinister series, leading to the most gigantic and insane arms race in history.

Far from heralding an era of peace, 1945 opened a period of barbarity, made still worse by the constant threat of nuclear vitrification of the entire planet. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki still haunt humanity's memory today, it is because they are such tragic symbols of how directly decadent capitalism threatens the very survival of the human species.

This terrible Damoclean sword, hanging over humanity's head, thus confers an enormous responsibility on the proletariat, the only force capable of real opposition to capitalism's military barbarity. Although the threat has temporarily retreated with the collapse of the Russian and American blocs, the responsibility is still there, and the proletariat cannot let its guard drop for an instant. Indeed, war has never been so evident as it is today, from Africa, to the territories of the ex-USSR, to the bloody conflict in ex-Yugoslavia, which has brought war to Europe for the first time since 1945[5].

And we need only look at the bourgeoisie's determination to justify the bombs of August 45, to understand that when Clinton declares" if we had to do it again, we would" (Liberation, 11th April1995), he is only expressing the opinion of all his class. Behind the hypocritical speeches about the dangers of nuclear proliferation, each state is doing everything it can either to obtain just such an arsenal, or to perfect its existing one. The research aimed at miniaturizing nuclear weapons, and so making their use easier and more commonplace, is accelerating. As Liberation put it: "The studies by Western general staffs based on the response "of the strong man to the madman" are reviving the idea of a limited, tactical use of nuclear weapons. After Hiroshima, their use became taboo. After the Cold War, the taboo has become uncertain" (5th August, 1995).

The horror of nuclear warfare is not something that belongs to a distant past. Quite the contrary: it is the future that decomposing capitalism has in store for humanity. If the proletariat lets it happens. Decomposition does not stop or diminish the omnipresence of war. The chaos and the law of "every man for himself" only makes its danger still more uncontrollable. The great imperialist powers are already stirring chaos to defend their own sordid interests, and we can be certain that if the working class fails to halt their criminal activity, they will not hesitate to use all the weapons at their disposal, from the fuel-air bombs used so extensively in the Gulf War, to nuclear and chemical weapons. Capitalist decomposition has only one perspective to offer: the destruction, bit by bit, of the planet and its inhabitants. The proletariat must not give an inch, either to the siren calls of pacifism, or to the defense of the democracy, in whose name the towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated. On the contrary, it must remain firmly on its class terrain: the struggle against this system of death and destruction, capitalism.

Julien, 24/8/95

[1] To develop the atomic bomb, the US state mobilized all the resources of science and put them at the military's disposal. Two billion dollars were devoted to the Manhattan Project, set up by that great humanist Roosevelt. Every university in the country joined in. Directly or indirectly, all the greatest physicists from Einstein to Oppenheimer were involved, including six Nobel prizewinners. This gigantic mobilization of every scientific resource for war expresses a general characteristic of decadent capitalism. State capitalism, whether openly totalitarian or draped in the democratic flag, colonizes and militarizes the whole of science. Under the reign of capitalism, science lives and develops through and for war. This reality has not ceased to get worse since 1945.

[2] The essential aim of this conference, especially for Churchill who was its main instigator, was to make it clear to Stalin's USSR that it should restrain its imperialist ambitions, and that there were limits which should not be passed.

- an experience which the British bourgeoisie possessed in abundance. But it was also the expression of not particularly friendly feelings towards its British ally. The fact that Britain emerged seriously weakened from the war, and that its positions in Europe were threatened by the Russian bear, could only make her more docile in the face of the diktats which Uncle Sam was going to impose, without delay, even on its closest "friends". It is another example of the "frank and harmonious" relationships that reign among the imperialist sharks.

[4] See International Review no. 66, "Crimes of the great democracies".

[5] Immediately after 1945, the bourgeoisie presented the "Cold War" as a war between two different systems: democracy against communist totalitarianism. With this lie, it continued to confuse the working class, at the same time hiding the classical and sordid imperialist nature of the one-time "allies". a sense, they managed to pull off the same coup in 1989, proclaiming that peace would reign at last with the fall of "communism", From the Gulf to Yugoslavia, we have seen since then just what the promises of Bush, Gorbachev and Co were worth.

In the International Review No. 82, and in our territorial press in 12 countries, the ICC published articles on its 11th Congress. These articles informed the revolutionary milieu and the working class about the political struggle which has taken place in the ICC recently for the establishment of a really marxist functioning at all levels of our organizational life. At the center of this combat was the overcoming of what Lenin called the "circle spirit". This required in particular the liquidation of informal groupings based on personal loyalties and petty bourgeois individualism, what Rosa Luxemburg referred to as "tribes" or "clans".

The articles we published placed the present combat in continuity with that waged by the Marxists against the Bakuninists in the 1st International, by the Bolsheviks against Menshevism in the Russian party, but also by the ICC throughout its history. In particular, we affirmed the petty bourgeois anti-organizational basis of the different splits which have taken place in the history of the ICC, which were neither motivated nor justified by political divergences. They were the result of non-marxist, non-proletarian organizational behavior, of what Lenin called the anarchism of the intelligentsia and the literary bohemian.

A problem of the whole milieu

We did not report in our press on our internal debate out of exhibitionism, but because we are convinced that the problems we are confronting are not at all specific to the ICC. We are convinced that the ICC would not have been able to survive without the radical stamping out of the anarchism in organizational matters in our ranks. We see the same danger threatening the revolutionary milieu as a whole. The weight of the ideas and behavior of the petty bourgeoisie, its resistance to organizational discipline and collective principles, has affected all groups to a greater or lesser extent. The break in organic continuity with revolutionary organizations of the past through 50 years of counter revolution, the interruption of the living process of the passing on of priceless organizational experience from one generation of marxists to the next, has made the new generation of proletarian militants after 1968 particularly vulnerable to the inf1uence of the petty bourgeoisie in revolt (student and protest movements, etc).

Thus, our present struggle is not the internal affair of the ICC. The Congress articles are aimed at the defense of the entire proletarian milieu. They constitute an appeal to all serious marxist groupings to clarify on the proletarian concept of functioning, and to make known the lesson of their struggle with petty bourgeois disorganization. The revolutionary milieu as a whole needs to be much more vigilant towards the intrusion of modes of behavior foreign to the proletariat. It needs to consciously and openly organize its own defense.

The attack of parasitism against the revolutionary camp

"Salem or Waco would have been an appropriate venue for this particular congress. While it is tempting to lampoon or ridicule the monstrous proceedings of this congress-cum-kangaroo court, where, inter alia, Bakunin and Lassalle were denounced as "not necessarily" police spies and Martov characterized as an "anarchist ", the overwhelming emotion is of great sadness that a once so dynamic and positive organization should be reduced to this sorry state".

"In the best Stalinist tradition the ICC then proceeds to rewrite its history (just as it did after the 1985 split) to show that every major difference (...) has been caused not by militants with different opinions of a question but by the intrusion of alien ideologies into the body of the ICC".

"What the ICC cannot grasp is that it is their own monolithic practice that is the problem here. What happened at the 11th congress was surely simply the bureaucratic triumph of one clan over another, a jostling for control of the Central Organs, something that was widely predicted after the death of their founder member MC".

For the CBG, what took place at the ICC Congress must have been "two or more days of psychological battering. Readers who have any knowledge of the brainwashing techniques of religious sects will understand this process. Those who have read of the mental tortures inflicted on those who confessed to impossible "crimes" at the Moscow Show Trials will, likewise, suss what went on".

And here, the CBG quotes itself from 1982, after its members left the ICC:

"For every militant there will always be the question: How far can I go in this discussion before I am condemned as an alien force, a menace, a petty bourgeois? How far can I go before I am regarded with suspicion? How far before I am a police spy?".

These quotations speak for themselves.

They reveal better than anything else the true nature, not of the ICC but of the "CBG". Their message is clear: revolutionary organizations are like the mafia. "Power struggles" take place exactly as within the bourgeoisie.

It is not only the whole present day revolutionary milieu which is being attacked here. It is the entire history and all the traditions of the workers' movement which are being abused.

In reality, the lies and slanders of the CBG are perfectly in line with the campaign of the world bourgeoisie about the alleged death of communism and of marxism. At the center of this propaganda is the greatest lie in history: that the organizational rigor of Lenin and the Bolsheviks necessarily led to Stalinism. In the CBG's version of this propaganda, it is the Bolshevism of the ICC which "necessarily" leads to its alleged" Stalinism". Evidently, the CBG neither knows what the revolutionary milieu is, nor does it know what Stalinism is about.

What has provoked the petty bourgeois frenzy of the CBG is once again the resolute, unmistakable manner with which the ICC has affirmed its allegiance to the organizational approach of Lenin. We can assure all the parasitic elements: the more the bourgeoisie attacks the history of our class, the more proudly we will affirm our allegiance to Bolshevism.

By pouring garbage upon the proletarian vanguard, the CBG has demonstrated once again that it is not a part of the revolutionary milieu, but its opponent. The fact that the ICC has waged the most important organizational struggle in its history, does not interest it in the least.

In itself, there is nothing new in the fact that those revolutionaries who defend organizational rigor against the petty bourgeoisie are attacked, even denigrated. Marx became the object of a whole bourgeois campaign because of his resistance to Bakunin's Alliance. Lenin was personally insulted because of his stand against the Mensheviks in 1903: not only by the reformists and open opportunists, but even by comrades such as Trotsky. But nobody within the workers movement, not Trotsky and not even the reformists ever spoke of Marx or Lenin's struggle in the terms employed by the CBG. The difference is that the "polemic" of the CBG is clearly aimed at the destruction of the revolutionary milieu - not just the ICC.

The nature of parasitism

We will have to disappoint the CBG, who claim that the ICC deals with those who disagree with it by labeling them as police spies. Although the CBG "disagrees" with us, we consider them to be neither spies nor a bourgeois organization. People like the CBG do not have a bourgeois political platform. Programmatically, they even adhere to certain proletarian positions. They are against trade unions and support for "national liberation" struggles.

cease existence! But it is clear that in fact the real reason for publication was to attack the ICC Congress! Significantly, the number 16 does not attack the bourgeoisie; there is no defense of proletarian internationalism in face of the Balkan War, for instance. This is in line with the other 15 issues which were also mainly devoted to slandering proletarian groups. And we feel sure that despite their announced dissolution they will continue to do so. In fact the abandonment of the formal pretense of being a political group will allow them to concentrate even more exclusively on the "work" of denigrating the marxist camp.

The existence of groups which, while being neither mandated nor paid by the bourgeoisie, nevertheless voluntarily do part of the job of the ruling class, is a highly significant phenomenon. In the marxist movement we call such people parasites, bloodsuckers living on the backs of the revolutionary forces. They do not attack the marxist camp out of allegiance to capital, but out of a blind and impotent hatred for the mode of life of the working class, the collective and impersonal nature of its struggle. Such petty bourgeois and declassed elements are motivated by a spirit of vengeance towards a political movement which cannot afford to make concessions to their individualist needs, to their cravings for self-presentation, flattery and pompousness.

The trajectory of the "CBG"

In order to grasp the nature of this parasitism (which is not new in the workers movement), it is necessary to study its origins and development. The CBG can serve as a typical example. Its origins lie in the circle phase of the new generation of revolutionaries developing after 1968, giving rise to a small group of militants linked by a mixture of political and personal loyalties. The informal group in question broke with the Communist Workers Organization (CWO) and moved towards the ICC towards the end of the 1970s. In the discussions at that time we criticized the fact that they wanted to enter the ICC "as a group" rather than individually. This posed the danger that they might form an organization within the organization on a non-political, affinitary basis thus menacing proletarian organizational unity. We also condemned the fact that, on leaving the CWO, they had taken part of its material with them - a breach of revolutionary principles.

Inside the ICC, the group tried to maintain its informal separate identity, despite the fact that the pressure within an international centralized organization to submit each of its parts to the whole must have been much greater than within the CWO. However, the "autonomy" of the "friends" who later formed the CBG could survive due to the fact that within the ICC other such groupings, the leftovers of the circles out of which the ICC was formed, continued to exist. This was particularly the case for our British section, World Revolution, which the ex-CWO members joined, and which was divided through the existence of two already existing "clans". These clans quickly became the main obstacle to the application in practice of the statutes of the ICC in all of its parts.

When the ICC, around this time was infiltrated by an agent of the state, Chenier, a member of Mitterrand's French Socialist Party, who rejoined this party after his expulsion from the ICC, the British section thus became the main target of his manipulations. As a result of these manipulations, and with the uncovering of the agent Chenier by the organization, half of our British section left the ICC. None of them were expelled, contrary to the assertions of the CBG.

The ex-CWO elements, who also left at this moment, then formed the "CBG".

We can draw the following lessons:

- although they had no particular political positions distinguishing them from others, basically the same clique entered and left both the CWO and the ICC before becoming the "CBG". This reveals the unwillingness and incapacity of these people to integrate themselves into the workers' movement, to surrender their petty group identity to something greater than themselves.

- although they claim to have been expelled from the ICC, or that they could not remain within it because of its "inability to debate", in reality these people ran away from the political debates taking place in the organization. In the name of "fighting sectarianism" they turned their backs on the two most important communist organizations existing in Britain, the CWO and the ICC - despite the absence of any major political divergence. This is the way in which they "struggle against sectarianism".

The milieu should not be deceived by the empty phrases about "monolithism" and the ICC's supposed "fear of debate". The ICC stands in the tradition of the Italian Left, of Bilan which during the Spanish Civil War even refused to expel or split with the minority openly calling for participation in imperialist war - since political clarification must always precede any political separation.

- what the CBG objected to in the ICC was its rigorous proletarian method of debate, via polemic and polarization, where a spade is called a spade, and a petty bourgeois or opportunist stance is called by name. An atmosphere hardly congenial for circles and clans with their double language and false diplomacy, their personal loyalties and disloyalties. And certainly one which did not please the petty bourgeois cowards who ran away from political confrontation and withdrew from the life of the class.

- graver still, and for the second time, the future CBG participated in the theft of the material of the organization it was leaving. They justified this with the vision of the Marxist party as a stockholders company: whoever invests their time in the ICC has the right to take their share of its resources with them when they leave. Moreover they allowed themselves to determine what "share" they would entitle themselves to. It should go without saying that if such methods were to be accepted, they would mean the end of the very possibility of the existence of marxist organizations. Revolutionary principles are here replaced by the bourgeois law of the jungle:

- when the ICC set out to recover the stolen resources of the organization, these courageous "revolutionaries" threatened to call the police against us;

A blind and impotent hatred

It is this total resistance by petty bourgeois and declassed anarchist elements against their integration into and subordination to the great world historic mission of the proletariat, which despite sympathies for certain of its political positions leads to parasitism, to open hatred and political sabotage of the marxist movement.

The sordid and corrosive reality of the CBG itself gives the lie to its claims to have left the ICC "in order to be able to discuss". Here again, we will let the parasites speak for themselves. First of all their abandonment of any allegiance to the proletariat begins to be openly theoretized. "A very bleak vision of the nature of the period began to be articulated", they tell us; "elements within the CBG asked whether the class could now emerge at all?".

In face of the "difficult debate", here is how the CBG, this "anti-monolithic" giants, copes with "divergences": "We were ill-equipped to confront these questions. There was a more-or-less deafening silence in response to them (...) the debate didn't so much fizzle out as remain largely ignored. This was profoundly unhealthy for the organization. The CBG had prided itself on being open to any discussions within the revolutionary movement, but here it was in one of its own debates on a subject at the very heart of its existence plugging its ears and shutting its mouth".

It is therefore only logical that at the end of its crusade against the Marxist concept of organizational and methodological rigor as the prerequisite for any real debate, the CBG "discovers" that organisation itself blocks discussion: "In order to allow this debate to take place (...) we have decided to end the life of the CBG".

The organization as barrier to debate! Long live anarchism! Long live organizational liquidationism! Imagine the gratitude of the ruling class in face of the propagation of such "principles" in the name of "marxism"!

Parasitism: spearhead against the proletarian forces

Although the class domination of the bourgeoisie is, for the moment, certainly not threatened, the main aspects of the present world situation oblige it to be particularly vigilant in the defense of its interests. The inexorable deepening of its economic crisis, the sharpening of imperialist tensions, and the resistance of a generation of the working class which has not yet suffered a decisive defeat, contain the perspective of a dramatic destabilization of bourgeois society. All of this imposes on the bourgeoisie the world historic task of destroying the proletariat's revolutionary Marxist vanguard. As insignificant as the Marxist camp appears today, the ruling class is already obliged to make serious efforts to disrupt and weaken it.

At the time of the 1st International the bourgeoisie itself undertook the task of public denigration of proletarian revolutionaries. The entire bourgeois press slandered the International Workers' Association and its General Council, opposing to the alleged "dictatorial centralism" of Marx the allures of its own progressive and revolutionary past.

The bourgeoisie knows very well that the best and most thorough means of destroying the revolutionary camp is from within, by denigrating, demoralizing and dividing it. The parasites assume this task without even having to be asked. By presenting the marxist groups as Stalinist, as bourgeois sects dominated by power struggles, as the mirror image of the bourgeoisie itself, as historically insignificant, they support the offensive of capital against the proletariat. By destroying the reputation of the milieu, parasitism not only contributes to the political subversion of the proletarian forces today - it prepares the terrain for the politically effective repression of the marxist camp in the future. If the bourgeoisie stays in the background today in order to allow parasitism to do its dirty work today, it is with the intention of emerging from the shadows to decapitate the revolutionary vanguard tomorrow.

The incapacity of most of the revolutionary groups to recognize the real character of the parasitic groups is one of the greatest weaknesses of the milieu today. The ICC is determined to assume its responsibility in combatting this weakness. It is high time for the serious groups, for the milieu as a whole to organize its own defense against the most rotten elements of the vengeful petty bourgeoisie. Instead of opportunistically flirting with such groups, it is the responsibility of the milieu to wage a merciless and unrelenting struggle against political parasitism. The formation of the future class party, the success of the liberation struggle of the proletariat, will depend to a large extent on our capacity to wage this combat to the end.

Kr 01.09.95

IR83, 4th Quarter 1995

The International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (IBRP) has replied in International Communist Review no.13 to our polemical article "The IBRP's Conception of decadence in capitalism" which appeared in our International Review no.79. In International Review no.82 [72] we published the first part of this article, which demonstrated the negative implications of the IBRP's conception of imperialist war as a means for the devaluation of capital and the renewal of the cycles of accumulation. In this second part we are going to analyse the economic theory that sustains this conception: the theory of the tendential fall in the rate of profit.

1- The explanation of the historic crisis of capitalism in the Marxist movement

Bourgeois economists, ever since the classics (Smith, Ricardo, etc), have based themselves on two dogmas:

1. The worker is a free citizen who sells his labour power in exchange for a wage. The wage is his share of the social income from which the employer is also paid his profit.

2 Capitalism is an eternal system. Its crises are temporary and conjunctural, due to the disproportion between the different branches of production, disequilibrium in distribution or bad management. Nevertheless, in the long term, there is no problem with the realisation of commodities; production always finds a market, advancing the balance between supply (production) and demand (consumption).

Marx fought these dogmas of bourgeois economics to the day he died. He demonstrated that capitalism is not an eternal system: "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms-  with the property relations within  the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution" (Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, page 21, English edition, 1971). This period of the historic crisis, of the irreversible decadence of capitalism, opened up with the First World War. The survival of capitalism, following the defeat of the attempted world revolution by the proletariat between 1917-23, has cost humanity oceans of blood (hundreds of millions killed in imperialist wars between 1914-68, sweat (a brutal increase in the exploitation of the working class) and tears (the terror of unemployment, barbarity of every type, the dehumanisation of social relations).

However, this fundamental analysis, the common tradition of the Communist Left, is not explained in the same way in the present revolutionary political milieu: two theories exist for explaining the decadence of capitalism, the theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and that which is called the "market theory" based essentially on the work of Rosa Luxemburg.

The IBRP adhere to the first theory while we prefer the second [1] [73]. In order for a polemic on both theories to be fruitful it is necessary to base it on an understanding of the evolution of the debate in the Marxist movement.

Marx lived in the period of the ascent of capitalism. Although the historic crisis of the system was not posed as dramatically as it is today, he was able to see in its periodic cyclical crises a manifestation of its contradictions and an announcement of the convulsions that would lead to ruin: "Marx pointed to two basic contradictions in the process of capitalist accumulation: two contradictions that lay at the root of the cyclical crises of growth capitalism went through in the nineteenth century, and which would, at a given moment, impel the communist revolution onto the agenda. These two contradictions are the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, given the inevitability of an ever higher organic composition of capital and the problem of overproduction, capital's innate disease of producing more than its market can absorb" ("Marxism and Crisis Theory" International Review no.13, page 27, our emphasis).

From this we can see that: "Though he developed a framework in which these two phenomena were intimately linked, Marx never completed his examination of capitalism, so that, in different writings, more or less emphasis is given to one or the other as the underlying cause of the crisis... It is the unfinished character of this crucial area of Marx's thought - something, as we have said, determined not merely by Marx's personal inability to finish Capital, but by the limitations of the historic period in which he was living" (idem. Page 27).

At the end of last century, the conditions of capitalism began to change: imperialism as a policy of robbery and confrontation between the powers developed in great strides. On the other hand, capitalism was expressing growing signs of illness (inflation, growth in exploitation) that contrasted strongly with a growth and prosperity, which had been uninterrupted since 1890. In this context there appeared inside the 2nd International an opportunist current that called into question the Marxist thesis of the collapse of capitalism and put forward a gradual transition to socialism through successive reforms of capitalism that would "alleviate these contradictions". The theoreticians of this current concentrated their artillery precisely against the second of the contradictions pointed out by Marx: the tendency to overproduction. Thus, Bernstein said: "Marx contradicts himself when he sees the ultimate cause of crises in the limitation of the consumption of the masses. In reality, Marx's theory about the crisis is not much different from the underconsumptionism of Rodbertus" [2] [74] (Bernstein: Theoretical Socialism and Social Democratic Practice).

In 1902, Tugan Baranovsky, a Russian revisionist, attacked Marx's theory of the crisis of capitalism denying that there could be a problem of the market and demonstrating that the crisis is due to "disproportionality" between different sectors.

Tugan Baranovsky went even further than his German revisionist colleagues (Bernstein, Schmidt, Vollmar, etc). He went back to the dogmas of bourgeois economics, concretely returning to the ideas of Say [3] [75] (openly criticised by Marx) based on the thesis that "capitalism doesn't have a problem of realisation beyond some temporary disturbances". There was a very firm response in the 2nd International on the part of Kautsky, who was then still in the ranks of the revolution: "Although capitalists increase their wealth and the number of exploited workers grows, they cannot themselves form a sufficient market for the capitalist produced commodities, as accumulation of capital and productivity grow even faster. They must find a market in those strata and nations which are still non-capitalist... this additional market hardly has the flexibility and ability to expand the capitalist process of production... This, in short, is the theory of crises which, as far as we can see, is generally accepted by ‘orthodox' Marxists and which was set up by Marx" (Quoted by Rosa Luxemburg in her book The Accumulation of Capital an Anti-critique, Modern Reader edition, 1972, page 79. The emphasis is Rosa Luxemburg's).

However, this polemic was radicalised when Rosa Luxemburg published her book The Accumulation of Capital. In this book, Rosa Luxemburg tried to explain the dizzy growth of imperialism and the increasingly profound crisis of capitalism. In the book she demonstrated that capitalism developed historically through expanding its relations of production based on wage labour into non-capitalist regions and sectors, that it would reach its historic limits when it had embraced the whole planet, and that it was already failing to find the new territories that were necessary for the expansion demanded by the growth of productivity of labour and the organic composition of capital: "Thus capitalism expands because of its mutual relationship with non-capitalist social strata and countries, accumulating at their expense and at the same time pushing them aside to take their place. The more capitalists participate in this hunt for areas of accumulation, the rarer the non-capitalist places still open to the expansion of capital become and the tougher the competition; its raids turn into a chain of economic and political catastrophes: world crises, wars, revolution" (Rosa Luxemburg: Anti-critique, page 60.)

Rosa Luxemburg's critics denied that capitalism has a problem of realisation, which is to say, they forget the contradiction of the system that Marx vigorously defended against the bourgeois economists and which constituted the base of "the crisis theory founded by Marx" as Kautsky had recalled some years before against the revisionist Tugan-Baranovsky.

Rosa Luxemburg's detractors set themselves up as the "orthodox and unconditional" defenders of Marx, and particularly, of his schemas of expanded reproduction put forward in Vol.2 of Capital. That is to say, they nullified Marx's thinking by exaggerating a passage from his work [4] [76]. Their arguments were very varied: Eckstein said there was no problem of realisation because in the tables of expanded reproduction Marx had explained "perfectly" that there was no part of production that could not be sold. Hilferding revived the theory of "disproportionality between sectors" saying that the crisis was due to the anarchy of production and that the tendency towards the concentration of capitalism reduced this anarchy and therefore the crisis. Finally, Bauer said that Rosa Luxemburg had pointed out a real problem but that this had a solution under capitalism: accumulation followed the growth of population.

During this period only one editor of a local socialist newspaper opposed the theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall to that of Rosa Luxemburg's, thus: "...we are left with the somewhat oblique comfort provided by a little ‘expert' from the Dresdener Volkszeitung who, after thoroughly destroying my book, explains that capitalism will eventually collapse ‘because of the falling rate of profit'. One is not too sure exactly how the dear man envisages this: whether the capitalist class will at a certain point commit suicide in despair at the low rate of profit, or whether it will somehow declare that business is so bad that it is simply not worth the trouble, whereupon it will hand the key over to the proletariat? However that may be, this comfort is unfortunately dispelled by a single sentence by Marx, namely the statement that "large capitals will compensate for the fall in the rate by mass production". Thus there is still some time to pass before capitalism collapses because of the falling rate of profit, roughly until the sun burns out". (Rosa Luxemburg Anti-critique, page 76.).

Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not take part in this polemic [5] [77]. Certainly, Lenin had fought the Populist theory of markets, an underconsumptionist theory in continuity with the errors of Sismondi. However, Lenin never denied the problem of the market: in his analysis of imperialism, despite placing the main emphasis on Hilferding's theory about the concentration in finance capital [6] [78], he did not forget that this took place under the pressure of the saturation of the world market. Thus, in Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, responding to Kautsky, he emphasized that "It is the tendency to the annexation not only of the agrarian regions, but also the most industrial that precisely characterises imperialism, thus, the already completed division of the world demands it proceeds to a new division, to extend its hand towards all types of territory".

In the period of the degeneration of the 3rd International, Bukharin in his book Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital, attacked the thesis of Rosa Luxemburg in the development of a theory that opened up the doors to the triumph of Stalinism: the theory of the "stabilization" of capitalism (which presupposed the revisionist thesis that the crisis could be overcome) and the "necessity" that the USSR "coexist" for a prolonged period with the capitalist system. Bukharin's fundamental critique of Rosa Luxemburg was that she was limited to giving a privileged place to the contradiction related to the market forgetting all the others, amongst them, the theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall [7] [79].

At the end of the 20's and at the beginning of the 30's, "Paul Mattick of the American Council Communists took up Henryk Grossman's criticisms of Luxemburg and his contention that capitalism's permanent crisis emerges when the organic composition of capital reaches such a magnitude that there is less and less surplus value to fuel the process of accumulation. This basic idea - though further elaborated on a number of points - is today defended by revolutionary groups like the CWO, Battaglia Comunista and some of the groups emerging in Scandinavia". ("Marxism and Crisis Theory" in International Review no.13, page 28).

2. The theory of the crisis is not based uniquely on the tendency of the falling rate of profit

It must remain clear that the contradiction that capitalism suffers in respect of the realisation of surplus value plays a fundamental role in the Marxist theory of the crisis and that the revisionist tendencies attacked this thesis with particular rage. The IBRP claim the contrary. Thus, in their response they tell us that "For Marx the source of all real crises lay within the capitalist system itself, within the relationship between capitalists and workers. He sometimes expressed this as a crisis created by the limited capacity of the workers to consume the product of their own labours...He went on to add that this was not because of overproduction per se... And Marx goes on to explain that the crisis arises out of the falling rate of profit...The crises devalue capital and allow a new cycle of accumulation to begin" (The IBRP's response, pages 32-33). Their confidence is such that it permits them to add that, "The "schematic cycles of accumulation" in which we are happy to be imprisoned happens to be what Marx left us with" (The IBRP's response, page 32).

It is a deformation of Marx's thought to say that the historic crisis of capital is explained solely by the theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. For three reasons:

1. Marx placed emphasis on the two contradictions

* He established that capitalist production has two parts, production properly speaking and its realisation. Put simply, the profit inherent in exploitation means nothing either to the individual capitalist nor to capitalism in its totality, if the commodities they produce are not sold: "The total mass of commodities, the total product, must be sold, both that portion which replaces constant capital and variable capital and that which represents surplus-value. If this does not happen, or happens only partly, or only at prices that are less than the price of production, then although the worker is certainly exploited, his exploitation is not realised as such for the capitalist". (Capital Vol.3, page 352, Penguin edition. Our emphasis).

* He demonstrated the vital importance of the market in the development of capitalism: "The market, therefore must be continually extended, so that its relationships and the conditions governing them assume ever more the form of a natural law... The internal contradiction seeks resolution by extending the external field of production" (idem, page 353). Further on, he asks: "How else could there be a lack of demand for those very goods that the mass of the people are short of, and how could it be that this demand has to be sought abroad, in distant markets, in order to pay the workers back home the average measure of the necessary means of subsistence? It is because it is only in this specific, capitalist context that the surplus product receives a form in which its proprietor can make it available for consumption as soon as it has been transformed back into capital for himself" (idem, page 366).

* He condemned without any hesitations Say's thesis that there was no problem of realisation in capitalism: "The conception... adopted by Ricardo from the tedious Say... that overproduction is not possible or at least that no general glut of the market is possible, is based on the proposition that products are exchanged against products, or as Mill puts it, on the ‘metaphysical equilibrium of sellers and buyers', and this led to the conclusion that demand is determined only by production." (Theories of Surplus Value Vol.2, page 493, Moscow edition).

* He insisted that permanent overproduction expressed the historical limits of capitalism: "...the mere admission that the market must expand with production is, on the other hand, an admission of the possibility of overproduction, for the market is limited externally in the geographical sense... it is then possible... that the limits of the market are not extended rapidly enough for production, or that new markets - new extensions of the market - may be rapidly outpaced by production, so that the expanded market becomes just as much a barrier as the narrower market was formerly" (idem, page 524-5).

2. Secondly, Marx established the whole of the causes that counteract the tendency of the rate of profit to fall: in Chapter XIV of Vol.3 of Capital he analysed six factors that counteract this tendency: more intense exploitation of labour, reduction of wages below their value, reduction in the cost of constant capital, the relative surplus population, foreign trade, the growth of share capital.

* He saw the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as an expression of the constant increase in the productivity of labour, a tendency that capitalism developed to a level never seen in previous modes of production: "With the progressive decline in variable capital in relation to constant capital, this tendency leads to a rising organic composition of the total capital, and the direct result of this is that the rate of surplus-value, with the level of exploitation of labour remaining the same or even rising, is expressed in a steadily falling general rate of profit... The progressive tendency of the general rate of profit to fall is thus simply the expression, peculiar to the capitalist mode of production, of the progressive development of the social productivity of labour" (Capital, Vol.3, pages 318-19. Emphasis in the original).

* Marx made clear that this is not an absolute law but a tendency that contained a whole series of counteracting forces (as shown above) that it gives rise to: "We have shown in general, therefore, how the same causes that bring about a fall in the general rate of profit provoke counter-effects that inhibit this fall, delay it and in part even paralyse it. These do not annul the law, but they weaken its effects. If this were not the case, it would not be the fall in the general rate of profit that was incomprehensible, but rather the relative slowness of this fall. The law operates therefore simply as a tendency, whose effect is decisive only under certain particular circumstances and over long periods" (idem, page 346).

* In relation to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall he posed the primordial importance of "foreign trade" and above all the continual search for new markets: "...this same foreign trade develops the capitalist mode of production at home, and hence promotes a decline in variable capital as against constant, though it also produces overproduction in relation to the foreign country, so that it again has the opposite effect in the further course of development" (idem, page 346).

3. Finally, contrary to what the comrades think, Marx did not see the devaluation of capital as the only means that capitalism has for overcoming the crisis, he also insisted about the other means: the conquest of new markets: "How does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by the enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones" (The Communist Manifesto, in The Revolutions of 1848, page 73, Penguin Books). "Capitalist production being a transitory economical phase, is full of internal contradictions which develop and become evident in proportion as it develops. This tendency to destroy its own market at the same time as it creates it, is one of them. Another is the "hopeless situation" to which it leads, and which is developed sooner in a country without a foreign market, like Russia, than in countries which more or less are capable of competing on the open world market. This situation without an apparent issue finds its issue, for the latter countries, in commercial convulsions, in the forcible opening of new markets. But even then the cul-de-sac stares one in the face. Look at England. The last new market which could bring on a temporary revival of prosperity by its being thrown open to English commerce, is China" (Engels to Danielson, 1892. Letters on Capital, page 274, New Park).

3. The problem of accumulation

However, the comrades give us another "weighty" argument: "As we have pointed out before, this theory [they are referring to that of Rosa Luxemburg] makes nonsense of Capital since Marx carried out his analysis assuming a closed capitalist system that was already devoid of "third buyers" (and yet he still found a crisis mechanism)" (The IBRP's response, page 33).

It is quite true that Marx pointed out that; "To bring foreign trade into an analysis of the value of the product annually reproduced can therefore only confuse things, without supplying any new factor either to the problem or to its solution" (Capital Vol.2, page 546, Penguin edition). It is true that Marx, in the final chapter of Vol.2, in trying to understand the mechanism of capitalism's expanded reproduction, says that it is necessary to omit "exterior elements", that it is necessary to assume that there are only capitalists and workers, and on this basis he elaborates the tables of capital's expanded reproduction. These famous tables have served as the revisionists' "bible" in order "to demonstrate" that "Marx's illustrations in the second volume of Capital were a sufficient and exhaustive explanation of accumulation; the models there proved quite conclusively that capital could grow excellently, and production could expand, if there was no other mode of production in the world than the capitalist one; it was its own market, and only my complete inability to understand the ABC of Marx's models could persuade me to see the problem here" (Rosa Luxemburg: Anti-critique, page 62.).

It is absurd to pretend that the explanation of the crisis of capitalism is contained within the famous tables of reproduction. The centre of Rosa Luxemburg's critique is precisely the assumption on which this is based: "...the realisation of surplus value for the purposes of accumulation is an impossible task for a society which consists solely of workers and capitalists" (Luxemburg. The Accumulation of Capital, page 350. Monthly Review Press). With this as a starting point, she demonstrates its inconsistency: "...if and in so far as, the capitalists do not themselves consume their products but ‘practise abstinence', i.e. accumulate, for whose sake do they produce? Even less can the maintenance of an ever larger army of workers be the ultimate purpose of the continuous accumulation of capital. From the capitalist point of view, the consumption of the workers is a consequence of accumulation, it is never its object... Who, then, realises the permanently increasing surplus value? The diagram answers: the capitalists themselves and they alone [8] [80]. - And what do they do with this increasing surplus value? - The diagram replies: They use it for an ever greater expansion of their production. These capitalists are thus fanatical supporters of an expansion of production for production's sake. They see to it that ever more machines are built for the sake of building - with their help - ever more new machines. Yet the upshot of all this is not accumulation of capital but an increasing production of producer goods to no purpose whatever. Indeed one must be as reckless as Tugan Baranovsky, and rejoice as much in paradoxical statements, to assume that this untiring merry-go-round in thin air could be a faithful reflection in theory of capitalist reality, a true deduction from Marx's doctrine" (idem, page 335).

Therefore, she concludes that: "The whole of Marx's work, volume 3 particularly, contains a most elaborate and lucid exposition of his general views regarding the typical course of capitalist accumulation. If we once fully understand this interpretation, the deficiencies of the diagram at the end of volume 2 are immediately evident. If we examine critically the diagram of enlarged reproduction in the light of Marx's theory, we find various contradictions between the two." (idem, page 335)

For its historical development, capitalism depended on a surrounding pre-capitalist milieu with which to establish a relationship. This comprised three indissoluble elements: trade (the acquisition of raw materials and the exchange of manufactured goods), destruction of these social forms (the annihilation of the natural subsistence economy, separation of the peasants and artisans from their means of labour) and integration into capitalist production (the development of wage labour and all the capitalist institutions).

This relationship of trade-destruction-integration spans the long process of the formation of the capitalist system (the 16th - 18th centuries), summit (the 19th century) and decadence (the 20th century) and constituted a vital necessity for the whole of the relations of production: "The interrelations of accumulating capital and non-capitalist forms of production extend over values as well as over material conditions, for constant capital, variable capital and surplus value alike. The non-capitalist mode of production is the given historical setting for this process. Since the accumulation of capital becomes impossible in all points without non-capitalist surroundings, we cannot gain a true picture of it by assuming the exclusive and absolute domination of the capitalist mode of production" (idem, page 365).

For Battaglia Comunista this historic process that unfolds at the level of the world market is nothing but the reflection of a much more profound process: "Although we may start with the market, and the contradictions which appear there (production-distribution, imbalance between supply and demand), we must return to the mechanisms governing accumulation to get a more correct vision of the problem. As a productive - distributive unity, capital demands that we consider what happens on the market as a consequence of the ripening of contradictions lying at the base of the relations of production, and not the reverse. It is the economic cycle and the necessity for the valorisation of capital which condition the market. Only by starting with the contradictory laws which rule the process of accumulation is it possible to explain the ‘laws of the market'"

(2nd Conference of groups of the Communist Left, volume 1 preparatory texts, page 10).

The realisation of surplus value, the famous "salto mortale of the commodity" as Marx called it, constitutes the "surface" of the phenomena, the "sounding box" of the contradictions of accumulation. This vision with its airs of "profundity" contains nothing else than profound idealism: the "laws of the market" are the "external" result of the "internal" laws of the process of accumulation. This is not the view of Marx, for whom the two moments of capitalist production (production and realisation) are not the reflection one of the other, but two inseparable parts of the global unity that is the historical evolution of capitalism: "...the commodity enters the sphere of circulation not just as a particular use-value, eg, a ton of iron, but as a use-value with a definite price... The price while on the one hand indicating the amount of labour-time contained in the iron, namely its value, at the same time signifies the pious wish to convert the iron into gold... If this transformation fails to take place then the iron ceases to be not only a commodity but also a product; since it is a commodity only because it is not a use-value for its owner, that is to say his labour is only really labour if it is useful labour for others, and it is useful for him only if it is abstract general labour. It is therefore the task of the iron or its owner to find that location in the world of commodities where iron attracts gold. But if the sale actually takes place, as we assume in this analysis of simple circulation, then this difficulty, the salto mortale of the commodity, is surmounted" (Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Chapter 2, Page 88, Moscow edition).

Any attempt to separate production from realisation impedes the understanding of the historical movement of capitalism which led to its summit (the formation of the world market) and its historical crisis (chronic saturation of the world market): "... the capitalists are compelled to exploit the already existing gigantic means of production on a larger scale...as the mass of production, and consequently the need for extended markets, grows, the world market becomes more and more contracted, fewer and fewer new markets remain available for exploitation, since every preceding crisis has subjected to world trade a market hitherto unconquered or only superficially exploited" (Marx and Engels: Wage Labour and Capital. Selected Works, page 93, Moscow edition). Only in the framework of this unity is it possible to coherently integrate the tendency for the continual increase of the productivity of labour: "Capital does not consist in accumulated labour serving living labour as a means for new production. It consists in living labour serving accumulated labour as a means for maintaining and multiplying the exchange value of the latter" (idem, page 81).

When Lenin studied the development of capitalism in Russia he used the same method: "What is important is that capitalism cannot exist and develop without constantly expanding the sphere of its domination, without colonising new countries and drawing old non-capitalist countries into the whirlpool of world economy. And this feature of capitalism has been and continues to be manifested with tremendous force in post-Reform Russia" (Lenin: "The Development of Capitalism in Russia". Collected Works Vol 3, page 594).

4.- The historical limits of capitalism

The comrades of the IBRP think, however, that Rosa Luxemburg insisted on looking for "external" causes to the crisis of capitalism: "Initially Luxemburg supported the idea that the cause of crises was to be found in the value relations inherent in the capitalist mode of production itself...But in the fight against revisionism inside German Social Democracy seems to have led her in 1913 to search for another economic theory with which to counter the revisionist assertion that the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall was no longer valid. In The Accumulation of Capital she concluded that there was "a flaw in Marx's analysis" and she decided that the cause of capitalist crisis lay outside capitalist relations". (The IBRP's response, page 33).

The revisionists throw in Rosa Luxemburg's face the accusation that she was posing a problem that didn't exist, according to them, Marx's tables of expanded reproduction had "demonstrated" that all surplus value was realised within capitalism. The comrades of the IBRP don't appeal to these tables but their method amounts to the same thing: for them Marx with his schemas of the cycles of accumulation has given the solution. Capital goes on producing and developing until the rate of profit falls and production is blocked which then brings about the tendency to "objectively" resolve itself through a massive depreciation of capital. After this depreciation, the rate of profit is restored and the process begins again and thus successively. It is true that the comrades admit that historically this evolution is much more complicated due to the growth in the organic composition of capital and the tendency to the concentration and centralisation of capital: that in the 20th century this process of concentration, means that the necessary devaluations of capital cannot be limited to strictly economic means (closure of factories and laying off workers) but requires the enormous destruction of world war (see the first part of this article).

This explanation is, in the majority of cases, a description of the conjunctural movements of capitalism but does not allow an understanding of the global, historical movement of capitalism. It provides us with a very unreliable thermometer (we have explained, following Marx, the counteracting causes of the law) for the convolutions and progress of capitalism but it doesn't allow us to understand, nor even begin to pose, the reason, the profound cause for the illness. With the additional burden of decadence (see our articles in International Review, nos. 79 & 82) accumulation is profoundly blocked and its mechanisms (including therefore the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) have been altered and perverted by massive state intervention.

The comrades remind us that for Marx the causes of the crisis are internal to capitalism.

Do the comrades want something "more internal" to capitalism than the imperious necessity to constantly expand production beyond the limits of the market? Capitalism's aim is not the satisfaction of the needs of consumption (unlike feudalism whose aim was the consumption of the nobles and priests). Neither is it a system of simple production of commodities (such methods could be seen in Antiquity or up to a certain point in the 14th-15th centuries). Its aim of production is a constantly increasing surplus value arising from value relations based on wage labour. This demands that it permanently searches for new markets: why? In order to establish a régime of simple exchange of commodities? For robbery and the taking of slaves? No, although these methods have accompanied the development of capitalism, they don't constitute its internal essence, which resides in the necessity to increasingly extend its relations of production based on wage labour: "Sadly for itself, capital cannot do business with its non-capitalist clients without ruining them. Whether it sells them consumer goods or means of production, it automatically destroys the precarious equilibrium of any pre-capitalist (and therefore less productive) economy. Introducing cheap clothes, building railways, installing a factory, are enough to destroy the whole of pre-capitalist economic organisation. Capital likes it pre-capitalist clients just as the ogre ‘likes' children: it eats them. The workers of a pre-capitalist economy who have the ‘misfortune to have had dealings with the capitalists' know that sooner or later, he will end up, at best proletarianised and at worst - and this has become more and more frequent since capitalism's slide into decadence - reduced to misery and bankruptcy" (Critique of Bukharin, part 2 in International Review no 30)

In the ascendant period, in the 19th century, this problem of realisation appeared to be secondary given that capitalism constantly found new pre-capitalist areas which to integrate into its network and therefore to sell its commodities to. However, the problem of realisation has become decisive in the 20th century where the pre-capitalist territories have increasingly become less significant in relation to the needs of expansion. Therefore we say that Rosa Luxemburg's theory: "... provides an explanation for the historically concrete conditions determining the onset of the permanent crisis of the system: the more capitalism integrated the remaining non-capitalist areas of the economy into itself, the more it created a world in its own image, the less it could constantly extend the market and find new outlets for the realisation of that portion of surplus value which could be realised neither by the capitalists nor the proletariat. The inability of the system to go on expanding in the old way brought about the new epoch of imperialism and inter-imperialist wars, signalling the end of capitalism's progressive historical mission and threatening humanity with a relapse into barbarism" ("Communism is not a nice idea but a material necessity" part VII in International Review no.76, page 24).

We do not deny the tendency of the rate of profit to fall: we see it working as part of capitalism's historical evolution. This is affected by a whole series of contradictions; the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of appropriation, between the incessant growth in the productivity of labour and the decreasing portion of living labour, the already mentioned tendency of the rate of profit to fall... However, these contradictions could be a stimulant to the development of capitalism as far as it had the possibility of extending its system of production on the world scale. When capitalism reached its historical limits, these stimulating contradictions, were converted into heavy chains, into factors that accelerated the difficulties and convulsions of the system.

5 - The growth of production in the decadence of capitalism

The comrades of the IBRP make a really startling objection: "If the markets were already saturated in 1913, if all pre-capitalist outlets had been exhausted no new ones could be re-recreated (short of a trip to Mars). If capitalism goes beyond the level of growth of the previous cycle how could it possibly do it in Luxemburg theory?" (The IBRP's response, page 33).

While our polemical article in International Review no.79 made clear the nature and composition of the "economic growth" experienced after World War 2, the comrades criticise us in their response by saying that there had been a "real economic growth of capitalism in decadence" and faced with our defence of Rosa Luxemburg's positions they go on: "We have already seen how the ICC resolve the dilemma - by empirically denying that there has been real growth"(idem, page 33).

We can't repeat here an analysis of the nature of the "growth" since 1945. We invite comrades to read the article "Understanding the decadence of capitalism (part VI)" in International Review no.56, which makes clear that as regards: "...the rates of growth in the period following 1945 (the highest in capitalism's history)...we will demonstrate that this momentary upsurge is the product of a doped growth, which is nothing other than the desperate struggle of a system in its death-throes. The means that have been used to achieve it (massive debts, state intervention, growing military production, unproductive expenditure, etc) are wearing out, opening the way to an unprecedented crisis." What we want to deal with is something fundamental to marxism: the quantitative growth of production does not necessarily signify the development of capitalism.

The chronic, unending, problem that capitalism has in decadence is the absence of the new markets that are demanded by the increases in production due to the constant growth of labour productivity and the organic composition of capital. This constant increase aggravates still more the problem of the already increasing overproduction of accumulated labour (constant capital) in relation to living labour (variable capital, the workers' means of life).

The whole history of the survival of capitalism in the 20th century after the defeat of the 1917-23 revolutionary wave, is of a desperate effort to manipulate the law of value, through debt, hyper-inflation of unproductive costs and the monstrous development of armaments in order to alleviate the chronic absence of new markets. And history shows that these efforts have done nothing but aggravate the problems and stoke up decadent capitalism's tendencies towards self-destruction: the aggravation of the chronic crisis of capitalism accentuating the permanent tendencies to imperialist war, to generalised destruction (see the first part of this article in International Review no.82).

In reality this "fabulous" growth of production that dazzles the comrades so much illustrates the insuperable contradiction imposed on capitalism by its tendency to the unlimited development of production beyond the market's capacity of absorption. These figures, far from undermining Rosa Luxemburg's theories fully confirm them. When we see the uncontrolled and runaway growth of debt, without comparison in human history, when we see the existence of structural and permanent inflation, when we see that since the abandoning of the Gold Standard capitalism has recklessly eliminated any guaranteed backing for money (presently Fort Knox only covers 3% of the dollars circulating in the United States), when one recognises the massive intervention by the state in order to shore up the economic edifice (and this for more than 50 years) any minimally serious Marxist has to reject this "fabulous growth" as a bluff and conclude that it is a question of doped and fraudulent growth.

The comrades, instead of confronting this reality, prefer speculating about the "new realities" of capitalism. Thus, in their response they put forward: "The restructuring (and, dare we say it, growth) of the working class, the tendency for capitalist states to be economically dwarfed by the volume of world trade and the amount of capital which is controlled by world financial institutions (which is now at least four times the budget of all the states put together) have produced a further extension of the world economy of Bukharin and Luxemburg's day into a globalised economy." (The IBRP's reply, page 35).

When there are 820 million unemployed in the world (figures from ILO, December 1994), the comrades talk about the growth of the working class! When there is an irreversible growth in temporary work, the comrades, like modern Don Quixotes, see the windmills of the "growth" and "reconstruction" of the working class. When capitalism draws ever closure to a financial crisis of incalculable proportions, the comrades merrily speculate about the "global economy" and "capital controlled by the financial institutions". Once more, in their dreams they see their Dulcinea del Toboso of the "world economy" whose prosaic reality consists of the desperate efforts of these - "increasingly childlike" - states to control the scale of speculation provoked precisely by the saturation of the markets; these giants constituted by the "capital controlled by the financial institutions" are balloons monstrously inflated by the very speculation that could unleash a catastrophe upon the world economy.

The comrades announce: "All of the above has to be subjected to a rigorous Marxist analysis which takes time to develop" (the IBRP's reply, page 35). Isn't it more appropriate for the militant work of the Communist Left for the comrades to dedicate their time to explaining the phenomena that demonstrate the paralysis and mortal illness of accumulation throughout capitalist decadence? Marx said the mistake was not in the answer but in the question itself. Posing such questions as the "global economy" and the "restructuring of the working class" is to sink into the quicksand of revisionism, while there are "other questions" such as the nature of mass unemployment, indebtedness, that help to confront the fundamental problems in the understanding of capitalist decadence.

6 - Militant conclusions

In the first part of this article we insisted on what united us with the comrades of the IBRP: the intransigent defence of the Marxist position on the decadence of capitalism, the bedrock of the necessity of the Communist Revolution. It is fundamental to defend, coherently understand, and take the implications of this position to the end. As we explained in "Marxism and Crisis Theory" (International Review no.13) it is possible to defend the position on the decadence of capitalism without fully sharing our theory of the crisis based on Rosa Luxemburg's analysis [9] [81]. However, such a posture contains the danger of not coherently holding this position, of "holding it together with tape". The militant sense of our polemic is precisely this: the comrades' inconsistencies and deviations lead them to weakening the class position on the decadence of capitalism.

With its innate and sectarian rejection of Rosa Luxemburg's (and Marx's) thesis on the question of the markets, the comrades' analysis opens the door to the revisionist ideas of Tugan-Baranovsky, et al: "Cycles of accumulation are inherent to capitalism and they explain why, at different moments, capitalist production and capitalist growth can be higher or lower than in the preceding periods" (the IBRP's reply, page 31). With this they take up an old affirmation made by BC during the International Conferences of the Groups of the Communist Left: "The market is not a physical entity existing outside the capitalist system of production, which puts the brakes on the productive system once it is filled in; on the contrary, it is an economic reality within the system and outside it which dilates and contracts following the contradictory course of the process of accumulation" (2nd Conference of the Groups of the Communist Left, Preparatory Texts, page 13).

Do the comrades understand that this "method" enters fully into Say's world where, outside of conjunctural disproportionalities, "All that is produced is consumed and all that is consumed is produced"? Do the comrades comprehend that with this analysis all that happens is they go back to the merry-go-round of "proving" that the market: "dilates or contracts according to the rhythm of accumulation" and that this explains absolutely nothing about the historical evolution of capitalist accumulation? Don't the comrades see that they are falling into the very same errors that Marx criticised: "The metaphysical equilibrium of purchases and sales is confined to the fact that every purchase is a sale and every sale a purchase, but this is poor comfort to the possessors of commodities who unable to make a sale cannot accordingly make a purchase either" (Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, page 97).

This door that the comrades leave ajar to revisionist theories explains the propensity they have to lose themselves in sterile and absurd speculations about the "reconstruction of the working class" or the "global economy". They should also be aware of a tendency to allow themselves to be pulled in by the siren calls of the bourgeoisie: first there was the "technological revolution". Then the fabulous markets of the East, later there was the "business" of the Yugoslavian war. Certainly, the comrades corrected these absurdities under the weight of the ICC's criticism and the crushing evidence of facts. This demonstrates their responsibility and their firm links with the Communist Left. But will the comrades agree with us that these errors demonstrate that their position on the decadence of capitalism is not sufficiently consistent, that it's a patchwork, and that they have to establish themselves on much firmer ground.

The comrades concur with the revisionist adversaries of Rosa Luxemburg in their refusal to take the problem of realisation seriously, but radically diverge from them by rejecting their vision of the tendency to the amelioration of the contradictions of capitalism. On the contrary, and with full justice, the comrades see that each crisis phase of the cycle of accumulation means a much greater and more profound aggravation of capitalism's contradictions. The problem lies precisely in the periods in which, according to them, capitalist accumulation is fully restored. Confronted with these periods, while only considering the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and refusing to see the chronic saturation of the market, the comrades forget or relativise the revolutionary position on the decadence of capitalism.

Adalen 16.6.95.

[1] [82] We have developed our position in numerous articles in our International Review: we want to point out "Marxism and Crisis Theory" (no.13), "Economic Theories and the Struggle for Socialism" (no.16), "Crisis Theory from Marx to the CI" (no.22), "Critique of Bukharin" (nos 29 & 30) part VII of the series "Communism is not a nice idea but a material necessity" (no.76). The comrades in their response say that the ICC has not continued its critique of their positions announced in the article " Marxism and Crisis Theory" International Review no.13. The simple enumeration of the previous list of articles makes clear that this is a mistake.

[2] [83] Rodbertus was a bourgeois socialist from the middle of the last century who formulated his "law" of the diminishing share of wages. According to him the crisis of capitalism was due to this law and due to this he proposed state intervention in order to increase wages as a remedy to the crisis. The revisionists in the 2nd International accused Marx of having given into Rodbertus' thesis, calling him an "underconsumptionist" and later repeating the same accusation against Rosa Luxemburg.

Today, many trade unionists and also certain leftist currents of capital are unrecognised followers of Rodbertus, affirming that capitalism is primarily interested in improving the workers living as a way of overcome its crises.

[3] [84] Say was a bourgeois economist from the beginning of the 19th century who in his apologia for capitalism insisted that there is not a problem of the market since, according to him, "production creates its own market". Such a theory is equivalent to proposing capitalism as an eternal system without any possibility of crises beyond temporary convulsions provoked by "bad management" or by "disproportion between different productive sectors". Thus we can see that the bourgeosie's present messages about the "recovery" are nothing new!

[4] [85] This technique of opportunism has long been  adopted by Stalinism and Social Democracy and other forces of the left of capital (particularly the leftists) who brazenly use this or that passage of Lenin, Marx, etc, in order to endorse  positions that had nothing to do with them.

[5] [86] It is important to point out that in this polemic unleashed by Rosa Luxemburg's book, Pannekoek, who was neither an opportunist nor a revionist in that epoch but who on the contrary was on the left wing of the 2nd International, was against Rosa Luxemberg's thesis.

[6] [87] We have explained many times that Lenin, faced with the problem of the First World War and particularly in his book Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, correctly defended the revolutionary position on the historic crisis of capitalism (which he called the crisis of decomposition and parasitism of capital) and the necessity of the world proletarian revolution. This is the essential. However, he did support Hilferding's erroneous theories on finance capital and the "concentration of capital", which particularly in the hands of his epigones, weakened the force and coherence of his position against imperialism. See out critique in International Review no.19 "On Imperialism".

[7] [88] For a critique of Bukharin see International Review no 29 & 30, the article "To go beyond capitalism: Abolish the wage system".

[8] [89] In Capital Vol.3 Marx points out that "to say that it is only possible for the capitalists to exchange and consume their commodities amongst themselves is to completely forget that it is a question of the realisation of capital, not of its consumption" (Section 3, Chapter XV).

[9] [90] The Platform of the ICC says that comrades can defend the explanation of the crisis based on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

This third article devoted to the revolutionary struggle in Germany between 1918 and 1919[1] deals with one of the most difficult questions of the proletarian struggle: the preconditions for, and timing of the insurrection. Although negative, the German experience is a rich vein of lessons for the revolutionary struggle to come.

The premature insurrection

When it made its insurrection in November 1918 the working class forced the bourgeoisie in Germany to end the war. In order to sabotage the radicalization of the movement and prevent a repeat of the "Russian events" the capitalist class used the SPD[2] within the struggles as a spearhead against the working class. Thanks to a particularly effective policy of sabotage the SPD, with the help of the unions, did all it could to sap the strength of the workers' councils.

In the face of the explosive development of the movement with soldiers' mutinying everywhere and going over to the side of the insurrectionary workers, the bourgeoisie could not possibly envisage an immediate policy of repression. It had first to act politically against the working class and then go on to obtain a military victory. We went over the details of the political sabotage it carried out in International Review no. 82.

However the preparations for military action were made from the very beginning. It was not the right wing parties of the bourgeoisie which organized this repression but rather the one that still passed for "the great party of the proletariat", the SPD, and it did so in tight collaboration with the army. It was these famous "democrats" who went into action as capitalism's last line of defense. They were the ones who turned out to be the most effective rampart of capital. The SPD began by systematically setting up commando units as the companies of regular troops infected by the "virus of the workers' struggles" were less and less inclined to follow the bourgeois government. These companies of volunteers, privileged with special pay, would act as auxiliaries for the repression.

The military provocations of 6th & 24th December 1918

Confronted with these provocations from the government, the revolutionaries did not push for an immediate insurrection but called for the massive mobilization of the workers. The Spartakists made the analysis that the conditions were not yet ripe for the overthrow of the bourgeois government, particularly in so far as the capacities of the working class were concerned[3].

The bourgeoisie did not give way however. It continued to push for the disarmament of the proletariat which was still armed in Berlin and it made preparations to deliver it up to the decisive blow.

The SPD calls for death to the Communists

In order to set the population against the class movement, the SPD became the mouth piece of a shameful and powerful campaign of slander against the revolutionaries and even went so far as to call for death to the Spartakists in particular: "You want peace? Then you must all see to it that the tyranny of Spartakus' people is stopped! You want freedom? Then get the armed loafers of Liebknecht out of harm's way! You want famine? Then follow Liebknecht! You want to become the slaves of the Entente? Liebknecht will see to it! Down with the anarchist dictatorship of Spartakus! Only violence can oppose the brutal violence of this band of criminals!" (Leaflet of the municipal council of Greater Berlin, 29th December 1918).

"The shameful actions of Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg sully the revolution and put all its gains in danger. The masses must not tolerate for one minute more that these tyrants and their partisans paralyze the republic in this way. (...) It is by means of lies, slander and violence that they overturn and knock down every obstacle that dares oppose them.

We made the revolution to end the war! Spartakus wants a new revolution to start a new war" (leaflet of the SPD, January 1919).

At the end of December the Spartakus group left the USPD and joined with the IKD[5] to form the KPD. And so the working class possessed a Communist Party that was born in the heat of the movement and which was the target of attacks from the SPD, the main defender of capital.

For the KPD the activity of as large a number as possible of the working masses was indispensable if this tactic of capital was to be opposed. "After the initial phase of the revolution, that of the essentially political struggle, there opens up a phase of strengthened, intensified and mainly economic struggle." (R. Luxemburg at the founding Congress of the KPD). The SPD government "won't approach the lively flames of the economic class struggle." (Ibid). That is why capital, with the SPD at its head, did all it could to prevent any extension of the struggles on this terrain by provoking premature armed uprisings of the workers and then repressing them. They needed to weaken the movement at its center, Berlin, in the early days in order to then go on to attack the rest of the working class.

The trap of the premature insurrection in Berlin

In January the bourgeoisie reorganized its troops stationed in Berlin. In all they had more than 80,000 soldiers throughout the city, of which 10,000 were storm troops. At the beginning of the month they launched another provocation against the workers in order to disperse them militarily. On 4th January the prefect of police in Berlin, Eichhorn, who had been nominated by the workers in November, was relieved of his functions by the bourgeois government. This was seen as an attack by the working class. In the evening of 4th January the "revolutionary men of confidence"[6] held a meeting which Liebknecht and Pieck attended in the name of the newly formed KPD. A "Provisional Revolutionary Committee", which was based on the "delegates" circle, was formed. But at the same time the executive Committee of the Berlin councils (Vollzugsrat) and the central committee (Zentralrat) nominated by the national congress of councils - both nominated by the SPD - continued to exist and to act within the class.

The Committee for revolutionary action called for a protest gathering for Sunday 5th January. About 150,000 workers attended following a demonstration in front of the prefecture of police. On the evening of 5th January some of the demonstrators occupied the offices of the SPD paper, Vorwaerts, and other publishing houses. These actions were probably incited by agent provocateurs; at any rate they took place without the knowledge or approval of the committee.

But the conditions were not ripe for overthrowing the government and the KPD made this clear in a leaflet they put out at the beginning of January:

"If the Berlin workers dissolve the National Assembly today, if they throw the Ebert-Scheidemanns in prison while the workers of the Ruhr, Upper Silesia and the agricultural workers on the lands east of the Elba remain calm, tomorrow the capitalists will be able to starve out Berlin. The offensive of the working class against the bourgeoisie, the battle for the workers' and soldiers' councils to take power must be the work of all working people throughout the Reich. Only the struggle of the workers of town and country, everywhere and permanently, accelerating and growing until it becomes a powerful wave that spreads resoundingly over the whole of Germany, only a wave initiated by the victims of exploitation and oppression and covering the whole country can explode the capitalist government, disperse the National Assembly and build on the ruins the power of the working class which will lead the proletariat to complete victory in the ultimate struggle against the bourgeoisie. (...)

Workers, male and female, soldiers and sailors! Call assemblies everywhere and make it clear to the masses that the National Assembly is a bluff. In every workshop, in every military unit, in every town take a look at and check whether your workers' and soldiers' council has really been elected, whether it doesn't contain representatives of the capitalist system, traitors to the working class such as Scheidemann's men, or inconsistent and oscillating elements such as the Independents. Convince the workers and get them to elect the Communists. (...) Where you are in the majority in the workers' councils get these workers' councils to immediately establish relations with the other workers' councils in the area. (...) If this program is realized (...) the German republic of councils together with the Russian workers' republic of councils will draw the workers of England, France, Italy to the flag of the revolution ..." It follows from this analysis that the KPD saw clearly that the overthrow of the capitalist class was not yet immediately possible and that the insurrection wasn't yet on the agenda.

The action committee distributed a leaflet calling for insurrection with the slogan: "Fight for the power of the revolutionary proletariat! Down with the Ebert-Scheidemann government!"

The mass of demonstrating workers awaited directions in the streets while their leaders were disabled. Although the proletarian leadership held back, hesitated, had no plan of action, the SPD-led government for its part rapidly got over the shock caused by this initial workers' offensive. Help came to rally round it on all sides. The SPD called for strikes and supporting demonstrations in favor of the government. A bitter and perfidious campaign was launched against the communists: "Where Spartakus reigns all freedom and safety of the individual is abolished. The most serious danger threatens the German people and particularly the German working class. We will not let ourselves be terrorized any longer by these wild criminals. Order must finally be restored in Berlin and the peaceful establishment of a new revolutionary Germany must be guaranteed. We call upon you to stop work in protest at the brutality of the Spartakist gangs and to immediately assemble in front of the government building of the Reich." (...)

"We must not rest until order had been restored in Berlin and until the enjoyment of the revolutionary gains has been guaranteed for the whole of the German people. Down with the murderers and criminals! Long live the socialist republic!" (Executive committee of the SPD, 6th January 1919).

The work cell of the Berlin students wrote:

"Citizens, leave off your torpor and side with the socialist majority!" (Leaflet of 7/8th January 1919).

For his part Noske cynically declared on 11th January:

"The government of the Reich has transferred the command of the republican soldiers to me. So a worker is at the head of the forces of the socialist Republic. You know me, me and my history in the Party. I guarantee that blood will not be spilled senselessly. I want to heal, not to destroy. Working class unity must be forged against Spartakus so that democracy and socialism will not founder."

The SPD and its accomplices were thus preparing to massacre the revolutionaries of the KPD in the name of the revolution and the proletariat's interests. With the basest duplicity, it called on councils to stand behind the government in acting against what it called "armed gangs". The SPD even supplied a military section, which received weapons from the barracks, and Noske was placed at the head of the forces of repression with the words: "We need a bloodhound, I will not draw back from such a responsibility".

By 6th January, isolated skirmishes were taking place. While the government massed its troops around Berlin, on the evening of the 6th the Executive of the Berlin councils was in session. Dominated by the SPD and the USPD, it proposed to the Committee for Revolutionary Action that there should be negotiations between the "revolutionary men of confidence" and the government, for whose overthrow the Revolutionary Committee had just been calling. The Executive played the "conciliator", by proposing to reconcile the irreconcilable. This attitude confused the workers, and especially the soldiers who were already hesitant. The sailors thus decided to adopt a policy of "neutrality". In a situation of direct class confrontation, any indecision can rapidly lead the working class to lose confidence in its own capacities, and to adopt a suspicious attitude towards its own political organizations. By playing this card, the SPD helped to weaken the proletariat dramatically. At the same time, it used agents provocateurs (as was proven later) to push the workers into a confrontation. The latter thus forcibly occupied the offices of several newspapers on 7th January.

Faced with this situation, the KPD leadership, unlike the Revolutionary Action Committee, had a very clear position: based on the analysis of the situation made at its founding Congress, it considered the insurrection to be premature.

On 8th January, Die Rote Fahne wrote: "Today, we must proceed to the reelection of the workers' and soldiers' councils, to take back the Executive of the Berlin councils under the slogan: get rid of Ebert and his henchmen! Today, we must draw the lessons of the experiences of the last eight weeks in the workers' and soldiers' councils, and elect councils which correspond to the conceptions, aims, and aspirations of the masses. In a word, we have to beat Ebert and Scheidemann in the very foundations of the revolution: the workers' and soldiers' councils. Then, and only then, will the masses of Berlin and throughout the Reich have in the workers' and soldiers' councils real revolutionary organs which will give them, in all the decisive moments, real leaders, real centers for action, for struggle, and for victory".

The Spartakists thus called on the workers first and foremost to strengthen the councils by developing the struggle on their own class terrain, in the factories, and by getting rid of Ebert, Scheidemann, and Co. By intensifying their pressure through the councils, they could give the movement a new impetus, and then launch into the battle for the seizure of political power.

On the same day, Luxemburg and Jogisches violently criticized the slogan of immediate overthrow of the government put forward by the Action Committee, but also and above all the fact that the latter had shown itself, by its hesitant and even capitulationist attitude, incapable of directing the class movement. In particular, they reproached Liebknecht for acting on his own authority, letting himself be carried away by his enthusiasm and impatience, instead of referring to the Party leadership, and basing himself on the KPD's program and analyses.

This situation shows that it was neither the program nor the political analyses that were lacking, but the Party's ability, as an organization, to fulfill its role as the proletariat's political leadership. Founded only a few days before, the KPD had not the influence in the class, much less the solidity and organizational cohesion of the Bolshevik party one year earlier in Russia. The Communist Party's immaturity in Germany was at the heart of the dispersal in its ranks, which was to weigh heavily and dramatically in the events that followed.

In the night of the 8th/9th January, the government troops went on the attack. The Action Committee, which had still not correctly analyzed the balance of forces, called for action against the government: "General strike! To arms! There is no choice! We must fight to the last man!". Many workers answered the call, but once again they waited in vain for precise instructions from the Committee. In fact, nothing was done to organize the masses, to push for fraternization between the revolutionary workers and the troops ... And so the government's troops entered Berlin, and for several days engaged in violent street fighting with armed workers. Many were killed or wounded in scattered confrontations in different parts of the city. On 13th January, the USPD declared the general strike at an end, and on 15th January Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were assassinated by the thugs of the Social-democrat led regime! The SPD' s criminal campaign to "Kill Liebknecht!" thus ended in a success for the bourgeoisie. The KPD was deprived of its most important leaders.

Whereas the newly founded KPD had correctly analyzed the balance of forces, and warned against a premature insurrection, the Action Committee dominated by the "revolutionary men of confidence" had a false appreciation of the situation. To talk of a "Spartakus week" is a falsification of history. On the contrary, the Spartakists had taken position against hasty action. Proof of this, a contrario, was given by Liebknecht's and Pieck's breaking Party discipline. This bloody defeat was caused by the overhasty attitude of the "revolutionary men of confidence", burning with impatience but lacking in thought. The KPD did not have the strength to hold the movement back, as the Bolsheviks had done in July 1917. In the words of Ernst, the new social-democratic chief of police who replaced the ousted Eichorn: "Any success for the Spartakus people was out of the question from the start, since by our preparations we had forced them to strike prematurely. Their cards were uncovered sooner than they wished, and that is why we were able to combat them".

Following this military success, the bourgeoisie immediately understood that it should build on its advantage. It launched a bloody wave of repression, in which thousands of Berlin workers and communists were assassinated, tortured, and thrown into prison. The murders of Liebknecht and Luxemburg were no exception, but reveal the bourgeoisie's vile determination to eliminate its mortal enemies: the revolutionaries.

On 19th January, "democracy" triumphed: elections were held for the National Assembly. Under the pressure of the workers' struggles, the government in the meantime had transferred its sittings to Weimar. The Weimar Republic was thus established on the corpses of thousands of workers.

Is the insurrection a party affair?

On this question of the insurrection, the KPD clearly based itself on Marxist positions, and in particular on what Engels had written after the experience of the struggles of 1848:

"Insurrection is an art. It is an equation whose data is more than uncertain, and whose values can change at any moment; the enemy's forces have in their favor all the advantages of organization, discipline and authority; as soon as it becomes impossible to oppose them from a position of strong superiority, then one is beaten and annihilated. Secondly, once one has taken the road of insurrection, it is necessary to act with the greatest determination, and go onto the offensive. The defensive is the death of any armed insurrection; it is lost before even getting a chance to measure itself against the enemy. Take your opponent by surprise, while his strength is still dispersed; make sure to win new victories every day, however small; hold on to the moral supremacy that the movement's first victory has won you; attract the hesitant elements who always follow the impetus of the strongest, and take the safest side; force your enemies to retreat even before they have been able to gather their forces against you ..." (Revolution and counter-revolution in Germany).

The Spartakists adopted the same approach to insurrection as Lenin in April 1917:

"To succeed, the insurrection must be based not on a plot, not on a party, but on the vanguard class. This is the first point. The insurrection must be based on the revolutionary élan of the people. That is the second point. The insurrection must appear at a turning point in the history of the rising revolution, where the activity of the people's vanguard is at its strongest, where hesitation is strong in the ranks of the enemy, and weak among the friends of the revolution. That is the third point. These are the three conditions which distinguish marxism from blanquism, in its way of posing the question of insurrection" (Letter to the RSDLP Central Committee, September 1917).

What was the concrete situation in January 1919, with regard to this fundamental question?

Insurrection is based on the revolutionary élan of the masses

At its founding Congress, the KPD held that the class was not yet ripe for insurrection. After the movement initially dominated by the soldiers, a new impetus based on the factories, mass assemblies, and demonstrations was vital. This was a precondition for the class to gain, through its movement greater strength and greater self-confidence. It was a condition for the revolution to be more than the affair of just a minority, or of a few desperate or impatient elements, but on the contrary to be based on the revolutionary élan of the great majority of workers.

Moreover in January the workers' councils did not exercise a real dual power, in that the SPD has succeeded in sabotaging them from within. As we showed in the previous Issue, the councils' National Congress held in mid-December had been a victory for the bourgeoisie, and unfortunately nothing new had come to stimulate the councils since then. The KPD's appreciation of the class movement and the balance of forces were perfectly lucid and realistic.

Some think that it is the party that takes power. But then, we would have to explain how a revolutionary organization, no matter how strong, could do so when the great majority of the working class has not yet sufficiently developed its class consciousness, is hesitant and oscillating, and has not yet been able to create workers' councils with enough strength to oppose the bourgeois regime. Such a position completely misunderstands the fundamental characteristics of the proletarian revolution, and of the insurrection, which Lenin was the first to point out: "the insurrection must be based, not on a plot, not on a party, but on the vanguard class". Even in October 1917, the Bolsheviks were particularly concerned that it should be the Petrograd Soviet that took power, not the Bolshevik Party.

The proletarian insurrection cannot be "decreed from on high". On the contrary, it is a conscious action of the masses, which must first develop their initiative, and achieve a mastery of their own struggles. Only on this basis will the directives and orientations given by the councils and the party be followed.

The proletarian insurrection cannot be a putsch, as the bourgeois ideologues try to make us believe. It is the work of the entire working class. To shake off capitalism's yoke, the will of a few, even the class' clearest and most determined elements, is not enough: "the insurgent proletariat can only count on its numbers, its cohesion, its cadres, and its general staff" (Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, "The Art of Insurrection").

In January the working class in Germany had not yet reached this level of maturity.

The role of the communists is central

The KPD was aware that its main responsibility was to push for the strengthening of the working class, and in particular for the development of its consciousness in the same way as Lenin had done previously in Russia, in the April Theses:

"This seems to be "nothing more" than propaganda work, but in reality it is most practical revolutionary work; for there is no advancing a revolution that has come to a standstill that has choked itself with phrases, and that keeps "marking time", not because of external obstacles, not because of the violence of the bourgeoisie (...), but because of the unreasoning trust of the people.

Only by overcoming this unreasoning trust (...) can we set ourselves free from the prevailing orgy of revolutionary phrase-mongering and really stimulate the consciousness both of the proletariat and of the mass in general, as well as their bold and determined initiative (...)" (Lenin, "The tasks of the proletariat in our revolution", April 1917).

When boiling point has been reached, the party must "at the opportune moment, catch the mounting insurrection", to allow the class to launch the insurrection at the right moment. The proletariat must feel that "it has above it a clear-sighted, firm and audacious leadership", in the form of a party (Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, "The Art of Insurrection").

But unlike the Bolsheviks in July 1917, in January 1919 the KPD did not have enough weight to have a decisive effect on the course of the struggle. It was not enough for the party's position to be correct: it had to have a wide influence in the class. And this could not be developed by the premature insurrection in Berlin, still less by the bloody defeat that followed. On the contrary, the bourgeoisie succeeded in dramatically weakening the revolutionary vanguard by eliminating its best militants, but also by banning its main weapon of intervention in the class: Die Rote Fahne. In a situation where the widest possible intervention by the party was crucial, the KPD found itself deprived of its press for weeks at a time.

The drama of dispersed struggles

During these same weeks, the proletariat confronted capital in several countries. Whereas in Russia, the counter-revolutionary White troops strengthened their onslaught on the workers' power, the end of the war brought a certain calm to the social front in the "victorious countries". In Britain and France, there were a series of strikes, but the struggle did not take on the same radical orientation as it had in Russia and Germany. The struggles in Germany and central Europe thus remained relatively isolated from those in the other European industrial centers. In March, the Hungarian workers set up a Soviet Republic, which was quickly and bloodily crushed by counter-revolutionary troops, thanks once again to the skillful work of the local social-democracy.

In Berlin, after defeating the workers' insurrection the bourgeoisie set out to dissolve the soldiers' councils, and build an army ready for civil war. It also worked systematically to disarm the proletariat. But workers' combativity continued to break out all over the country. During the months that followed, the struggle's center of gravity was to shift through Germany. Extremely violent confrontations between proletariat and bourgeoisie took place in almost all the major towns, but unfortunately isolated from each other.

Bremen in January...

On 10th January, in solidarity with the Berlin workers, the Bremen workers' and soldiers' council proclaimed the creation of the Soviet Republic. It decided to evict the members of the SPD, to arm the workers, and to disarm counter-revolutionary elements. It appointed a council government, responsible to it. On 4th February, the Reich government gathered troops around Bremen and went on the offensive. The rebel town remained isolated, and fell on the same day.

The Ruhr in February...

In the Ruhr, the biggest working class concentration, expressions of combativity had broken out since the end of the war. Already prior to the war, in 1912 there had been a long wave of strikes. In July 1916, January 1917, January 1918, and August 1918, the workers launched large movements of struggle against the war. In November 1918, the workers' and soldiers' councils were mostly under the influence of the SPD. January and February saw the outbreak of many wildcat strikes. The striking miners went to neighboring pits to enlarge and unify the movement. There were often violent confrontations between the workers in struggle, and the councils still dominated by members of the SPD. The KPD intervened:

"The seizure of power by the proletariat, and the creation of socialism, presupposes that the great majority of the proletariat has the will to exercise the dictatorship. We do not think that that moment has yet arrived. We think that the development of the next weeks and months will cause to ripen within the whole proletariat, the conviction that its salvation can only lie in its dictatorship. The Ebert-Schiedemann government is seeking out the slightest opportunity to stifle this development in blood. As in Berlin, as in Bremen, it will try to strangle each revolutionary outbreak in isolation, in order to avoid the general revolution. The proletariat has the duty to make these provocations fail, by avoiding armed uprisings which would offer itself to the executioners as a willing sacrifice. It is far more important, right up to the moment of the seizure of power, to raise the revolutionary masses' energy to the highest point by demonstrations, meetings, propaganda, agitation and organization, to win over a greater and greater number of the masses, and to prepare minds for the time to come. Above all, it is necessary to push for the re-election of the councils under the slogan:

The Ebert-Scheidemanns out of the councils!

Get rid of the executioners!"

(Call by the KPD Centrale for the reelection of the workers' councils, 3rd February).

On 6th February, 109 council delegates met to demand the socialization of the means of production. Behind this demand, lay the workers' increasing realization that control of the means of production could not remain in the hands of capital. But as long as the proletariat did not hold political power, as long as it had not overthrown the bourgeois government, this demand could turn against it. Without political power, all the measures of socialization are not only a deception, but a means for the ruling class to stifle the struggle. The SPD thus promised a law providing for "participation" and a pseudo-control by the working class over the state. "The workers' councils are constitutionally recognized as the representation of economic interests and participation, and are anchored in the Constitution. Their election and prerogatives will be regulated by a special law to take effect immediately".

It was planned that the councils should be transformed into "enterprise committees" (Betribrate), and that their function should be to take part in the economic process through joint management. The prime aim of this proposal was to adulterate the councils, and to integrate them into the state. They were thus no longer organs of dual power against the bourgeois state, but on the contrary served to regulate capitalist production. Moreover, this mystification maintained the illusion of an immediate transformation of the economy "in one's own factory", and the workers were thus easily enclosed in a local and specific struggle, instead of engaging in a movement of extension and unification of the combat. This tactic, used for the first time by the German bourgeoisie, was illustrated in several factory occupations. In the struggles in Italy during 1919-20, it was again put to very successful use by the ruling class.

From 10th February, the troops responsible for the bloodbaths in Bremen and Berlin were marching on the Ruhr. The workers' and soldiers' councils throughout the Ruhr valley decided on a general strike, and called for armed struggle against the Freikorps. Everywhere, came the slogan "Out of the factories!" There were many armed confrontations, all of which went along similar lines. So angry were the workers, that SPD offices were often attacked, as on 22nd February in Mulheim-Ruhr where a social-democrat meeting was machine-gunned. There were thousands of workers under arms in Gelsenkirchen, Dortmund, Bochum, Duisburg, Oberhausen, Wuppertal, Mulheim-Ruhr and Dusseldorf. But just as in Berlin, the movement's organization was sadly lacking. There was no united leadership to orientate the working class' strength, while the capitalist state, with the SPD at its head, acted with organization and centralization.

Central Germany in February and March

At the end of February, just as the movement in the Ruhr was being crushed by the army, the proletariat in central Germany entered the scene. Whereas the movement in the Ruhr was limited to the workers in the iron and coal industries, here it involved the workers in every industry, including transportation. Workers joined the movement in almost every factory and large town.

On 24th February, the general strike was declared. The workers' and soldiers' councils immediately called on the Berlin workers to unify the movement. Once again, the KPD warned against any hasty action: "As long as the revolution has no central organs of action, we must oppose the action of organizing councils, which develop locally in a thousand places" (leaflet from the KPD Zentrum). It was time to strengthen the pressure from the factories, to intensify the economic struggle, and to renew the councils. There was no slogan for the overthrow of the government.

Here again, thanks to an agreement on socialization, the bourgeoisie succeeded in breaking the movement. And once again, there was united action between the SPD and the army: "For all military operations (...) it is helpful to make contact with the leading members of the SPD who are faithful to the government" (Marcker, military leader of the repression in central Germany). The bourgeoisie's thugs continued the repression into May, as the strike wave had spilled over into Saxony, Thuringia, and Anhalt.

Berlin, once again, in March...

The SPD declared itself opposed to such a slogan. Once again, it set out to sabotage the movement politically, but also as we have seen, by repression. When the Berlin workers went on strike at the beginning of March, the executive council made up of delegates from the SPD and USPD took the leadership of the strike. The KPD refused to join it: "To accept the representatives of this policy into the strike committee means the betrayal of the general strike and the revolution".

Like the socialists, stalinists, and other representatives of the left of capital today, the SPD succeeded in taking over the strike committee thanks to credulity on the part of some workers, but above all thanks to all kinds of maneuvers, tricks and double-dealing. It was to avoid having their hands tied that the Spartakists refused at this point to sit alongside the executioners of the working class.

The SPD was able to print its paper, whereas the government had banned Die Rote Fahne. The counter-revolutionaries were thus free to develop their disgusting propaganda, while the revolutionaries were reduced to silence. Before it was banned, Die Rote Fahne warned the workers: "Stop work! For the moment, stay in the factories. Gather in the factories. Convince those who hesitate. Don't let yourselves be drawn into useless fighting, which Noske is only waiting for to start a new bloodletting".

In fact, the bourgeoisie was quick to use its agent provocateurs to start looting, which was used as the official excuse for bringing in the army. First and foremost, Noske's troops destroyed the printing presses of Die Rote Fahne. The KPD's leading members were thrown in jail. Leo Jogisches was shot. It was precisely because it had warned the working class against the bourgeoisie's provocations that it became the immediate target for the counter -revolutionary troops.

The general strike was broken in central Germany by 6th March, and in Berlin the 8th. In Saxony, Baden, and Bavaria important struggles took place during these same weeks, but the different movements never managed to link up between themselves.

The Bavarian Soviet Republic in April 1919

In Bavaria too, the working class entered the struggle. On 7th April, the SPD and USPD, hoping "to win back the favor of the masses by a pseudo-revolutionary action" as the revolutionary Levine put it, proclaimed the Republic of Councils. Just as in January in Berlin, the KPD saw that the balance of forces was not favorable to the workers, and took position against the creation of the Republic. Nonetheless, the Bavarian communists called the workers to elect a "truly revolutionary council", with a view to setting up a real communist Soviet Republic. By 13th April, Eugen Levine found himself at the head of a new government which took energetic economic, political, and military measures against the bourgeoisie. Despite these measures, this initiative was a serious error on the part of the Bavarian revolutionaries, who acted against the Party's orientations and analyses. Completely isolated from the rest of Germany, the movement had to confront a huge bourgeois counter-offensive. Munich was starved out, and 100,000 troops massed around the city. On 27th April, the Munich Executive Council was overthrown, and bloody repression struck again: thousands of workers were killed in the fighting, or executed; the communists were hunted down, and Levine condemned to death.

***

Today's proletarian generations can scarcely imagine the power of a wave of almost simultaneous struggles in the great centers of capitalism, and the pressure that this put on the ruling class.

Through its revolutionary movement in Germany, the working class proved against one of the world's most experienced ruling classes, that it is capable of establishing a balance of forces which could have overthrown capitalism. This experience shows that the revolutionary movement at the beginning of the century was not something reserved for the proletariat of "backward countries" like Russia, but involved masses of workers in most industrially developed country of its day.

But the development of the revolutionary wave from January to April 1919 suffered from dispersion. Concentrated and united, its forces would have been enough to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie. But they were scattered, and the government was thus able to confront and annihilate them one by one. Already in January, in Berlin, the government had succeeded in breaking the back of the revolution.

Richard Muller, one of the "revolutionary men of confidence", who showed themselves so hesitant for so long, could not help observing: "If the repression against the January struggles in Berlin had not happened, then the movement would have been able to gather a greater impetus elsewhere in the spring, and the question of power would have been posed more precisely, in all its implications. But the military provocation cut the ground from under the feet of the movement. The January action provided the arguments for the campaigns of calumny, harassment, and the creation of an atmosphere of civil war".

Without this defeat, the Berlin proletariat would have been able to support the struggles which developed in other parts of Germany. This weakening of the revolution's central battalion allowed the forces of capital to go on the offensive, and to draw the workers all over the country into premature and dispersed military confrontations. The working class, in fact, had not succeeded in establishing a broad, united, and centralized movement. It had been unable to impose a dual power throughout the country, by strengthening and centralizing the councils. Only by creating such a balance of forces would it have been possible to launch an insurrection that demanded the greatest conviction and coordination. And this dynamic cannot develop without the clear and determined intervention of a political party inside the movement. This is how the proletariat can emerge victorious from its historic struggle.

The revolution's defeat in Germany during the early months of 1919 was not solely due to the skill of the local ruling class. It was also the result of a concerted action by the international capitalist class.

While the working class in Germany was engaging in scattered struggles, in March the Hungarian workers rose in a revolutionary confrontation with capital.

The Soviet Republic was proclaimed in Hungary on21st March 1919, only to be crushed by counter-revolutionary troops in the summer.

The international capitalist class stood united behind the German bourgeoisie. For four years, the different bourgeoisies had done their best to destroy each other, and yet they stood united against the working class. Lenin showed clearly that "everything was done to come to an understanding with the German conciliators in order to stifle the German revolution" (Report by the Central Committee to the 9th Congress of the RCP). There is a lesson that the working class must remember: whenever it puts capitalism in danger, it will have to confront, not a divided ruling class, but the internationally united forces of capital.

But, if the proletariat had taken power in Germany, the capitalist front would have been driven in, and the Russian revolution would not have been left isolated.

When the IIIrd International was founded in Moscow in March 1919, as the struggles were developing in Germany, this perspective seemed to all the communists to be within their grasp. But the workers' defeat in Germany began the decline of the international revolutionary wave, and in particular that of the Russian revolution. It was the action of the bourgeoisie, with the SPD as its bridgehead, which made possible the isolation, then the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution, and then the birth of Stalinism.

DV

[1] See the two previous issues of this Review: "The revolutionaries in Germany during World War I" and "The beginning of the revolution".

[2] The German Social-Democratic Party, was the largest socialist party in the world before 1914, when its leadership, headed by its parliamentary group and trades union leaders, betrayed all the party's internationalist commitments and joined ranks, bags and baggage, with the national bourgeoisie as a recruiting sergeant for the imperialist bloodbath.

[3] In 1980 the CWO demonstrated to what an irresponsible attitude a revolutionary organization without clear analyses can be led. At the time of the mass struggles in Poland they called for the revolution immediately ("Revolution now").

[4] German Independent Socialist Party, a "centrist" split from the SPD, which rejected the latter' s most openly bourgeois aspects, but without taking the clearly revolutionary positions of the internationalist communists, The Spartakus League joined the USPD in 1917, with a view to spreading its influence amongst the workers, increasingly disgusted by the policy of the SPD.

[5] German Internationalist Communists, known as German Internationalist Socialists prior to 23rd November 1918, when they decided, in Bremen, to replace the word Socialist by Communist. They were less numerous and influential than the Spartakus group, whose revolutionary internationalism they shared. They were members of the Zimmerwald Left, and closely linked to the international Communist Left, in particular the Dutch Left (Pannekoek and Gorter were among their theoreticians before the war), and the Russian (Radek worked in their ranks). Their rejection of the unions and parliamentarism was in the majority at the KPD's founding Congress, against the position of Rosa Luxemburg.

[6] The "revolutionary men of confidence" (Revolutionnare Obleate) were originally made up largely of union delegates elected in the factories, but who had broken with the social-chauvinist union leaderships. They were the direct product of the working class' resistance to the war, and to the treason of the unions and workers' parties. Sadly, their revolt against the union leadership made them suspicious of any idea of centralization, and led them to develop a too Iocalist, or even "factoryist" viewpoint. They were always uneasy when confronted with questions of general politics, and often an easy prey for the policies of the USPD.