World-wide there have more than 100 million cases of Covid-19, with a death toll of at least 2 million and still rising. This is the impact of the pandemic at the human level, with overwhelmed hospitals, lives on hold during lockdown, people in isolation and greater poverty, the whole uncertainty of the situation, even with the arrival of the vaccines, and the unpredictability and incompetence of many governments' policies.

For capitalism the effect of the health crisis is keenly felt at the level of the economy. The IMF has estimated that the global economy shrank by 4.4% in 2020 and that the decline was the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. While this is a blow for capitalism internationally, it has also had a massive effect on the working class. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has estimated that workers world-wide have lost as much as £2.7 trillion in earnings.

While every major country has been affected, the crisis has not had a uniform impact. The UK for example, with more than 100,000 deaths, has one of the highest coronavirus death rates in the world and, throughout 2020, the shadow of Brexit hung over the economy, with negotiations continuing for months until the British bourgeoisie finally broke the “shackles” of the EU at the start of 2021. The combination of pandemic and Brexit is hitting a country that already had one of the weakest recoveries from the 2008 financial crisis.

Recession, deficit and unemployment.

Measured by the fluctuations of GDP the British economy is probably already in a double-dip recession, its first since the 1970s. In the second quarter of the current financial year British GDP fell 19%, the biggest fall in history. Even after some months of growth it is currently estimated that the economy is still 8.5% below its pre-pandemic level. The IMF estimates a 10% contraction in the UK economy for last year, the largest decline of any of the G7. Whatever the final measure, it's not been since the Great Frost of 1709, when Britain's GDP dropped by 13% (and did not fully recover for another 10 years) that the economy has experienced anything similar.

As for government debt, the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that UK government borrowing was the highest ever for December as spending went up in response to the coronavirus and a fall in tax receipts. "Borrowing reached £34.1bn last month, about £28bn more than the same month a year ago. The increase took the government’s budget deficit … to nearly £271bn for the first nine months of the financial year, a rise of more than £212bn compared with the same period last year. The Office for Budget Responsibility … has estimated borrowing will hit £394bn by the end of the financial year in March, which would be the highest peacetime deficit in history. Borrowing is already higher than during the worst of the 2008 financial crisis.… December’s borrowing pushed the national debt – the sum total of every deficit – to £2.1tn at the end of December, or about 99.4% of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest debt ratio since 1962."  (Guardian 22/1/21).

In 2019, the IMF already pointed out that the level of corporate debt in the UK was so high that almost 40% of it would not be able to survive in the event of a recession just half as deep as 2007-2008. During this Covid-19 crisis hospitality has been particularly badly affected and there are warnings that tens of thousands of pubs, restaurants, bars and hotels could disappear. Apart from furlough the government has adopted various measures and implemented various schemes to keep businesses afloat. Like any other state capitalist measures (generally supported by the left and leftists as “socialist”), sooner or later someone will have to pay, and that means the working class in the first place. If for example, Covid-19 rescue schemes are wound up it could mean that some 1.8 million firms in the UK are at risk of insolvency, 336,000 of them at high risk of going bust. Whenever furlough is removed there is no saying which industries will be capable of reviving.

Before the government's U-turn in December to extend furlough there were a record number of redundancies, with around 370,000 people made redundant in the period August-October 2020 alone. Predictions of hundreds of thousands of jobs being at risk with the end of furlough are common.

Since November 2020 the number of jobs on furlough has doubled to about 5 million. These 5 million are not currently employed. The predictions for the period after the furlough scheme is wound down is that unemployment will peak at 7.5%, 2.6 million people. In February 2020, before the advent of the pandemic, the official unemployment figure was 4%. According these official figures the unemployment rate rose to 5% in the three months to the end of November 2020, representing more than 1.7 million people –the highest level since August 2016. But the real figures for unemployment are much higher than the official figures indicate. At least 300,000 out-of-work people are estimated not to appear in the figures (even though other evidence points to their existence), and many have given up claiming to be unemployed because of discouragement. Of those not benefitting from the furlough scheme millions are struggling to get by on Universal Credit. So, when you read that unemployment in the UK has reached the highest level for more than four years, it's certainly much higher.

Brexit means more taxes and barriers to trade

Even before the final deal was concluded between Britain and the EU in December the thousands of lorries stranded in Kent were a telling foretaste that Brexit would not mean frictionless trade. As 2021 began businesses were reporting hold-ups to supplies and customers complained of extra customs duties, Value Added Tax (VAT) and other additional charges on things they had bought from within the EU. There might initially be a no-tariff agreement with the EU but there are significant non-tariff barriers to trade with the EU. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said "This is the only trade deal in history that erects trade barriers, not remove them. It leaves Britain with a trade border both in the North Sea/English Channel and the Irish Sea. It means an end to frictionless trade with the EU and requires a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy and numerous joint committees to oversee its functioning". When the deal was done there were hardly any measures agreed to reduce the need for customs checks and control.

On top of that, the agreed deal does not include services, which account for 80% of the UK economy, with 12% going to the EU. All we know is that negotiations will continue. This shows that the government's celebration of a 'great' deal is delusional as none of the outstanding problems will be easily managed and resolved in the short term.

According to the analysis of Moody's (the credit ratings agency), the Christmas Eve deal is skewed in the EU’s favour.

The British government’s estimate suggests that, with the agreed deal between the EU and the UK, output will only be 5% lower in 15 years [2]. Economists at Citigroup however think that the UK economy will produce 2% to 2.5% less in 2021 than if it hadn’t left the EU and if had extended its links with the EU. In general, they expect the UK to be at least in a better position than it would have been under a 'hard Brexit' - in which the UK and EU would have used World Trade Organisation rules for trade. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in its turn has offered a more pessimistic outlook. It predicts that the British economy will grow by 3.5% less than if Britain had stayed in the EU.

One thing that optimistic forecasters are agreed upon is the idea that the UK economy will begin to recover once the vaccines are widely available. But with trade becoming costlier and tied up in “red tape”, with immigration decreasing, the impact of Brexit will have deep and prolonged effects and will reveal all the weaknesses of British capitalism. Nicholas Bloom, an economist at Stanford, said “Brexit is like death by a thousand cuts.” In comparison “Covid is like being hit three times by a baseball bat. In the long run Brexit is seen as far worse.”

The economic consequences of the pandemic are far-reaching, but the negative effects of Brexit will continue for the foreseeable future. Together they pose enormous problems for the bourgeoisie and the working class. Both are products of the period of decomposition, which is not a positive factor for either class. In the future we can expect the ruling class to mount an attack on the living conditions of the exploited class. A unified, conscious struggle in response, based around immediate defensive demands but opening up a perspective beyond them, is the only positive prospect for the working class

Car 28/1/21

The past year has been marked, once again, by a series of disasters, including a global pandemic that has so far claimed more than 2 million lives and has meant a significant deepening of the economic crisis of capitalism, plunging millions of people into misery and precariousness. The year 2021 has only just begun, but it was immediately marked by a new event of historic significance: the assault on the Capitol by fanatical Trumpist hordes. These two events are not separated from each other. On the contrary, for the ICC, they both reveal an intensification of social decomposition, the ultimate phase of the decadence of capitalism. This public meeting will therefore be an opportunity to put forward this analytical framework, to identify its relevance but also to question it through the prism of the facts and the historical evolution of capitalist society.

In order to prepare this meeting, participants can already refer to the following text:

"Theses on decomposition" (International Review n° 107, 4th semester 2001). Theses on decomposition | International Communist Current (internationalism.org) [3]

This is part of a series of virtual public meetings being held internationally by the ICC. The meeting for English-speaking comrades will be held at two different times: 10am (UK time) on Saturday 13 February, and 6pm (UK time) on Sunday the 14th February. The Saturday meeting time should be easier for comrades in Asia and Australasia, the Sunday for comrades in Europe and North America.

If you are interested in taking part, please write to us at [email protected] [4] and we will let you know how to gain access to the meeting. Please indicate which day suits you best.

The British Conservative government's disastrously incompetent handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, its incoherent undertaking of the Brexit negotiations, its U-turns over the health crisis, the economic crisis and growing conflicts with the EU, have not been met with an oppositional onslaught by the Labour Party. The British bourgeoisie has been losing control of its political apparatus and one of Labour's historic roles is to pose as an alternative to a government that has pursued populist policies that have undermined the effective functioning of British state capitalism. It has largely failed to take up the task.

Certainly, Starmer has declared that Labour is a pro-American party, its foreign affairs spokesperson has said that President Biden is an inspiration, and the shadow chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, has made a major speech in which she contrasted at length Labour's commitment to being a responsible government, with sensible fiscal policies, and the importance of establishing a "resilient" economy, as opposed to the irresponsibility of the Tories. However, the divisions within Labour's ranks have grown with a wave of expulsions and suspensions as the pro- and anti-Corbyn factions come into conflict.

When Labour massively lost the 2019 election it started an inquest into the reasons for the defeat, looking for someone to blame. Its incoherence over Brexit, the row over anti-Semitism, and its neglect of traditionally Labour-voting areas were all cited. It wasn't until April that it decided to replace Corbyn by Starmer. One of his earliest attempts to stamp his authority on the party came with the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey for negative remarks she had made about the Israeli state. Far from trying to avoid conflict over the question of anti-Semitism, Starmer accepted the report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which investigated anti-Semitism in the party, in its entirety, and made it clear that no criticisms of its conclusions would be allowed. Corbyn was suspended from the party for expressing reservations. He has been reinstated to the party, but not to the parliamentary fraction. The Labour Party leadership then banned local parties from passing any motions of solidarity with Corbyn, although this has not stopped the protests about the treatment of the ex-leader and those who have been expelled. Corbyn is now going to establish a Project for Peace and Justice, a faction that will defend the policies that Starmer is trying to distance himself from. The divisions within the Labour Party mirror the divisions throughout the British bourgeoisie. Similarly, with the unions, some have rallied to Starmer, and some have remained loyal to Corbyn.

Johnson won the 2019 election with his promise to Get Brexit Done. In the year that followed, the negotiations with the EU stumbled on with the prospect of no deal resulting. After many Tory concessions, and the sacking of Dominic Cummings, who was considered to be an obstacle to an agreement, a deal was finally agreed on Christmas Eve. When it came to a parliamentary vote Starmer insisted that Labour MPs support the deal, while voicing some limited criticisms. 36 Labour MPs abstained and one voted against. Because of the feebleness of the opposition, it was no surprise that, as the first opinion polls of 2021 appeared, that Labour and the Tories were neck and neck, despite a year of government incompetence, U-turns and irresponsibility.

At a time when social decomposition is accelerating and with the bourgeoisie's loss of control of its political apparatus. Labour is riven with divisions and is not presenting itself as a coherent opposition, despite Starmer's attempts to appear as a figure of sanity against the chaos of Johnson's government. As the Labour purges continue, groups like the Socialist Workers Party are saying that people should leave Labour, while other groups, embedded in the party, continue their perpetual work to stop Labour's 'drift to the right'.

Labour, once a party of the working class, changed camp and performed an important role for British capitalism during the First World War when it supported British imperialism and was part of the recruitment drive to enlist workers for the slaughter. When the Labour Party adopted its constitution in 1918, its famous Clause IV confirmed its commitment to the management of British state capitalism. Whether in government or opposition and regardless of whether its leader has come from right or left of the party, it has continued to play an essential role in the British bourgeoisie's political apparatus. In opposition it can pose as an alternative to the government, in government it pursues policies appropriate to the needs of capitalism. When the Labour Party is divided, the working class has no interest in supporting it, and revolutionaries warn workers not to support any of the squabbling factions. Instead, it is necessary to show how Labour acts against the interests of the working class and expose its role in the service of capital.

Back in the 1970s and 80s the bourgeoisie was able to deploy its parties in response to, or in anticipation of the struggles of the working class. With the decomposition of capitalism over the last 30 years, there has been a strong tendency for capital to lose control of its political machinery. In recent years, across Europe, as an expression of this tendency, we have seen many social democratic parties in decline and/or disarray. In Britain we are not only seeing the chaotic approach of the government but also a social democratic opposition which, because of its divisions, is having the greatest difficulty in fulfilling the role required of it by capital.

Car 28/1/21

The living conditions of agricultural workers

Following the introduction of the agrarian Reform implemented by the military government at the end of the 1960s[1], in the mid-1990s there began a process of transferring the ownership of land into the hands of a number of bourgeois industrial companies, which have, since then, dedicated it to the lucrative business of exporting fruit and vegetables to the North American and European markets. The largest companies are located in the north (La Libertad, Lambayeque, Ancash) and in the south (Ica) of Lima, and these agrarian capitalists currently own almost half a million hectares of land and water in those areas, and enjoy rich financial incentives and tax breaks granted by successive governments.

Peruvian agribusiness has become the poster child and flagship of the Peruvian economy (traditionally monopolised by mining) and it now generates the biggest profits with the help of financial incentives and juicy tax breaks from the state. The workers who toil in these factories and on the land are migrants from the surrounding villages, and with the boom in the agricultural sector, the demand for labour increased. So many workers were hired that the bourgeoisie talked about Ica being a “model region with full employment”, a kind of economic showcase that the rest of the country should aim to copy. However, such propaganda from the state and the agrobusiness corporations could not hide the oppressive conditions of exploitation of the agricultural workers.

These workers are paid poverty wages of 39 soles (12 euros) or less per day; no CTS support[2] or bonuses; there is continued pressure and blackmail to boost productivity and production quotas and long working days that last from 3.00am until late at night; they work under a burning hot sun and the work is physically demanding and harmful to health; they suffer mistreatment by foremen who bark orders at them and are made to work in silence to prevent them from supporting and showing solidarity to each other. With the increased demand for labour power, even children are hired for the harvests and, of course, the threat of dismissal or loss of pay hangs over them if any complaints are raised against these miserable working conditions.

The agrarian strike in the current Peruvian political situation

Since the departure of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski at the end of 2017, four presidents to date have passed through Congress. The penultimate one was in position for just a week. In addition, the current “transitional government”, which has not yet completed its first month in office, has already had three interior ministers. The corruption that spreads uncontrolled like a cancer eating away at bourgeois institutions is “denounced” continually in the media, and is little more than an aggravated expression of the historical phase of decomposition of the capitalist system[3] . And all the while, as this unfolded, the profits of big Peruvian capital continued to increase, reaching levels that ensured their rich financiers had no reason to give a thought to the unfolding pandemic.

However, as the situation dragged on, it evolved: to the economic and social impact of the pandemic and the failure to introduce new health measures to stem the tide of the contagion was added the war of the bourgeois factions in Congress ending in the departure of former president Martin Vizcarra. These conditions provided to the final straw that broke the camel's back. An explosion of social outrage culminated on 14 November with the death of two young people and there was increased pressure on the government leaders, who would have, if needed, not hesitated to take more lives. It was in this atmosphere of protest and resistance that the agrarian strike emerged. All the indications were that they chose this moment to raise their demands as things were already coming to the boil. Moreover, although the capitalist system is mired in the economic crisis and the Peruvian bourgeoisie does not escape its effects, it has been able, to date, to keep some control over the social situation.

It is true that one of the dominant tendencies of decomposing capitalism is for the bourgeoisie to lose control over its political apparatus; however, the bourgeoisie was quick to see that it could end up in a similar situation to that as in other countries, such as Chile [4] .So, the inflexible attitude taken under the short-lived government of Merino, gave way to a government of a more “conciliatory” kind, one more “attentive to the demands of the people”. Yet, instead of proposing a Constituent Assembly or a reform of the Constitution, as an immediate palliative, the idea put forward was to wait until the next year's elections, to let the “transitional government” complete its business successfully. So, right now, this government is selling the lie that the workers’ demands will be listened to and that there will be some recompense for the injustices committed.

Some evidence of this is in the repeal of the Agricultural Promotion Law and, in order to prevent social unrest led by the workers, the Congress gave its approval to refunds to contributions to the pension system (ONP), it passed a law to formalise collective taxes, as well as taking the decision to remove parliamentary immunity, a bourgeois political approach that emerged long before the arrival of the pandemic. There are other events in addition, such as the National Police reforms and the retirement of some of the police high command. This seems to indicate that the faction of the bourgeoisie which is now at the head of the state, and some of the parties in the Congress, are focusing their efforts on pursuing a populist strategy, in order to achieve successful participation and support for a new power structure in 2021's elections. This shows that the bourgeois factions have been able to momentarily set aside their differences and act in a coordinated manner when the workers make their presence felt and the bourgeoisie's economic interests and profits are threatened.

It also shows that their ideological weaponry and deceptions are not exhausted and that the workers must avoid falling into their traps, believing their promises. We must be aware that, in the end, the ruling class will not be able to resolve the serious social problems nor can it stop exploiting the proletariat; nor will it be able to avoid confrontations within its own ranks, as each faction will continue to defend its own privileges and power tooth and nail. Only the united organised action of the workers, putting into practice the methods of struggle fundamental to the workers’ movement, will put an end to this nightmare of decomposing capitalism.

The workers' strike was fully on a class terrain

We can state that, unlike the citizen mobilisation in Lima, this strike of the workers of the agro-industrial enterprises had a clear class basis. The proletariat shows its strength and capabilities when it struggles directly against exploitation. The workers of Ica began by protesting against the unbearable and tormenting working conditions and they halted work and went on to the Pan-American Highway to make their voices heard.

The strengths:

- The strike is the main weapon of the workers’ struggle. This was understood by the workers on the various estates and in the companies when they organised a widespread stoppage and took their action onto the road. Likewise, the workers led the struggle directly with no intermediaries; giving form to various forms of self-organisation such as picket lines and communal fund raising. Inside Ica, the absence of trade unions meant there was no possibility of the strikers being subject to manoeuvres to deflect or derail the struggle as is practised by trade unionism.

- There was a strong class identity and a call to other workers to show solidarity and participate in the struggle. We heard things such as “We, the workers, produce the wealth so 'they' can line their pockets”; or “down with exploitation”, “we want a pay increase”, etc. This is in total contrast to the citizen’s mobilisations in Lima two weeks earlier, for example. All the workers’ demands and banners displayed slogans AGAINST CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION. There were no pro-democracy calls for “a new constitution”, “Citizen's rights” or “Defend our fatherland” during the 5 days of workers’ struggle.

And despite the short duration of the strike, the workers of Ica received solidarity from their class brothers in the valleys of Moche and Viru in the North, who, in turn, came out on strike in their area where a heavy deployment of police led to one worker being killed.

The weaknesses:

- Despite the strong organised class instinct that marked the strike, the weaknesses that the world proletariat face today could also been seen in this struggle. For example, there were legalist and democratist illusions, a belief that the repeal of the Agrarian Promotion Law was a “victory” when in reality legal measures can never change the objective situation of capitalist wage labour and the class exploitation by the bourgeois state. Workers were not aware of this. The strike was not able to go beyond the stage of demands, which is a necessary first stage but not enough, which only highlights the current difficulties facing the international working class in the context of the serious problems that face the whole of oppressed humanity.

- There were some expressions of nationalism, with Peruvian flags on some of the barricades, but very few in comparison with those displayed in the patriotic orgy of the “citizen's marches” in Lima.

Although these protests in the agricultural sector have the same political and social context, one of conflicts between the different factions of the bourgeoisie and the social and economic background of the pandemic, they are different from those that took place in the days around November 14. They have nothing at all to do with the hapless lament of the citizen’s movement and the resentment of a petty bourgeoisie who feel squeezed and threatened by the crisis, and see themselves sliding deeper and deeper into poverty, like the other exploited strata that rest their hopes on an impossible “moral renewal” of the degenerate political elite.

The struggle of the proletariat is the antithesis of the whining of the whole body of journalists, intellectuals and politicians, who demand strong institutions “to restore order”, to suppress any demonstration of protest or rebellion of the population, by force of arms. Nor does its struggle resemble the desperate and sterile actions of terrorism or putschism, the methods favoured by the fanatical voluntarism of petty-bourgeois ideologies, that also imagines them imposing their own interests and taking control of the state to continue exploiting the workers. In the end, the final goal of the proletariat is to destroy the capitalist system, with all its institutions, not to change one executioner for another, one management for another, which would leave intact the machinery that perpetuates social misery and threatens the very existence of humanity.

State repression was not long in coming

At the time of writing, the agrarian workers have renewed their actions, this time to demand that the Congress throws out legislation proposing a new labour law. They blockaded the South Pan-American Highway for one day because their demands for a wage increase of 45% of the monthly salary that is 73 soles (23 euros) per day excluding bonuses and CTS were rejected. The strategy of the bourgeoisie is to draw the struggle into a bureaucratic labyrinth, until it is exhausted and the workers demoralised; and this is a well-used trick to lessen the impact of the workers’ initiative that will find the trade unions as willing accomplices.

While there has been some degree of self-organisation, there have also been weaknesses. There is a great determination to struggle, but there have been no assemblies and/or a strike committee to centralise the struggle. The negotiations have been entrusted to “leaders” and they have passively sat back and put things on hold for 15 days. When they heard that the Congress had not approved their demand for a wage increase, the workers immediately went out to ask why they were being cheated and they went back on strike.

The workers are now also calling for the dismissal of the current President and in the scuffles with the police, 26 policemen were injured. In response the Ministry of the Interior demanded that demonstrators clear the road and they were warned of a possible “iron fist” response. In an act of provocation some infiltrators set an ambulance on fire in order to lay the blame on the protesters, part of a strategy, encouraged by the media, to turn the population at large against the protesters. Finally, the Sagasti government did unleash a brutal repression against the workers, smothering the communities in the surrounding areas in tear gas, even using firearms against the demonstrators and inflicting injuries; helicopters and tanks were used in support of a huge contingent of police and military forces that had no hesitation in unleashing their fury against a defenceless population, accusing them of not being demonstrators but “vandals” who want to damage vehicles and attack the properties of big businesses.

The agricultural companies suspended their operations, calling for the “restoration of public order, security and free passage” in La Libertad and Ica, saying that the firms will remain closed “until the rule of law is restored”. These actions were aimed, firstly, at portraying the protest as chaotic, disastrous and pointless, to demonise it, and secondly, to divide the workers, using blackmail, by saying that the stoppages would mean a loss of income and employment for 100,000 workers. Not content with this, the big companies have tried to offload all the resentment that the workers feel for the exploitation they suffer onto other, smaller companies, saying that “many workers in the countryside have had their rights violated for many years by fraudulent companies”[5] , with which they aim to deflect attention from their own direct responsibility for the precariousness of workers’ wages and living conditions, which is so hypocritical, since they fail to mention that they reduce their own cost of production from the contracts they give to these small intermediary companies.

One of the central aspects of the bourgeoisie’s strategy is to focus its effort to keep the workers entangled in the democratic circus [6], under the illusion that the state is not the apparatus for the domination by the capitalists over the working class but more a kind of arbiter, a neutral power overseeing the classes which can be pressurised and made to intercede and adopt laws granting benefits and wage increases to the workers.

Of course this perspective is one cultivated by all the organisations of the left of the capital, such as the agricultural federations and trade unions and the NGOs such as CONVEAGRO (Convención Nacional del Agro Peruano), the CGTP (Confederación General de Trabajadores del Perú), left-wing members of the Congress and some leaders of the struggling workers themselves who, like firemen, are negotiating with the employers and the Ministry of Labour with the concern to not to do too much harm to the profits of the agro-industrial bourgeoisie, keeping down the wage increase to 54 soles (17 euro), which then has caused discontented workers to take to the streets in Ica and the northern valleys once more. The workers sensed that a fresh swindle was in the pipeline, cooked up at these high levels of the negotiations and that they were being “deceived”, without clearly understanding that these “leaders” that claim to negotiate in their name are also part of the exploiting class.

Although the workers cannot give up their struggle for demands, this is a moment for them to discuss and draw some lessons. They have to understand that they cannot win if they are not able to go beyond this level when the struggle will only be trapped in the dead end of legal chicanery and respect for the Constitution. The real liberation of the workers will arise when they are able to bring down the bourgeois order, with its laws, its constitutions and its unions, thus heralding a real transformation that will also free humanity from this decomposing social system.

Internacionalismo; Section in Peru of the International Communist Current 24/12/2020

 

Colored National Labor Union Convention, 1869

The campaign around “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) has led many people to look for references in the history of the struggle against the oppression of and violence against black people. Among the most well-known black activist are Marcus Garvey, Malcom X, and Martin Luther King. But communists do not base their political orientation on activists fighting for equal rights within capitalism. For communists the goal of the struggle lies beyond the limits of the present mode of production. The real abolition of all forms of racial oppression can only be achieved through the fight of the international working class for communism. The crucial question is: what does that mean concretely, except for the fact that communists reject the anti-racist campaigns, which look for answers in the framework of bourgeois politics?

In order to be able to respond to this question we have to base ourselves on the theoretical achievements of marxism. Therefore we must examine how the political vanguard pf the workers’ movement conducted the theoretical-political combat with regard to the “Negro question” in the history the U.S. Why the U.S.?  Because in the U.S. from the first days the workers’ movement faced the biggest obstacles to the unification of its struggle because of the racial ideology which had systematically presented black people as inferior to white people.

Against this background the workers’ movement in the U.S., throughout its history, has been challenged with working out a clear position on this question, and with taking the necessary steps to integrating black workers into the struggle of the whole working class. The first step was made in the second half of the 19th century, beginning with the “American Workers League” (AWL); the second step was made after 1901 by the “Socialist Party of America” (SPA); and the third was made by the different communist organisations after the founding of the Third International, to begin with the “Communist Party of the USA” (CPUSA).

On the basis of a critical examination of these theoretical-political positions, acquired in the course of the history of the marxist movement in the U.S., this short series intends to make a thorough critique of the positions of more recent political expressions of the workers’ movement, in particular those of the Trotskyist Left Opposition of the 1930s.

The marxist position on slavery in the U.S.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels emphasized that as long as oppression exists anywhere in the world, nobody will be free: “Now-a-days, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class (the bourgeoisie) without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction and class struggles." (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto)

The first proletarian organisation in the U.S.A. to recognise that the abolition of slavery was a precondition for the emancipation of wage labour was the “American Workers’ League” (AWL), founded in 1852. One of its most prominent members was Joseph Weydemeyer [10]. At a meeting of the AWL, on 1 March 1854, his [10] proposed resolution was passed with the following sentence: “Whereas, this [Nebraska] bill authorizes the further extension of slavery, we have protested, do now protest and shall continue to protest most emphatically against both white and black slavery” (Karl Obermann, Joseph Weydemeye, Pioneer of American Socialism; https://www.redstarpublishers.org/Weydemeyer.pdf [11])

In 1863, one year before the founding of the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), workers in Great Britain expressed their support for the abolition of the slavery, as they rallied in London and Lancashire and drafted letters and other declarations of support for the Union side in the American Civil War. Under the slogan “all for one, and one for all” they remained steadfast in their support for the struggle against the any government “founded on human slavery”. The meeting in London, which was attended by 3000 workers, passed a resolution declaring that “the cause of labour and liberty is one all over the world”.

Nearly twenty years after the publication of the Communist Manifesto Marx repeated, in different words, his position on the impossibility of freedom for all if some are still oppressed. In his letter to François Lafargue he wrote that with regard to the “Negro question” “Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded”. (12 November 1866) This idea became the inspiration for one of the most famous ideas of the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA) in the expression of its solidarity with the oppressed in the world, in particular with the black slaves in the New World: as long as the labour of the Negroes is so shamefully exploited, that of the whites will never be emancipated either.

Marx and Engels stressed the “revolutionising” influence of the American Civil War on the development of the workers’ movement in the US. Even if they did not characterize it as a revolutionary war, they believed that it really advanced the cause of the working class, and opened the perspective for a united struggle of the workers, black and white alike. “In the States themselves, an independent working class movement, looked upon with an evil eye by your old parties and their professional politicians, has since that date sprung into life”. (“IWMA: Address to the nation labor union of the United States”; May 12, 1869; https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1869/us-labor.htm [12])

Chattel slavery in the “New World”

Slavery existed already in the U.S. before the first ship with black slaves arrived in 1619. Under British colonial rule “so-called ‘persistent rogues’ were banished to ‘parts beyond the seas’, which meant that tens of thousands of men, women and children (…) were simply rounded up and shipped off to work in the tobacco fields of Virginia, where many were worked to death or tortured if they tried to escape. The largest single group were convicts; (…) who could be granted royal mercy in exchange for transportation to the colonies.” (“Notes on the early class struggle in America - Part I”; https://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201303/6529/notes-early-... [13])

Just like the white slaves, the first black people to arrive in U.S. were indentured slaves - persons bound to an employer for a limited number of years. But in less than one hundred years after the arrival of the first 20 blacks, the British colonial rule inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery. Chattel slaves were not thought of as people, but as objects, as property, like livestock. This system was much worse than the slave systems that normally existed in previous centuries. The final stage of the establishment of chattel slavery in all the British colonies was concluded in 1750.

Under the specific conditions of chattel slavery “The methods the bourgeoisie used to control its growing black slave army [were] refined into a system of much greater and more sophisticated barbarity, specifically designed to ensure the slaves’ psychological destruction, demeaning, degrading and humiliating them in every way to prevent them from identifying with their own interests against their exploiters. (“Notes on the early class struggle in America - Part I”; https://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201303/6529/notes-early-... [13])

While chattel slavery was generalised in the course of the seventeenth century, Marx linked the introduction of chattel slavery to the development of the cotton industry on a massive scale. “Whilst the cotton industry introduced child slavery in England, it gave in the United States a stimulus to the transformation of the earlier, more or less patriarchal slavery, into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world.” (Karl Marx, Capital Volume I, Chapter XXXI: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist”)

Chattel slavery was mainly introduced where the labour done was relatively simple, but extremely labour-intensive, requiring field hands to spend long hours bending over plants under the blazing hot sun. It was most common on plantations based on the large-scale growing of a single crop, like sugar and cotton, in which output was based on economies of scale. Systems of labour, such as the gang system (continuous work at the same pace throughout the day), were to become prominent on large plantations where field hands were monitored and worked with factory-like precision.

But the economics of slavery could only exist for centuries by means of a whole culture of control with political, social, and ideological formulations to hold dominance over the enslaved blacks and to keep the indentured whites in line. To accomplish the subjugation of the slaves to the system of chattel slavery the slave-owner used “the discipline of hard labor, the breakup of the slave family, the lulling effects of religion (…), the creation of disunity among slaves by separating them into field slaves and more privileged house slaves, and finally the power of law and the immediate power of the overseer to invoke whipping, burning, mutilation, and death.” (Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States; Chapter 2: “Drawing the Color Line”; https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html [14])

The ideological justification of black chattel slavery

Given the fact that the black Africans were subjugated by the white Europeans, the most obvious culture of control was along colour-oriented lines. “Slavery could survive”, wrote Winthrop Jordan, “only if the Negro were a man set apart; he simply had to be different if slavery were to exist at all”. (Cited by: Harold M. Baron; “The Demand for Black Labor: Historical Notes on the Political Economy of Racism”; https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:89216/pdf/ [15]) “New World” slavery thus wedded skin colour to class in ways never seen before.

Slavery in the ancient and the early medieval world was not based on racial but on religious distinctions.

The shift from religion to colour as justification emerged in European thinking after 1450, beginning with the Spanish and Portuguese. As late as the 17th century, slavery in North America still did not automatically mean black slavery since there were also 100.000s indentured white slaves deported to the U.S. It was only in 1680s and 1690s that the British began to specify that Africans were doomed to a slave existence because of their colour. For this cause they no longer emphasised their religion and begin to call themselves white, emphasising division by colour.

To justify the forcible enslavement of Africans in the “New World”, racism - the ideology that marked people as inferior by observable differences such as skin colour - was fashioned. “Pre-existing derogatory imagery of darkness, barbarism, and heathenism”, wrote Winthrop Jordan, “was adapted to formulate the psychology and doctrines of modern racism.” (Cited by: Harold M. Baron, “The Demand for Black Labor, Historical Notes on the Political Economy of Racism”; https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:89216/pdf/ [15]) And with one purpose only: the debasement and the dehumanisation of black people. Black people had to be seen as inferior to white people and so deserved to be slaves. The colour of their skin became a brand that kept them, and all of their children, enslaved for generations.

At the end of the 18th century, when voices for the abolition of slavery began to be raised, pseudo-scientific racism was even called upon to justify chattel slavery of black people. One of these voices was Thomas Jefferson, slave owner and the third president of the U.S. He called for science to determine the obvious “supremacy” of the white people, which was regarded as “an extremely important stage in the evolution of scientific racism”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States [16]) The stronger the forces voices for abolition, the more the Southern white ruling class deliberately fostered race hatred to prevent poor whites from identifying with black slaves.

The system of repression was thus not only physical, but also psychological. In the South, white wage slaves were pushed to see themselves as superior to chattel slaves while they were co-opted into policing the slave system. The black slaves on the other hand “were impressed again and again with the idea of their own inferiority to ‘know their place’, to see blackness as a sign of subordination, to be awed by the power of the master, to merge their interest with the master’s, destroying their own individual needs”. (Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States; Chapter 2: “Drawing the Color Line”; https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html [14])

The emotional and physical traumas of slavery were devastating. Generations of slavery had deprived the black people of their identity, their own language and their traditional way of life. Most often they didn’t know their date of birth and their own name. Instead they identified with and were given the name of their slave-owner. The consequences of this dehumanisation were not remedied overnight with the abolition of slavery on 1 January 1863. The legacy of race-based chattel slavery produced distinct trauma over many generations of black people in the U.S.

Segregation as a form of neo-slavery of the black people

Despite the victory of the Union over the Confederation of the South, the Civil War did not mean the end of the exploitation, oppression and terrorising of black people in the Southern States. For when slavery officially was abolished - by the Thirteenth Amendment of Lincoln - various forms of “neo-slavery” ("Slavery by Another Name") and forced labour continued across the United States and its territories.

One of these forms was convict labour, taking the place of slavery with shocking force. A new set of laws, called the Black Codes, made it possible to criminalise previously legal activity for African Americans, such as violating the prohibition of vagrancy. After being arrested, they were compelled to work without pay for the same white slave plantation owners, in the coalmines of Alabama, or in the famous “chain gangs” for the development of massive road projects. They were also forced to function as strike-breakers in the Alabama coal miners’ strike of 1894.

After the Civil War black people were subjected to what was known as the Jim Crow laws, a brutal system of segregation and discrimination. Under these laws, black people were still treated as second class citizens just as under the regime of “Apartheid” in South Africa. Whites could beat, rob, or even kill black people at will for minor infractions, which they actually did on a large scale. Under Jim Crow the reign of terror was firmly established with the widespread evolution of white supremacist militias, such as the KKK. The South became a prison-like landscape wherein surveillance, punishment, and policing forced the black body into a constant state of furtiveness and fugitivity.

“The legal system of segregation protected and encouraged a parallel, supposedly ‘popular’ system (thanks mainly to the fanaticism of the white petty bourgeoisie) of aggression, collective killings, and systematic lynchings. The petty bourgeoisie, especially in the Southern States, but not only there, unleashed their destructive fury with metronome regularity to terrorise the proletarians of slave origin. (“Slavery and racism, tools of capitalist exploitation”; https://en.internationalism.org/content/16886/slavery-and-racism-tools-capitalist-exploitation [17]). Actually the situation of the black people under segregation was just as precarious as under the regime of enslavement. Racism and the rejection of others is a characteristic of all class societies, but in the case of the U.S. it is embedded in the bowels of society.

The workers’ organisations fighting the segregation of black workers

It is clear that the working class in the U.S. faced great obstacles in its struggle for unity. In 1935 W.E.B Du Bois would write that “The theory of race was supplemented by a carefully planned and slowly evolved method, which drove such a wedge between the white and black workers that there probably are not today in the world two groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear each other so deeply and persistently and who are kept so far apart that neither sees anything of common interest.” (Du Bois; “Black Reconstruction in America”; Cited in: A History of Reconstruction after the Civil War; 4 May 2019; https://brewminate.com/a-history-of-reconstruction-after-the-civil-war/ [18])

The first attempt after the Civil War to close the gap between the white and the black workers came from Friedrich Adolph Sorge after the founding of the Central Committee of the North American section of the International Workingmen’s Association in December 1870. The American sections of the IWA defended the principle of racial equality, allowed black workers to participate in their rallies and set up a special committee to organize black workers into trade unions. In September 1871 the New York Section of the IWA organized a demonstration of 20,000 workers, including a company of black workers, supporting the combatants of the Paris Commune and demanding an eight-hour day.

In 1866 the first national union federation, the “National Labour Union” (NLU), was organised. Its founding convention unanimously urged the organisation of all workers into the unions: "all workingmen be included within its rank, without regard to race or nationality". The second convention, in 1867, already decided to integrate the demand for the abolition of the system of convict labour. The NLU gained the admiration of Karl Marx and after harsh debates it actually accepted black unions in 1869, but only in the form of separate unions that could be affiliated with the NLU.

In 1869 the African Americans, who were denied full access to the NLU, came together to form the Colored National Labor Union (CNLU). The CNLU welcomed all workers no matter what race, gender, or occupation. Isaac Myers, who was appointed as their president, stated that the CNLU was a “safeguard for the colored man”. And about the segregated groups he said: "for real success separate organization is not the real answers. The white and colored must come together and work together. (…) The day has passed for the establishment of organizations based upon color."  (https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/3931900 [19])

In the end, as both the CNLU and the NLU began to decline, they paved the way for the “Knights of Labor”.

The “Knights of Labour” became a mass organisation in 1881 (after developing from a “secret society” founded in 1869). Intended to overcome the limitations of craft unions, the organization was designed to include all those who toiled with their hands. Under the slogan, “an injury to one is the concern of all”, it unfurled the banner of workers’ unity and aspired to unite all wage-earners into a single organisation regardless of skill, race, or sex. The Knights organised tens of thousands of black workers, although not without a struggle against segregation within the organisation. Thus, it had to tolerate the segregation of assemblies in the South.

With these first efforts the unification of the struggle between the black and the white workers was still far from being achieved.

In the second part we will take a closer look at the theoretical and political struggle that took place in the political parties of the proletariat in the first two decades of the 20th century and how these parties, in particular the Socialist Party of America, were able to enrich and deepen the acquisitions developed since the AWL of Weydemeyer.

Dennis 23.1.21

As 2020 draws to a close, the health crisis continues inexorably. As we have already affirmed, our organisation continues its intervention towards the proletariat and its most politicised minorities. Indeed, we must fight against the isolation and atomisation imposed on us by the bourgeoisie with lockdown measures and curfews. We therefore held an online meeting on 21 November 2020, following on from an earlier one that took place on 17 October. There were fourteen people present at the earlier meeting, who were very keen for the discussion to continue. In the November meeting there were 22 people present and participating in the discussion. The willingness to discuss with the ICC, to clarify and understand the evolution of the global and historical situation was thus confirmed by the growing number of participants. The dynamic of the discussion also strongly confirmed this willingness to discuss.

The participants' questions, queries, analyses, and points of view were not very different from those raised in the October meeting. However, the interventions showed that their concerns were addressed in a more in-depth and well-argued manner than during the previous meeting.

A very dynamic start to the discussion

The discussion began with two interventions on struggles in the health sector and on the lockdown, with a comrade putting forward the idea that only one third of the French support it. The same comrade also put forward the idea that it might not be in the interest of the working class to support the lockdown because it does not reduce poverty: “The lockdown makes us poor. It strengthens the police state. And there would be no possibility of seeing the correlation between the number of deaths and the lockdown”. Some participants replied that all the national bourgeoisies were forced to resort to the lockdown, which corresponds to measures against the epidemic worthy of the Middle Ages. Negligence, growing irresponsibility, an inability to manage the immediate situation on the part of the capitalist state were all elements that several participants pointed out.

The ICC intervened to state that the global situation was going through an acceleration of social decomposition and an economic crisis of a very serious and historically far-reaching nature. We reiterated that the pandemic and the lockdown are consequences of the decomposition that has deepened brutally and violently. The whole of society is dramatically affected: the economic crisis, the life of the bourgeoisie, and the dynamics of the class struggle.

Therefore, a first part of the discussion focused on what the phase of decomposition of capitalism is. Many speakers supported this fundamental analysis of the ICC to characterise the historical period that has been underway for more than thirty years. Some comrades wanted to know why class societies in history had also experienced elements of decomposition, but not a phase of decomposition as in capitalism. These fundamental questions about the decadence and decomposition of capitalism are extremely important for the future of humanity and the historical struggle of the proletariat.

Understanding why this phase of decomposition is at the heart of decaying capitalist society was therefore an integral part of the discussion. The harmful and destructive effects on society were addressed against the background of the development of the pandemic and the responses of the bourgeoisie to the global health crisis and the major economic crisis that lies ahead. Several interventions showed the growing irrationality that is hitting the bourgeois class, especially in the health sector. They also identified the rise of “each against all” in the economic and trade war that is looming.

The central questions posed during this meeting

The question of the spectacular rise of “each against all” led to serious questions and interventions focussed on the following themes:

- Can capitalism go beyond the national framework?

- What is the significance of the questioning of multilateralism?

- What role does populism play in the tendency to disengage, particularly on the economic level?

- Does the increasing loss of control by capitalist states mean a weakening of state capitalism?

- What does the increased repression by capitalist states mean?

- What level of economic crisis will we experience? How will it affect the life and struggle of the proletariat?

The questions and interventions of the participants on these subjects were within the framework of the phase of decomposition of capitalism and completely in line with the efforts of revolutionaries to understand the development of the historical situation. We clearly supported these types of political concerns. Indeed, all the interventions were concerned with the gravity of the evolution of the world situation. And in the first place about the consequences of this aggravation of the situation for the class struggle. Faced with the consequences of the aggravation of the harmful effects of decomposition, precarious and mass unemployment looming on the horizon, how will the proletariat be able to react? The ICC did not have the time to answer all these questions during the meeting.

However, as we developed in our interventions, an in-depth reflection on these subjects, is in continuity with the October meeting. On state capitalism, we emphasised that it did not develop in the ascendant period of capitalism, but only in its period of decadence. This tendency to the development of state capitalism has imposed itself on the whole bourgeois class all over the world. To understand why and in what forms this tendency could only be reinforced throughout the decadence of capitalism is a very important question for the future of the class struggle, its minorities and its revolutionary organisations. The capitalist state is the means par excellence to preserve the domination of the bourgeois class over all the strata of society and in particular over the working class.

The entry of capitalism into its period of decadence becomes an obstacle to the possible, necessary and harmonious development of human civilisation. The state must then inevitably take over the entire life of society in an increasingly totalitarian manner. The survival of capitalism itself is at stake. For example, as the crises of capitalism in the twentieth century have shown, it is the state that has provided the means to ensure that capitalism does not become paralysed. Likewise, the capitalist state is the permanent but also ultimate bulwark against any attempt at a revolutionary challenge to capitalist society. This is seen in the current historical situation with the reinforcement of the means of coercion and repression by the capitalist state.

One comrade intervened to show, above all, that in the face of the epidemic and the economic crisis, “we leave the power to the state over our lives... we must try to wake people up... the danger of the virus is very low... Something is being hidden from us”. This echoed another intervention which emphasised that power is in the hands of the big pharmaceutical companies. It is true that the bourgeois class is a class of liars. Marx had stressed that part of the dominant ideology, conveyed by the bourgeois class and its states, is the maintenance of its class rule. The bourgeoisie is undoubtedly the most machiavellian class of all the ruling classes in history.

But, in our view, these interventions require a deepening of the following questions: What is capitalism? What is the bourgeois state? What is state capitalism? It is normal that young elements in search of proletarian positions need to appropriate these fundamental questions from the heritage of the workers’ movement. The ICC intervened to explain that the institutions that capitalism gradually acquired after the end of the Second World War and during the period called “globalisation” allowed the bourgeoisie to defer the development of the internal contradictions of the capitalist economy.

But the bourgeoisie has not been able to remove an impassable barrier for capitalism: the barrier of the nation-state. The international cooperation and other institutions that capitalism set up after World War II to limit as much as possible the fierce competition and permanent trade war have certainly been able to curb their most destructive effects until today. But the effects of the brutal acceleration of decomposition and the global economic crisis are now calling into question this capacity with all the effects this will have on the living conditions of the working class.

Another participant stated that: “workers could refuse the lockdown”. Another replied that “the working class had no choice. If they had the choice, they wouldn't go on buses, subways, sources of viruses... It’s the state that has an interest in having proletarians go to work, even in these conditions. The proletarians are simply obliged to go there in order to live”. The working class lives in conditions imposed on it by the exploiting class and its state. It is only on its class terrain, through struggles defending its own interests and oriented towards the perspective of communist revolution, that the proletariat can oppose the bourgeoisie.

How does the working class defend itself as an exploited class? How can it assert itself concretely as a revolutionary class on which the future of humanity depends? It will be necessary in future public meetings to return to the great historical struggles of the workers' movement such as the Paris Commune in 1871, the 1917 revolution in Russia or, closer to home, the biggest workers’ strike in France in May 1968.

On the immediate situation several speakers asked the question: where is the class struggle? One participant pointed out that, despite the worsening of the pandemic, “the working class has not been fooled”. For another participant, “the CGT [a French union confederation] has played its role in diverting the interests of the working class”. Finally, another intervention stressed that “on 18 November there was a strike at the Ministry of National Education. In the hospital sector strikes took place too”. For this comrade, movements have arisen, but they cannot develop at the moment. On the current dynamics of the class struggle, despite the concerns present in the discussion, this very important aspect could not be sufficiently developed, for lack of time.

We need to return to these issues in subsequent discussions. We call on all those who wish to do so to read our numerous articles on our website and in the printed press. It is obvious that we should not underestimate the profound impact of the acceleration of decomposition on the working class. Likewise, it is essential to be able to analyse and understand the general dynamics of the class struggle in the present historical period. These are all concerns and points of view that we propose to discuss in our next sessions.

The November meeting involved a very rich discussion with a collective dynamic of debate, despite the fact that it took place online. The willingness and ability of the participants to listen and respond to each other with seriousness and responsibility must be underlined. At the end of the meeting, the participants stated that they were very satisfied with the discussion. All of them expressed their willingness to continue it.

A number of comrades explicitly wished to develop the debate on the following themes:

- How can we distinguish the period of decadence of capitalism from its ultimate phase which is decomposition?

- Why do nations use state capitalism?

- Can capitalism go beyond the national framework?

- How can we understand the tendency to strengthen state totalitarianism and the tendency for the bourgeois class to lose control?

- How serious is the global economic crisis today and what are its repercussions in the life of the working class?

- To what extent does the brutal acceleration of the decomposition of capitalism affect the working class?

The ICC welcomes the concerns of the participants during the meeting. We have begun to develop the analyses of the ICC on the central issues addressed. However, as requested by the participants, the ICC will ensure that we continue the discussion on these themes during our next sessions.

We also encourage all our readers to send us letters expressing their questions, analyses and queries on all subjects of concern to them. We will publish these letters from readers, together with our response if necessary, so that the debate can also continue through the press.

The ICC warmly thanks all the participants who animated the November meeting and will tell them the date of the next one.

 

Albin 28 December 2020