The bourgeoisie has always taken great care to distort the history of the workers' movement and to portray those who have distinguished themselves in it as either harmless or repulsive. The bourgeoisie knows this as well as we do, and that's why it still uses every possible means to distort or conceal the transmission of the struggles of the great revolutionaries of the past and their contributions to the workers' movement, in order to erase them from the historical memory of the proletariat. One of the fundamental weapons of our class in its ongoing confrontation with capitalism is its class consciousness, which inevitably draws on revolutionary theory, marxist theory, as well as the lessons and experiences of its struggles. Today, a century after Lenin's death, we can expect renewed ideological attacks on the great revolutionary that he was, on all his contributions to the struggles of the proletariat: theoretical, organisational, strategic...
The bourgeoisie's falsification of Lenin
If Marx is presented as a daring and somewhat subversive philosopher, whose supposedly outdated contributions nevertheless enabled capitalism to avoid its worst failings, the same cannot be said of Lenin. Lenin took part in and played a major role in the proletariat's greatest revolutionary experiment; he took part in an event that shook the foundations of capitalism. In his many writings, Lenin left great traces of this fundamental experience, which was extremely rich in terms of lessons for the future struggles of the proletariat. But long before the October Revolution, Lenin had made a decisive contribution to shaping the organisation of the proletariat, both politically and strategically. He implemented a method of debate, reflection and theoretical construction that are essential weapons for revolutionaries today.
The bourgeoisie knows all this too. Lenin was not a "statesman" like the bourgeoisie has always produced, but a revolutionary militant committed to his class. This is what the bourgeoisie tries to hide the most, by presenting Lenin as an authoritarian, making decisions on his own, dismissing his opponents, enjoying repression and terror for the sole benefit of his personal interests. In this way, the ruling class can draw a continuous direct line, a line of equality, between Lenin and Stalin. According to this view, Stalin completed Lenin’s work by establishing a system of terror in the USSR, supposedly the exact culmination of Lenin's personal designs.
To reach this conclusion, in addition to a constant stream of shameless lies, the bourgeoisie dwells on Lenin's errors, isolating them from everything else, and above all from the process of debate and clarification within which these errors arose and could have been overcome. It also isolates them from the international context of the defeat of the world revolutionary movement, which prevented the Russian revolution from continuing its work and led it to retreat towards a singular form of state capitalism under the grip of Stalin.
The leftists, led by the Trotskyists, are not the last to capitalise their ideological mystifications on Lenin's errors, particularly when he was seriously mistaken and deluded about national liberation struggles and the potential of the proletariat in the countries on the periphery of capitalism (the theory of the “weakest link”). The leftists have used and still use these errors to unleash their warmongering propaganda to push proletarians to become cannon fodder in imperialist conflicts through their nationalist slogans and their support of one imperialist camp against another. This is the total opposite of the revolutionary and internationalist perspective that Lenin so resolutely defended. The same goes for Lenin's false conception of the trusts and big banks, according to which the concentration of capital would facilitate the transition to communism. The leftists seize on this to demand the nationalisation of the banks and big industries and thus promote state capitalism as a springboard to communism, and to justify their false argument that the "Soviet" economy and the brutality of exploitation in the USSR were not an example of capitalism.
But Lenin absolutely cannot be summed up by reducing him to the mistakes he made. This does not mean that they should be ignored. Firstly, because they provide important lessons for the workers' movement through critical examination. But also because, in the face of the bourgeoisie's repulsive portrait of him, there can be no question of setting Lenin up as a perfect, all-knowing leader.
Lenin was, in fact, a working-class fighter whose tenacity, organisational insight, conviction and method command respect. His influence on the revolutionary developments at the beginning of the last century is indisputable. But all this takes place in a context, a movement, a struggle, an international debate, without which Lenin could have done nothing, contributed nothing to the revolutionary movement of the working class. It’s the same for Marx, who could not have acted and achieved his immense work in the service of the proletariat, nor contributed his commitment and militant energy to the construction of an international proletarian organisation, outside the historical context of the political emergence of the working class.
It is only in such conditions that revolutionary individuals express themselves and give the best of themselves. It was in these particular historical conditions that Lenin, throughout his short life, built and bequeathed a fundamental contribution to the proletariat as a whole, in organisational, political, theoretical and strategic terms.
The militant, the fighter
Far from being an academic intellectual, Lenin was above all a revolutionary militant. The example of the Zimmerwald conference[1] is striking in this respect. While Lenin had always been a staunch defender of proletarian internationalism, positioning himself at the forefront of the fight against the collapse of the Second International, which would drag the proletariat into the war in 1914, he would find himself at the forefront of the fight to keep the internationalist flame alive while the guns were blazing in Europe.
But the Zimmerwald conference was not only attended by convinced internationalists, there were also many defenders of pacifist illusions who weakened Lenin's plan to combat the nationalist madness that kept the proletariat under a blanket of lead. Yet Lenin, within the Bolshevik delegation, understood that the only way to give the proletariat hope at that time was to make major compromises with the other tendencies at the conference.
But he would continue to fight, even after the Conference, to clarify the issues at stake by resolutely criticising pacifism and the dangerous illusions it promoted. This steadfastness, this determination to defend his positions while reinforcing them through theoretical study and the confrontation of arguments, lies at the heart of a method that should inspire every revolutionary militant today.
Defending the party spirit
In organisational terms, Lenin made an immense contribution during the debates that shook the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903[2]. He had already outlined his position in 1902 in What is to be done?, a pamphlet published as a contribution to the debate within the party in which he opposed the economist visions that were developing in its ranks, and instead promoted a vision of a revolutionary party, i.e. a weapon for the proletariat in its assault on capitalism.
But it was during this same Second Congress that he waged a decisive and determined struggle to have his vision of the revolutionary party accepted within the RSDLP: a party of militants, driven by a fighting spirit, aware of their commitment and their responsibilities in the class, in the face of a lax conception of revolutionary organisation seen as a sum, an aggregate of "sympathisers" and occasional contributors, as the Mensheviks defended it. This struggle was therefore also a moment of clarification of what a militant in a revolutionary party is: not a member of a group of friends who give priority to personal loyalty, but a member of an organisation whose common interests, the expression of the common interests of the entire working class, take precedence over everything else. It was this struggle that enabled the workers' movement to move beyond the "circle spirit" towards the "party spirit".
These principles enabled the Bolshevik party to play a leading role in the development of the struggles in Russia up to the October uprising, by organising itself as a vanguard party, defending the interests of the working class and fighting any intrusion of alien ideologies into its midst. We continue to defend these principles as the only way to build the party of tomorrow.
In his book One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Lenin revisits the struggle of the Second Congress and demonstrates on every page the method he used to clarify these questions: patience, tenacity, argumentation, conviction. And not, as the bourgeoisie would have us believe: authoritarianism, threats, exclusion. The impressive quantity of writings left by Lenin is already enough to understand the extent to which he defended and brought to life the principle of patient and determined argumentation as the only means of advancing revolutionary ideas: convincing rather than imposing.
Defending the perspective of revolution
Fourteen years after the 1903 Congress, in April 1917, Lenin returned from exile and applied the same method to get his party to clarify the issues of the period. The famous April Theses[3] set out in a few lines the strong, clear and convincing arguments that would prevent the Bolshevik party from becoming locked into defending the bourgeois Provisional Government and launched the fight for a second phase of the revolution.
It was not a text written by Lenin on behalf of the party, which would have accepted it as it stood, but a contribution to a debate taking place within the party, in which Lenin sought to convince the majority. In this text, Lenin defines a strategy based on the minority nature of the party within the masses, which requires discussion and patient propaganda: "explain patiently, systematically, doggedly". This is what Lenin was in reality, not the figure that the bourgeoisie continues to portray as a "bloodthirsty autocrat"...
Lenin never sought to impose, but always to convince. To do that, he had to develop solid arguments and, to do that, he had to develop his mastery of theory: not for his own personal culture, but to pass it on to the whole of the party and the working class as a weapon for future struggles. He summed up his approach as follows: "there can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory", and a particularly important work provides a concrete understanding of this: The State and Revolution[4]. While in the April Theses Lenin warned against the state that had emerged from the February insurrection and emphasised the need to build a revolutionary dynamic resolutely against this state, in September he felt that the subject was becoming increasingly crucial and began writing this text to develop an argument based on the achievements of marxism on the question of the state. He never finished the work, which was interrupted by the October uprising.
Here again, Lenin's method is illustrated. The bourgeoisie liked to put forward men presented as natural leaders whose authority was based solely on their "genius" and "flair". Lenin, on the other hand, owed his ability to convince to a deep commitment to the cause he was defending. Rather than seeking to impose his point of view by taking advantage of his authority within the party or by scheming behind the scenes, he immersed himself in the work of the workers' movement on the question of the state, delving deeper into the subject in order to argue in favour of breaking with the social democratic idea of simply taking over the existing state apparatus and highlighting the imperative need to destroy it.
A revolutionary cannot "discover" the right strategy through genius alone, but through a deep understanding of what is at stake in the situation and the balance of power between the classes. This was exemplified in July 1917[5]. In April the Bolshevik party had launched the slogan "all power to the soviets" to direct the working class against the bourgeois state that had emerged from the February revolution; in July in Petrograd the proletariat began to oppose democratic rule on a massive scale. The bourgeoisie then did what it does best: it set a trap for the proletariat by trying to provoke a premature insurrection that would have allowed it to unleash unrestrained repression, particularly against the Bolsheviks.
The success of such an enterprise would undoubtedly have decisively compromised the revolutionary dynamic in Russia and the October Revolution would probably not have taken place. At that point, the role of the Bolshevik party was fundamental in explaining to the working class that the time had not come to lead the assault, and that elsewhere than in Petrograd, the proletariat was not ready and would be decimated.
To achieve clarity on the slogans to be put forward at a given moment, it was necessary to be able to understand in depth where the balance of power stood between the two determining classes in society, but it was also necessary to have the confidence of the proletariat at a time when the latter, in Petrograd, was eager to overthrow the government. This confidence was not gained by force, threats or any kind of "democratic" device, but by the ability to guide the class in a clear, profound and well-argued way. Lenin's role in these events was undoubtedly crucial, but it was his years of incessant and patient struggle, from the founding of the modern party of the proletariat in 1903 to the days of July, via Zimmerwald and the April Theses 1917, that enabled the Bolshevik party to assume the role that corresponded to the each phase of the revolution and thus enabled it to be recognised by the whole proletariat as the true beacon of the communist revolution.
The bourgeoisie will always be able to portray Lenin as a power-hungry strategist, a proud man who would not accept any challenge or acknowledgement of his mistakes. They will always be able to rewrite the history of the Russian proletariat and its revolution in this light, but Lenin's life and work are a constant denial of these crude ideological manoeuvres. For all the revolutionaries of today and tomorrow, the depth of his commitment, the rigour of his application of marxist theory and method, the unshakeable confidence he drew from this in the ability of his class to lead humanity towards communism make Lenin, a century after his death, an infinitely rich example of what a communist militant should be.
GD, January 2024
The picture shows the party newspaper Iskra ("The Spark") from the early 1900s. Lenin always insisted on the vital importance of the revolutionary press.
[1] Zimmerwald (1915-1917): From war to revolution [2], International Review 44
[2] The aim of this article is not to go into the details of this fight. We refer our readers to the series of articles we wrote about the origins of Bolshevism: 1903-4: the birth of Bolshevism [3], International Review 116; 1903-1904: Trotsky against Lenin [4], International Review 117; 1903-1904: the birth of Bolshevism, Lenin and Luxemburg [5], International Review 118
[3] The April Theses of 1917: signpost to the proletarian revolution [6], International Review 89
[4] Lenin's State and Revolution: Striking Validation of Marxism [7], International Review 91
[5] 80 years since the Russian Revolution: The July Days and the vital role of the Party [8], International Review 90
A collection of articles illuminating the origins of and current conflict in the Middle East
An online public meeting that will seek to place the intensification of war and destruction across the planet in its historic context: the decomposition of the capitalist mode of production. Faced with this spiral of barbarism, what response is needed from the working class and its internationalist minorities?
2pm-5pm, 20 January 2024.
If you want to take part, please write to us at [email protected] [22]
On Thursday 18 January there was the largest strike in the history of Northern Ireland.[1] In spite of icy, often sub-zero conditions there were 170,000 workers involved, members of 16 trade unions, making up maybe 80 per cent of the public sector. There were marches and rallies in towns right across the six counties, and across all the sectarian divides that have plagued the working class in Northern Ireland. There were pickets at schools and hospitals, stations and council depots, and many other public buildings. Nearly every school and further education college was closed. All public transport was stopped. The next day, Friday 19, hundreds of transport workers, cleaners, classroom assistants and gritter drivers, were on strike for a second day.
Superficially, the reason for the strike (and the explanation given by parties of the left, right and centre) is all down to the unique status of Northern Ireland. Over the last two years, ever since the election in 2022 in which Sinn Fein won the most seats, the Democratic Unionist Party have ensured that there has been no Assembly and no Executive. Because of this, all pay demands in the public sector have been declared not possible as, according to the British government, only the devolved administration can allow any pay rises. In December the Tories offered £600m for pay in the public sector, all as part of a £3.3bn package, but depending on the re-establishment of the Assembly and Executive.
In response to this the DUP have accused Northern Irish Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris of trying to blackmail them, saying the money should be handed over regardless. Meanwhile Sinn Fein say that workers’ can only be satisfied if the Assembly and Executive are re-activated. At rallies on 18 January union leaders were divided between blaming the DUP or the British government or both. While the unions all agreed that the money was there, the reality is that workers are fighting against a system that can’t satisfy their most basic needs.
Although the strike was very much controlled by the unions, and the different factions of the ruling class are certainly using the political chaos in Northern Ireland to try drag the workers behind their squabbles, this movement has not come out of the blue. In December there were strikes on the whole transport network, buses and trains, on four different days. Before that, in November, there were strikes in the transport sector and by school support staff. It’s true that these were also controlled by the unions, but does show that there is real discontent with the pay levels workers have been enduring. In Britain there have been at least some wage increases, but an effective wage freeze in Northern Ireland has made a bad situation even worse and workers can no longer put up with the effects of the “cost of living crisis”. The struggles have been undertaken because of a real deterioration in workers’ material conditions, which are under attack in all countries. In this the struggles of workers in Northern Ireland are in line with those in Britain from 2022, and with the subsequent movements in France, the US, Canada and Scandinavia. They are part of a break with the passivity of the previous 30 years, and the potential for further and deeper struggles in the future, in connection with the working class in Eire, mainland Britain, and in Europe.
Car 24/1/24
[1] This obviously excludes the loyalist paramilitary-enforced action of the Ulster Workers’ Council in 1974 – which was not a workers’ strike … and was not led by a workers’ council.
We are publishing here our response to a message from the Anti-Militarist Initiative[1], a network mainly based in eastern Europe, which is part of a wider questioning of capitalism’s war drive in the wake of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. A whole series of groups, most of them identifying with the anarchist tradition, have been issuing statements and calling for conferences to discuss “what is to be done” about the increasingly catastrophic perspectives opened up by these wars.
We welcome the fact that the AMI blog has published a number of the ICC’s articles on war and internationalism, including an interview with Marc Chirik on revolutionaries faced with the Second World War, and an article showing the profound divergences that the war in Ukraine has revealed within the anarchist “family”, between those seeking to take a clear internationalist stance and those openly advocating the defence of the Ukrainian state[2]. In our reply, we encourage the AMI to elaborate further on the discussions going on in their ranks, and at the same time argue for the need to develop a global analysis which situates these wars in a historical and global context. This alone can enable us to understand the perspectives offered by the capitalist system, and above all the real possibilities for the class struggle and the intervention of revolutionaries faced with imperialist war. Without such an analysis, it is easy to fall into a sterile activism which can only end in demoralisation given its inevitable failure to deliver any immediate results.
From the ICC to AMI
Dear comrades,
Sorry for the long delay in responding to you.
You mentioned in your last correspondence that you are discussing:
1) Analysis of escalating conflict in the Mid-East
2) How to organize practical actions against the capitalist wars
3) How to change the inter-imperialist conflicts into a revolutionary
class struggle
We would like to send you a few key points as a contribution to your debates.
1) Analysis of escalating conflict in the Mid-East
We have published several articles of analysis of the situation – in case you may not have seen them we put the URL links at the end of our reply.
From these articles we can highlight a few points.
The latest Mid-East war, which takes place at the same time as the war in Ukraine (which is soon reaching its third year) and rising tensions in the Caucasus and on the Balkans and elsewhere cannot be disconnected from the global confrontation between the US and China.
But while the US has faced several fiascos in the Middle East (Iraq-Syria-Afghanistan) and has decided to concentrate its forces on preventing China from becoming the world’s leading power (which would means toppling the US) the latest escalation in the Middle East comes somewhat as an “unwanted” war for the US.
In particular, the position of the US in the Middle East has been weakened by the way Israel has been proceeding (imposing the biggest ever exodus of the Gaza population and brutal retaliation through a scorched earth policy).
Also, the US has lured Russia into the war in Ukraine. Russia has been trying to reconquer its lost positions of the time of the existence of the two blocs. It can only do this militarily- as it had already shown through its fierce support to the Syrian regime. This Ukraine-Russia war is now posing increasing difficulties – because it has become a stagnating war, and supporting Ukraine has become increasingly unpopular in the US.
The rise of China has not only been through its enormous economic growth. This has always been accompanied by a long-term strategy of modernisation and expansion of its army; and its Silk Road projects reveal the scope of its ambitions, as well of course as its claim of wanting to integrate Taiwan into China and the policy of establishing a bigger presence in the South China Sea– all of which have been opposed by the Western countries. One project after the other aimed at counter-acting the Silk Road has been adopted by the EU, USA and India.
We can see there is a world-wide sharpening of tensions, engulfing more and more countries, and the latest Middle East war also shows an increasing loss of control by the US over its gendarme (Israel) in the region. With the unleashing of the First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War and its many proxy wars afterwards, militarism has become the mode of survival of the system and a real cancer eating at its heart.
This dynamic alone already shows that we cannot eradicate this cancer of militarism if the system is not overcome.
At the same time when the leading politicians and “experts” gathered in Dubai at the COP 28 conference, they showed that the ruling class is unable and largely unwilling to take the necessary measures to protect the planet. Leaving the destiny of our planet in the hands of the capitalist class means humanity is signing its death penalty – another urgent reason to overcome the capitalist system.
We will not go into the effects of the economic crisis, famine, the massive exodus of refugees we see in all continents, all of which are expressions of the same impasse that the system has driven humanity into.
In short: we cannot understand what is happening if we only look at one aspect, but we must see the totality and the interconnection between the different destructive components.
How do you see this link and this world-wide evolution? Can we understand events in one country by isolating them from the rest, or do we need to situate them in a global framework.?
What is your analysis? Which debates do you have amongst yourselves on this?
How do you see this link and this world-wide evolution? Can we understand events in one country by isolating them from the rest, or do we need to place this in a global framework?
We have also noticed that while several groups managed to take a clear position on the Ukraine-Russian war, rejecting support for both sides, a crystal-clear internationalist position against the war in Middle East has been avoided or much harder to take for some groups. One reason is that many groups still cling to the idea that there could be something progressive behind the formation of a Palestinian state. We defend the position of the Communist Left, which in continuity with the defence of internationalism at the time of the First World War also defended internationalism at the time of the Second, and against so-called national liberation struggles. The support for the formation of any new state in what the Third International called the “epoch of wars and revolutions” is a totally reactionary idea, only fostering more wars; we must stand for the abolition of all states. The survival of the planet – of humanity – cannot be assured by more states, but requires precisely the abolition of all states and the overcoming of all forms of nationalism.
This was the tradition of the Gauche Communiste de France and Marc Chirik, an interview with whom you published recently.
The question of “practical actions” against capitalist wars
We wish we could do something with an immediate effect against the war. Our indignation and outrage seeing the barbaric acts in Ukraine or in the Middle East understandably make us want to be able to stop the war machinery at once!
But we have to see that indignation is not enough and that it is not realistic to expect the working class to take immediate and decisive, efficient action against the war on a short-term basis. In order to be able to bring this and all the other wars to an end, we have to do nothing less than overthrow the system!
To understand the real scope of the challenge and the necessary solution we need to go back to history.
It is true that the insurrections and revolutions of the working class in 1905 or the First World War arose out of a reaction against the war. But the conditions of that war and those now are very different. In 1914-18 there was the mobilisation of millions of soldiers in the heartlands of capital; this is not the case now. The kind of weapons that were used in 1914-18 were cannons, increasingly tanks, and also some air-raids and chemical weapons (gas). But in the trenches there was still very a much a fight of “rifle against rifle”. The war stagnated, got entrenched, and there was still the possibility of direct contact (shouting between the trenches). So there could be fraternisation in the trenches after some time.
All this is not the case today. The weapons (bullets, missiles, drones, bombs, planes etc) can travel long-distances, so that the soldiers do not even see the enemy.
In the First World War there was eventually a massive mobilisation by the soldiers - not just desertions. From 1915, step by step. there were more and more protests in the streets and in the factories, because the war meant the intensification of labour, militarisation, enforced “social peace” in the factories, and above all hunger. Liebknecht gathered 60,000 workers in the Potsdam Square, and more and more street demos and wildcat strikes erupted – with the large numbers of women being drafted into the factories also playing an important role. The whole military front and the home front was breaking apart. In Russia, the workers began to fight against the officers and to fraternise; and there was also a reaction against the war by the many peasants who had been forcefully recruited. The human/social factor played a key role in the war machinery. Still from August 1914 until February 1917, then October 1917, three years of slaughter went by, and even the revolution in Russia could not yet stop the war on the other fronts. It was only in November 1918, with the outbreak of revolution in Germany, that things took a decisive turn to bring the World War to an end. The soldiers and marines of Kiel had been ordered to deliver the “last battle” against Britain, but the sailors realised that it would mean their deaths. So they had to fight directly for their lives, for their survival. The combination of a beginning of fraternisation at the military front and the eruption of struggles at the home front forced the bourgeoisie in Germany to react.
These conditions do not exist today. More and more soldiers are recruited in Ukraine and Russia, and there has not yet been any significant class reaction against the war – even if there has been a massive exodus of men from Ukraine and much more from Russia to escape forced recruitment. A massive open resistance against the war in Russia has still to come. At the moment it seems that there is not yet any major food shortage, or collapse of the economy. It is a specificity of the Russian situation that the Russian economy has been so highly dependent on oil and gas exports, so the sanctions by the West/USA have forced Russia to sell more to other countries – which has helped Russia to win time and has helped the Putin regime to avoid imposing a massive economic attack on the working class. But this gain of time is not likely to last forever and the reaction of the working class in Russia, which would be a key factor in opposing the war, remains an unknown, unpredictable factor. The working class in Ukraine is confronted even more with an omnipresent nationalism. Any resistance against the war is likely to be crushed by the Zelensky regime.
This is why we have to look at the working class in the West. Because the working class in the West cannot be mobilised for the war directly, - most workers would refuse having to sacrifice their lives for the war – and because the NATO countries have carefully avoided putting boots on the ground because they know the working class and maybe other parts of the population in the West would not support this. Thus the West has above all delivered the whole arsenal of weapons necessary to prolonging the war.
Paradoxically enough, the reactions in the US in the Republican party are very revealing. There is a rising opposition to continuing financing the war in Ukraine, because they say this would be at the expense of the US economy. They also feel that the working class is not willing to sacrifice its lives and go hungry for the war in Ukraine.
Another factor has to be taken into consideration. In Russia in October 1917 the working class managed to overthrow a relatively weak and at that time still isolated bourgeoisie. The White counter-offensive with the civil war only began a year later.
But the German bourgeoisie was a much more experienced and more powerful bourgeoisie and they were able to bring the war to an end “overnight” in November 1918, when the sailors of Kiel began to move and soldiers and workers‘ councils began to be set up, taking the road of the Russian Revolution.
So the German proletariat was facing a much more cunning, intelligent bourgeoisie, which got the support from the other bourgeoisies as soon as the proletariat began to raise its head in Germany.
Today the working class faces an increasingly rotten, decomposed capitalist class, but despite their rottenness they are more determined than ever to unite their forces if their deadly enemy, the working class, raises its head. And they can also count on the trade unions, the left parties etc. to sabotage the workers‘ struggles. Thus an immediate dynamic towards a radicalisation of struggles against the war cannot yet be expected.
How to change the inter-imperialist conflicts into a revolutionary class struggle?
Where does the key lie?
The key still lies in the hands of the working class.
We think that the workers in Britain, France, more recently in the USA, have begun to offer the proof. Driven by inflation or other strong attacks, the workers in many countries have begun to stand up and break a decades-long period of passivity and disorientation in the face of the unfolding of events. This is why we talk about a “rupture” in the class struggle[3].
And we think this capacity of the working class to defend its economic interest is the PRECONDITION for developing its strength, its self-confidence, through which the class can recognise itself, and understand clearly that there are two major classes opposing each other.
In this sense the economic defensive struggles are absolutely necessary. It is during these economic struggles, where the workers must learn to take the struggles into their own hands (which they have not done for a long time), where they must learn again to identify their real enemies (are these the migrants, the refugees – as all the populists and the right wing claim – or those who exploit them?) and their class brothers and sisters who can develop a class solidarity by uniting and taking up the struggles themselves.
And it’s through the economic defensive struggles the workers must again learn to discover that the problems are much more deeply rooted within the system and are not the fault of some rotten and greedy banker (as the Occupy Movement of 2011 tried to make us believe), and also that all the other threats to the survival of humanity are basically rooted in the system. So this process of politicisation needs the actual fire of the class struggle, but the discussions going on in different layers of the class can be propelled and catalysed by these open struggles.
Rosa Luxemburg insisted in November/December 1918 on the indispensability of much more pressure coming from the factories and economic struggles, once the “soldiers’ revolution” had the wind taken out of its sails by the decision of the bourgeoisie to end the war.
This has been the dynamic of the class struggle since 1905, when it became clear that political and economic struggles must merge together in one big stream: the mass strike.
And by coming together as a class through fighting for their economic interests, the working class can also block the destructive influence of all kind of divisive factors such as “identitarian” issues (around race, sexuality, etc). By being forced through its economic struggles to look for the solidarity of all other workers to oppose the state and be stronger than the capitalist class through the extension and unification of the struggles, the working class can play the role of a magnet in society, offering a perspective to all those oppressed by capital- not by dissolving itself in an anonymous mass of individuals, but by acting as a united force against the ruling class.
If we insist on the need for the class to develop its economic struggles, it is not that we are running away from our responsibility towards the war. But it is the only way to develop an efficient response. To believe an immediate solution can be found through some kind of minority “action” is a dead-end, and will ultimately demoralise those who take part in them.
It is indispensable to understand, as Pannekoek insisted in his famous book World Revolution and Communist Tactics of 1920, that the proletarian revolution is the first revolution in history which depends entirely on the collective, conscious and massive action of the working class. It cannot count on any other force than is own strength – its consciousness and its solidarity, its capacity for unification.
To create illusions about an easy and quick way out is misleading and demoralising. This is why we have rejected the Internationalist Communist Tendency’s scheme of setting up committees against the war. In our view these committees confuse the essentially political role that revolutionary organisations have to play in the face of imperialist wars. We have written several articles about this[4].
Shortly after the start of the Ukraine war, we also took position on this question in an article on Militarism and Decomposition, from which we quote here:
"8) In the past we have criticised the slogan of ‘revolutionary defeatism’. This slogan was put forward during the First World War, notably by Lenin, and was based on a fundamentally internationalist concern: the denunciation of the lies spread by the social-chauvinists who claimed that it was necessary for their country to gain a victory before allowing the proletarians of that country to engage in the struggle for socialism. In the face of these lies, the internationalists pointed out that it was not the victory of a country that favoured the struggle of the proletariat of that country against their bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, its defeat (as illustrated by the examples of the Paris Commune after the defeat by Prussia and of the 1905 Revolution following the failure of Russia’s war against Japan). Subsequently, this slogan of ‘revolutionary defeatism’ was interpreted as the wish of the proletariat of each country to see its own bourgeoisie defeated in order to favour the fight for its overthrow, which obviously turns its back on a true internationalism. In reality, Lenin himself (who in 1905 had hailed Russia's defeat by Japan) first of all put forward the slogan ‘turn the imperialist war into a civil war’ which constituted a concretisation of the amendment which, together with Rosa Luxemburg and Martov, he had presented and adopted at the Stuttgart Congress of the Socialist International in 1907: ‘In case war breaks out nevertheless [the socialist parties] have the duty to intercede to bring it to a prompt end and to use with all their strength the economic and political crisis created by the war to stir up the deepest popular strata and precipitate the fall of capitalist domination’.
The revolution in Russia in 1917 was a striking concretisation of the slogan ‘transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war’: the proletarians turned against their exploiters the weapons the latter had given them in order to massacre their class brothers in other countries. This being said, as we have seen above, even if it is not excluded that soldiers could still turn their weapons against their officers (during the Vietnam War, there were cases where American soldiers ‘accidentally’ shot their superiors or lobbed fragmentation bombs into the officer’s tents), such facts could only be of very limited scale and could not constitute in any way the basis of a revolutionary offensive. For this reason, in our propaganda, we should not only not put forward the slogan of "revolutionary defeatism" but also that of ‘turning the imperialist war into a civil war’.
More generally, it is the responsibility of the groups of the Communist Left to take stock of the position of revolutionaries in the face of war in the past by highlighting what remains valid (the defence of internationalist principles) and what is no longer valid (the ‘tactical’ slogans). In this sense, if the slogan of ‘turning the imperialist war into a civil war’ cannot henceforth constitute a realistic perspective, it is necessary on the other hand to underline the validity of the amendment adopted at the Stuttgart Congress in 1907 and particularly the idea that revolutionaries have the duty t'o use with all their strength the economic and political crisis created by the war to agitate the deepest popular strata and to precipitate the fall of capitalist domination’. This slogan is obviously not immediately feasible given the present weak situation of the proletariat, but it remains a beacon for communist intervention in the class"[5].
As to what this means for the role of revolutionaries, who are necessarily a small minority, we have tried to develop this in our Joint Declaration against the war and our Appeal to the groups of the Communist Left, which you may have seen[6].
We would be glad if you would let us know about the discussions in your ranks, and we are of course eager to discuss with you directly. If you have any material you recommend that we read – please send it to us.
Hoping that soon we will get a direct exchange off the ground.
Waiting for your answer...and once again sorry for a late response.
Communist Greetings
the ICC
10.12.2023
Selected texts
Capitalism leads to the destruction of humanity... Only the world revolution of the proletariat can put an end to it [23] International Review 169
The reality behind the bourgeois slogans [11], World Revolution 399
War in the Middle East: another step towards barbarism and global chaos [24]
Militarism and Decomposition (May 2022) [25]
Report on imperialist tensions [26], International Review 170
[2] The revolutionary movement and the Second World War: interview with Marc Chirik, 1985 [28]; Between internationalism and the “defence of the nation” [29]. The AMI’s own article Anarchist antimilitarism and myths about the war in Ukraine [30] is a very clear response to the arguments of the “anarcho-defencists”.
[3] See our article The struggle is ahead of us! [31], World Revolution 398
On 15 October 1923, 46 members of the Bolshevik party sent a secret letter to the Political Bureau of the party's Central Committee denouncing, among other things, the bureaucratic stifling of the internal life within the party. The "Platform of the 46"[1] thus marked the birth of the Left Opposition, with Trotsky as its figurehead.
Trotskyist groups trace their roots back to the Left Opposition, which in 1938 gave birth to the Fourth International, to which they lay claim.
However, they have generally not seen fit to celebrate this anniversary and have remained very discreet about their alleged affiliation. For all that, the link they draw (and have always drawn) between themselves and the revolutionaries of the 1920s amounts to setting up as immutable the political principles that constituted the "errors" of the workers' movement of the time, rather than the revolutionary positions which the revolutionary wave of 17-23 had made it possible to draw. Moreover, it was these same erroneous positions which served as the breeding ground for the fundamental positions of "Trotskyism" which, since the Second World War, has served as a "left" endorsement of the policies of the bourgeois state against the working class.
The disastrous consequences of the retreat of the revolution for the CI
The bloody failure of the proletariat first in Germany and then in Hungary in 1919 was the twilight of the revolutionary wave that had emerged in Russia in October 1917. This was followed by a decline in struggles around the world and the growing isolation of the revolution in Russia. This situation weighed heavily on the Communist International (CI) and the Bolshevik Party, which began to adopt measures opposed to the interests of the working class with the subjugation of the soviets to the Party, the enrolment of workers in the unions, the signing of the Treaty of Rapallo [2] and the bloody repression of workers' struggles (Kronstadt, Petrograd 1921). The adoption of these policies only accelerated the defeat of the revolution of which they were themselves the expression, provoking reactions from the left in both the CI and the Bolshevik party. At the Third Congress of the CI (1921), the German-Dutch Left, grouped together in the KAPD, denounced the return of parliamentarianism and trade unionism as a departure from the positions adopted at the First Congress in March 1919. It was also at this congress that the "Italian Left" reacted strongly against the unprincipled policy of alliance with the "centrists" and the denaturing of the CPs by the mass entry of fractions from Social Democracy.
A proletarian reaction to the degeneration of the Communist International
But it was in Russia itself that the first opposition appeared. As early as 1918, the review Kommunist, founded by Bukharin, Ossinsky and Radek, warned the party against the danger of adopting a policy of state capitalism. Between 1919 and 1921, several groups ("Democratic Centralism", "Workers' Opposition") also reacted to the rise of the bureaucracy within the party and the growing concentration of decision-making power in the hands of a minority. But the most consistent reaction to the opportunist drift of the Bolshevik party was Miasnikov's "Workers' Group", which denounced the fact that the party was gradually sacrificing the interests of the world revolution to the interests of the Russian state. All these resolutely proletarian tendencies did not wait for Trotsky and the Left Opposition to fight for the defence of the revolution and the Communist International.
In fact, it was only after the political collapse of the CI in Germany in 1923 and in Bulgaria in 1924 that the current known as the "Left Opposition" began to take shape within the Bolshevik party, and more precisely in its leading ranks. The meaning of its struggle can be summed up in its own slogan: "Death to the kulak, the Nepmen, the bureaucrat". In other words, it was a question of attacking both the interclassist policy of "enrich yourself in the countryside" advocated by Bukharin, and the party's rampant bureaucracy and its methods. Internationally, the Opposition's criticisms focused on the formation of the Anglo-Russian Committee and the CI's policy in the Chinese Revolution. But in fact, all these questions could be summed up in a single struggle, that of defending the proletarian revolution against the theory of "socialism in one country". In other words, the struggle to defend the interests of the world proletariat against the nationalist policies of the Stalinist bureaucracy.
The Left Opposition in Russia was therefore born as a proletarian reaction to the disastrous effects of the counter-revolution.
But its late appearance weighed heavily on its thinking and its struggle. It proved incapable of understanding the real nature of the Stalinist and bureaucratic phenomenon, trapped as it was in illusions about the working-class nature of the Russian state. As a result, while criticising Stalin's policies, it actively supported the subjugation of the working class through the militarisation of labour under the patronage of the trade unions, and even championed state capitalism through accelerated industrialisation.
Unable to break with the ambiguities of the Bolshevik party on the defence of the "Soviet Fatherland", it was therefore unable to wage a resolute and coherent struggle against the degeneration of the revolution and always remained at an inferior level to the proletarian opposition that had emerged after 1918. From 1928 onwards, more and more members of the opposition were subjected to Stalinist repression. They were hunted down and murdered by the Stalinists. Trotsky was himself expelled from the USSR.
The International Left Opposition repeats the mistakes of the CI
In other sections of the Communist International, tendencies opposed to the increasingly counter-revolutionary policy of the CI emerged. From 1929 onwards, a grouping was formed around and at the instigation of Trotsky, which took the name of the "International Left Opposition" (ILO). This constituted an extension of the Left Opposition in Russia, adopting its main conceptions. But in many respects, this opposition was an unprincipled grouping of all those who claimed to want to make a left-wing critique of Stalinism. Denying itself any real political clarification and leaving Trotsky as its main spokesman and theoretician, it proved incapable of waging a determined and coherent struggle to defend the continuity of the communist programme and principles. Worse still, its erroneous conception of the "degenerated workers' state" ultimately led it to defend Russian state capitalism. In 1929. For example, the Opposition defended the Russian army's intervention in China following the expulsion of Soviet officials by Chiang Kai Chek's government. On this occasion, Trotsky launched the infamous slogan: "Undying support for the socialist fatherland, never for Stalinism!". By dissociating Stalinist (and therefore capitalist) interests from Russia's national interests, this slogan could only lead the working class into defending the fatherland, paving the way for support for Soviet imperialism. This opportunist policy was also embodied in the defence of the United Front policy with Social Democracy and the Popular Front alliances in favour of anti-fascism, in the defence of democratic slogans and in the defence of "the rights of peoples to self-determination".
In the final analysis, each new tactic by Trotsky and the ILO was just another step towards capitulation and submission to the counter-revolution.
The struggle of the Italian Left working as a fraction within the ILO
This catastrophic drift also took concrete form at the organisational level. Unlike the Left Fraction of the Communist Party of Italy, the ILO was incapable of understanding and assimilating the role to be played by organisations that remained faithful to the communist programme and principles when the revolution had been defeated and the communist parties had gone over to the camp of the counter-revolution. By conceiving itself as a simple "loyal opposition" to the CI with the aim of rectifying it from within, the ILO was unable to learn the lessons of the failure of the revolutionary wave and get to the root of the mistakes of the Communist International.
Until 1933, when the Fraction was definitively expelled from the ILO, the Left Fraction of the Communist Party of Italy led the fight within the International Opposition, so that the latter could get on track with the work of a fraction that would enable it to assume the continuity of the communist programme and principles with a view to opening up a new revolutionary period and forming a new class party: "In the past, we have defended the fundamental notion of the 'fraction' against the so-called 'opposition' position. By the fraction we meant the organism which builds the cadres that will ensure the continuity of the revolutionary struggle and which are destined to become the spearhead of proletarian victory. Against us, the position of ‘opposition’ triumphed within the International Left Opposition. The latter stated that it was not necessary to announce the need to form cadres: the key to events lay in the hands of centrism and not in the hands of the fraction. This divergence is assuming a new character, but it is still the same difference, although at first sight it seems that the problem today consists of being for or against the new parties. Comrade Trotsky totally neglects, for the second time, the work of forming cadres, believing that he can pass immediately to the construction of new parties and the new International"[3]. The inability of Trotsky and the opposition to engage in fraction work led him to conceive of party building as a simple matter of tactics in which the will of the select few could substitute for historical conditions. This approach, which had more to do with magic than materialism, clearly obscured "the conditions of the class struggle as they are contingent on the historical development and the relationship of forces between the existing classes"[4].
Without a real political compass, the Opposition could only be tossed about at the whim of historical events. Hence the call to form the Fourth International (1938) at a time when the working class was mobilised to defend the interests of the various imperialist powers and the world was on the brink of a second world butchery.
Thus, far from making a credible contribution to preparing the conditions for the future party, the trajectory of the Left Opposition considerably weakened the revolutionary milieu and was a source of confusion and disorientation within the working masses in the night of counter-revolution. As for the Trotskyist movement, it met the fate of every opportunist enterprise. By taking up the defence of the USSR and the anti-fascist camp during the Second World War, it betrayed proletarian internationalism and passed with all its baggage into the camp of the bourgeoisie. Its offspring, today's Trotskyist organisations, are now on the side of the bourgeois state[5].
On the other hand, by understanding its historical role, the Italian Fraction was able to defend and preserve the communist programme and organisational principles. It was able to prepare for the future by enabling first the Gauche Communiste de France (1944-1952) and then the ICC to take up this political heritage and assume the historical continuity of the organisation of revolutionaries with a view to contributing to the formation of the future party, indispensable for the triumph of the proletarian revolution.
Vincent, 16 December 2023
The photo shows leading members of the Left Opposition in 1927. Sitting (left to right): Serebryakov, Radek, Trotsky, Boguslavsky and Preobrazhensky. Standing (left to right): Rakovsky, Drobnis, Beloborodov and Sosnovsky
[2] Secret state-to-state diplomacy: the permission for German troops to train on Russian soil.
[3] Bilan, no.1 (November 1933).
[4] "Problèmes actuels du mouvement ouvrier international", Internationalisme 23, June 1947. See also What distinguishes revolutionaries from Trotskyism? [37] International Review 139, reprint of "The function of Trotskyism" (Internationalisme n° 26, September 1947)
[5] It should nevertheless be noted that during the early stages of the Second World War, Trotsky still had the strength to completely revise all his political positions, particularly on the nature of the USSR. "In his last pamphlet, The USSR at War,he said that if Stalinism emerged victorious and strengthened from the war, then his judgement of the USSR would have to be revised. This is what Natalia Trotsky did, using her companion's logic of thought and by breaking with the Fourth International on the nature of the USSR on 9 May 1951, like other Trotskyists, notably Munis.” (“Trotsky belongs to the working class, the Trotskyists have kidnapped him", RévoIution Internationale no.179, May 1989)
Since the beginning of the year, farmers have been mobilising against the fall in their incomes. The movement, which started in Germany following the abolition of subsidies for farm diesel, has now spread to France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and is beginning to spread throughout Europe. Farmers are up in arms against taxes and environmental standards.
The smallest producers, strangled by the agri-industry's purchase prices and the policy of farm concentration, have long been plunged into poverty, sometimes extreme. But with the acceleration of the crisis, soaring production costs, the consequences of climate change and the conflict in Ukraine, the situation has become even worse, to the point where even the owners of medium-sized farms are sinking into poverty. Thousands of farmers are living a daily life of deprivation and anxiety that is even driving many of them to suicide.
A movement with no perspective
While no one can remain insensitive to the distress of part of the farming world, it is also the responsibility of revolutionary organisations to say it clearly: yes, small farmers are suffering enormously from the crisis! Yes, their anger is immense! But this movement is not on the same terrain as the working class and can offer no perspective for its struggle. Worse still, the bourgeoisie is exploiting the peasants' anger to wage a full-scale ideological attack on the proletariat!
Since the workers in Great Britain paved the way in the summer of 2022, workers' mobilisations have continued to multiply in the face of the crushing blows of the crisis: first in France, then in the United States, Canada, Sweden and Finland more recently. In Germany, railway workers have embarked on a massive strike, followed by Lufthansa airline pilots; the biggest strike in Northern Ireland's history broke out in January; in Spain and Italy, mobilisations are continuing in the transport sector, as well as in the London Underground and the metalworking sector in Turkey. Most of these struggles are on a scale not seen for three or four decades. Strikes and demonstrations are breaking out everywhere, with a nascent but unprecedented development of solidarity between sectors, and even across borders...
How did the bourgeoisie react to these historic events? With an immense media silence! A veritable blackout! On the other hand, initially it only took a few sporadic farmers’ mobilisations for the international press and all the political cliques, from the far right to the far left, to pounce on the event and immediately turn up the heat in an attempt to cover up everything else.
From small farmers to the owners of large modern farms, even though they were in direct competition, they all rallied around the same sacred idols, with the holy unction of the media: the defence of their private property and the nation!
Neither small farmers nor small businessmen have any future in the insoluble crisis of capitalism. Quite the contrary! Their interests are intimately linked to those of capitalism, even if capitalism, particularly as a result of the crisis, is tending to wipe out the most fragile farms and plunge a growing number of farmers into poverty. In the eyes of the poor farmers, salvation lies in the desperate defence of their farms. And in the face of fierce international competition and the very low costs of production in Asia, Africa and South America, their survival depends solely on defending "national agriculture". All the demands made by farmers, against "charges", against "taxes", against "Brussels standards", all have in common the preservation of their property, large or small, and the protection of their borders against foreign imports. In Romania and Poland, for example, farmers are denouncing "unfair competition" from Ukraine, which is accused of undercutting grain prices. In Western Europe, free trade agreements are being targeted, along with lorries and goods from abroad. And all this with the national flag waving proudly and vile rhetoric about "real work", "consumer selfishness" and "urbanites"! That's why governments and politicians on all sides, so quick to denounce the smallest bin fire, and rain down truncheon blows on demonstrators, when the working class is in struggle, have rushed to express their support for the farmers’ "legitimate anger".
Another step towards social chaos
The situation is nevertheless very worrying for the European bourgeoisie. The crisis of capitalism is not going to stop. The petty bourgeoisie and small businessmen will sink ever deeper into poverty. The revolts of cornered small owners can only multiply in the future and contribute to increasing the chaos into which capitalist society is plunging. This is already evident in the indiscriminate destruction and attempts to "starve" the cities.
Above all, this movement is clearly fuelling the discourse of far-right parties across Europe. In the next few years, several countries could tip over into populism, and the bourgeoisie knows perfectly well that a far-right triumph in the next European elections would further reinforce the bourgeoisie's loss of control over society, and erode its ability to maintain order and ensure national cohesion.
In France, where the movement appears to be the most radical, the state is using every means at its disposal to contain the farmers' anger, at a time when the social climate is particularly tense. The forces of law and order are being urged to avoid confrontations, and the government is making a series of "announcements", including the most despicable ones (increased use of underpaid foreign labour, a halt to the slightest policy in favour of the environment, etc.). In Germany, in order not to add fuel to the fire, Scholz had to back down in part on the price of agricultural diesel, as did the European Union on environmental standards.
After the 2013 revolt by small businessmen in Brittany, the so-called "Red Bonnets"[1], (1) then the interclassist "Yellow Vest" movement[2] throughout France, it is now the whole of Europe that is affected by a surge of violence by the petty bourgeoisie with no other prospect than to cause mayhem. So the farmers' movement does indeed represent a further step in the disintegration of the capitalist world. But, like many expressions of the crisis of its system, the bourgeoisie is instrumentalising the farmers' movement against the working class.
Can the proletariat take advantage of the "breach opened by the farmers"?
At a time when the working class is taking up the struggle en masse throughout the world, the bourgeoisie is trying to undermine the maturing of its consciousness, to rot its thinking about its identity, its solidarity and its methods of struggle, by instrumentalising the mobilisation of the farmers. And to do this, it can still count on its trade unions and left-wing parties, led by the Trotskyists and Stalinists.
The French CGT was quick to call on workers to join the movement, while the Trotskyists of Révolution Permanente valiantly headlined: "Farmers terrorise the government, the workers' movement must take advantage of the breach". Come on! If the bourgeoisie fears the dynamic of social chaos contained in this movement, who can believe that a small minority of the population, attached to private property, could frighten the state and its enormous apparatus of repression?
The "Red Bonnets" or "Yellow Vests" movements have already illustrated the bourgeoisie's ability to instrumentalise and stimulate a well-calculated "fear" to lend credibility to a big lie against the working class: your massive demonstrations and your general assemblies are useless! They'd have us believe that the bourgeoisie fears nothing more than blockades and small-scale actions. Nothing could be further from the truth! Because these methods are typically those used by the unions to divide and vent the workers' anger in perfectly sterile actions. Indiscriminate acts of destruction do nothing to undermine the foundations of capitalism or prepare the ground for its overthrow. They are like insect bites on an elephant's skin, justifying ever more repression.
But the bourgeoisie is not content with sabotaging the proletariat's reflection on the means of its struggle. It is also seeking to suppress the feeling that is beginning to develop through its mobilisations, that of belonging to the same class, victims of the same attacks and forced to fight united and in solidarity with each other. The left-wing parties are therefore quick to trot out their old, adulterated junk about the "convergence" of the struggles of the "little people" against the "rich".
Commenting on the demonstrations in Germany, the Italian Trotskyists of La Voce delle Lotte wrote that "massive peasant actions and railway strikes are taking place simultaneously. An alliance between these two strategic sectors would have an enormous strike force". The same old nonsense! The only purpose of these traditional calls for "convergence" is to drown out the struggle of the working class in the "popular" revolt.
In spite of everything, the bourgeoisie is faced with a great deal of distrust from the workers towards a movement that is not being strongly repressed (unlike the workers' demonstrations) and which flirts with the far right and very reactionary rhetoric. The unions and the left therefore had to resort to all sorts of contortions to distance themselves from the movement, while trying to push proletarians to "jump into the breach" by means of dispersed strikes, corporation by corporation.
The mobilisation of farmers can in no way be a springboard for the struggle of the working class. On the contrary, the proletarians who allow themselves to be swept up behind the farmers' slogans and methods, diluted in social strata fundamentally opposed to any revolutionary perspective, can only be powerless under the pressure of nationalism and all the reactionary ideologies carried by this movement.
The responsibility of revolutionaries towards the working class involves highlighting the pitfalls which punctuate its struggle and which, alas, will punctuate it for a long time to come. As the crisis deepens, many social strata, who are not exploitative but also not revolutionary, will be led, like the farmers today, to revolt, without having the capacity to offer society a real political perspective. On this sterile terrain, the proletariat can only lose. Only the defence of its autonomy as an exploited and revolutionary class can enable it to broaden its struggle still further and, in the long term, bring other strata into its own struggle against capitalism.
EG, 31 January 2024
[1] « Les bonnets rouges : une attaque idéologique contre la conscience ouvrière [39] », Révolution internationale n° 444
This dossier contains contributions, the most recent at the top, to an internal debate relating to the understanding of the ICC’s concept of decomposition, to inter-imperialist tensions and the threat of war, and to the balance of forces between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
The latest text, 'New response to Steinklopfer' is a further exploration and explanation of the ICC's theory of decomposition, in answer to ‘Steinklopfer: response to the reply of the ICC from August 2022’, which was the third by the comrade to be published externally.
This debate was first made public by the ICC in August 2020 when it published a text by comrade Steinklopfer in which he expressed and explained his disagreements with the resolution on the international situation of the 23rd ICC Congress. This text was accompanied by a response from the ICC (see below).
The second contribution by the comrade developed his divergencies with the resolution of the 24th Congress and elicited a further response expressing the position of the ICC (both below).
The debate was furthered by a contribution from comrade Ferdinand which also expressed his differences with the resolution of the 24th Congress and was subsequently followed by a reply from the ICC.
************
New response to Steinklopfer [41]: With the publication of comrade Steinklopfer’s most recent text (below), and the reply that follows here, we are continuing, after some delay, the internal debate about the world situation and its perspectives.
Steinklopfer: response to the reply of the ICC from August 2022 [42]: This article continues the debate within the ICC about the growing drive to war, its nature in the phase of decomposition, and the state of the class struggle. The long delay in its publication is mainly due to the fact that the organisation has been obliged to intervene extensively in the latest manifestation of the war drive - the barbaric conflict in the Middle East - as well as the new phase in the world class struggle. To avoid further delay we publish here without a reply, but a response is being prepared and will be published as soon as possible.
Reply to comrade Steinklopfer, August 2022 [43]:The ICC is more or less alone in considering that the collapse of the eastern imperialist bloc in 1989 marked the beginning of a new phase in the decadence of capitalism – the phase of decomposition, resulting from a historic stalemate between the two major classes in society, neither able to advance its own perspective faced with the historic crisis of the system: world war for the bourgeoisie, world revolution for the working class.
Divergences with the Resolution on the International Situation of the 24th ICC congress (explanation of a minority position, by Ferdinand) [44]: While this text by comrade Ferdinand expresses some positions in common with those forwarded by comrade Steinklopfer, there are also different elements added to the debate.
Reply to Ferdinand [45]: The ICC’s response to Ferdinand concentrates particularly the on questions relating to the development and role of China.
Explanation of the amendments by comrade Steinklopfer rejected by the Congress [46]: As with the previous contribution by comrade Steinklopfer, the disagreements here with the ICCs resolution on the International Situation at its 24th Congress in 2022 relate to the understanding of our concept of decomposition, to inter-imperialist tensions and the threat of war, and to the balance of forces between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We should point out that this contribution was written before the war in Ukraine.
Internal Debate in the ICC on the international situation: [47]The first text by comrade Steinklopfer and the ICC's initial response.
The following article continues the debate within the ICC about the growing drive to war, its nature in the phase of decomposition, and the state of the class struggle[1]. The long delay in its publication is mainly due to the fact that the organisation has been obliged to intervene extensively in the latest manifestation of the war drive - the barbaric conflict in the Middle East - as well as the new phase in the world class struggle. To avoid further delay we publish here without a reply, but a response is being prepared and will be published as soon as possible.
Publishing an internal debate, such as the ICC is presently engaging itself to do regarding the divergences of Steinklopfer and Ferdinand, comes up against the difficulty, for those not acquainted with the internal debate, of understanding the different twists and turns of the discussion, of who is supposed to have said what, who has changed (or has not changed) their position on which point. Moreover, the different polemical aspects are a necessary part of a debate. How, therefore, to make as accessible as possible, for an ‘outside’ public, the essentials of the debate? How to make clear that the issues involved are important to the politically interested proletariat as a whole? In the case of our present debate this is certainly the case, since the issues under debate concern the survival of humanity itself, the degree to which our survival is threatened by imperialist war, and to which degree we can hope that the proletariat can recover from its present weakness and put forward a revolutionary alternative. This is why the response of Steinklopfer to the ICC text of August 26, 2022[1] will divide itself into two parts. Part Two will try to make as clear as possible my estimation of the present danger posed by imperialist war and of the evolution of the balance of class forces, with the double goal of bringing our Theses on Decomposition up to date, where necessary, and of highlighting the main existing divergences with the present position of the ICC. Part One will, beforehand, begin to answer the main criticisms made in the August 26 text, which will hopefully become more understandable in the light of part two.
PART ONE: IN RESPONSE TO THE RESPONSE
The August 22 Reply of the ICC to Steinklopfer is to be greeted, above all because of the step forward it represents concerning the questions of the danger of war between the big powers and the question of the defeats suffered by the proletariat (taken up in part two of this text). Another clarification is the answer it gives to my criticism that the ICC now considers the imperialist each against all to be a kind of second main explanation for capitalisms entry into decomposition. The article explains that the ICC considers this each against all to be a contributing factor and not a cause of decomposition. I have understood this now comrades, you will not hear this criticism from me again. The Reply is also well done at the technical level, establishing links with the two discussion texts of Steinklopfer and the previous reply, as well as the critical text of Ferdinand etc.
According to the August 2022 Reply, both Steinklopfer and Ferdinand “still insist that they agree with the concept of decomposition, although in our view some of their arguments call it into question”.
Which are these arguments?
The first argument cited is that Steinklopfer and Ferdinand fail to understand that the bourgeois each for himself has become a major impediment to the formation of new blocs.
Yes, I fail to understand this. The formation of imperialist blocs is itself not the diametrical opposite of each for himself, but on the contrary a product of each for himself. Blocs are one possible form taken by the struggle of each against all, since competition is inherent to capitalism. Whether this struggle of nation states against each other takes a more chaotic, unbridled form, or whether it takes the form of alliances and even blocs, depends on circumstances. Which circumstances? After 1989, the circumstances were such as to rule out the formation of new blocs, and our Theses were quite right to recognise this. The most important circumstance here was that there was only one remaining superpower, the United States, so that all the others had the overriding concern to avoid their own room for manoeuvre being cut or eliminated by this one giant. Today the circumstances are changing. If China succeeds in continuing its present ascent, so that it would become a second superpower alongside America, all the other countries will find themselves under increasing pressure to choose between Washington and Beijing (or, to put it more correctly, they will have to define for themselves which of the two powers represents the greater threat to their own interests).
In any case, it is not at all clear why the Reply thinks that pointing out the dynamic towards the formation of blocs would be an argument calling into question decomposition. All the more so as the Reply quotes the original Theses saying exactly the same thing: the bloc tendency is a permanent one. Nor, by the way, do I say that the tendency towards blocs has today become the dominant one: it can only become so if China continues to catch up on the United States. I should also point out that in my previous text I argued that a war between Washington and China could break out without the prior formation of blocs, so there is no reason why the model of two stable, pre-existing blocs characteristic of the Cold War should have to apply in the future. In World War Two the bloc constellation was only more or less finalised after the war had begun (in particular with the Soviet Union moving from the side of Germany to that of the western allies).
“This brings us to a second key disagreement about the concept of decomposition – the understanding that decomposition, while bringing to fruition all the existing contradictions of decadent capitalism, takes on the character of a qualitative change”, the Reply tells us. The Reply quotes the Steinklopfer text saying that there is no major tendency in the phase of decomposition which did not already exist beforehand in decadent capitalism, goes on to give a quotation from the Theses on Decomposition saying the same thing, but then adds another quote from the same Theses, number 3, saying that these characteristics “reach a synthesis and an ultimate conclusion” in the phase of decomposition. The Reply adds (very dialectically!) that “such a synthesis marks the point where quantity turns into quality”. I agree completely with this: if capitalism finally ‘succeeds’ in exterminating the human species, this will be a qualitative change.
If you ask me, the arguments in favour of the claim that Steinklopfer and Ferdinand are ‘calling decomposition into question’ are, for the moment, not very sound.
The Reply then moves on to the question of imperialist polarisation. Here, the Reply is more on the defensive. This might have something to do with the fact that: “It’s certainly true that the ICC initially underestimated the imminence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine”. Most certainly. On the eve of the invasion the ICC publicly stated that it would not take place. The Reply adds: “just as we were late in identifying the Machiavellian manoeuvres of the US which were designed to lure Russia into this trap” Late in identifying? The original version of its idea about the Machiavellianism of the US bourgeoisie (just before the war began) was that Washington was publicly warning about the advent of the Russian attack because it knew it would not take place – thus Moscow would end up feeling humiliated. The present version of the US Machiavellianism hypothesis is that the US ‘wanted’ Russia to attack, just as they allegedly want to take on Russian and China at the same time (which, from the point of view of the American bourgeoisie, would be a stupid thing to want to do).
At all events, the Reply sovereignly ignores one of the main contents of the text of Steinklopfer it is supposed to be replying to: the fact that the 24th International Congress rejected, with an overpowering majority, all the amendments to the resolution on the international situation stressing the growing danger of war between the main powers. The text of Steinklopfer, which the ICC is replying to here, and which warns specifically about an imminent conflict between Russia and NATO, was written in December 2021. According to the Reply, the mistake of the ICC about the Ukraine War “was not a refutation of our underlying theoretical framework, but rather the result of a failure to apply it consistently” But in that case it is very striking that it never even seems to occur to the Reply to take note of the fact that there were comrades of the organisation who did not make such blunders, but on the contrary warned against the coming conflict between NATO and Russia, and that perhaps these comrades had been more successful in ‘applying our theoretical framework consistently’. Or will they say the minority was right like the stopped watch which gives the right time two times a day?
Instead, the Reply takes up another alleged deviation on decomposition, this time regarding the economic development of China: “Arguing, as comrade Steinklopfer does, that it has taken place ‘despite decomposition’ removes an understanding of China´s rise from our general framework of analysis” And: “Not only is Chinese growth a result of decomposition, it has become a powerful factor in its acceleration” It is certainly true, as the Reply points out, that the disappearance of the two imperialist blocs after 1989 was one of the pre-conditions for the development of China. That it greatly increases the capitalist potential for destroying humanity is self-evident. But what does it mean to say that “Chinese growth is a result of decomposition”? What does it mean already at the theoretical level? In the past 30 years anything up to half a billion peasants in China have been proletarianised, by far the most massive numerical development of the proletariat in the history of capitalism. Moreover, this gigantic new proletariat, to an important extent, is very skilful, educated and inventive. What a gain for the productive capacities of humanity! What a potential above all for the future! Already in the second half of the 19th century, against the bourgeois economists who claimed that either the competition between capitalists or the credit system was the main secret of productivity in bourgeois society, Marx defended the insight that the labour of the proletariat is the main source, not only of the riches of the bourgeoisie, but also of the productivity, of the ‘wealth’ of society as a whole. For him the labour of the proletariat, the fruitfulness of its association in production, is the main productive force of capitalist society. Capitalist competition and the labour of the proletariat both play a role, but which is the more fundamental one? But now the Reply has apparently found a third source of the development of the productive forces: decomposition!
On the class struggle, I think I will reply in the second part of this article to the allegation that I disdain the economic struggle or want to separate it from the political or the theoretical dimension. This part of the Reply also comes back to the question of defeats of the class. It claims that it is fear of the proletariat which prevents NATO from intervening too directly in the war in the Ukraine (no NATO ‘boots on the ground’). However, it remains a mystery to me how the proletariat would prevent the sending of highly professional American or European soldiers or pilots to serve in the Ukraine. Indeed, one of the lessons the organisation said it learnt from its mistakes concerning this war was precisely that we had lost sight of the fact that professional soldiers (as opposed to a mass conscript army) can indeed be much more easily used more or less independently of the mood in the population as a whole. It is striking that the organisation does not even consider another possible explanation for the absence of NATO troops on the side of Kyiv: the possibility that at least parts of the bourgeoisie are still wary about starting a nuclear war.
But there is another idea in the Reply, which is that I deny the concept of subterranean maturation. This idea is based on the fact that I have spoken of a “subterranean regression”, by which I mean a stagnation or regression of the politicised vanguard as a whole. All of which poses a very interesting question: is subterranean maturation necessarily always a linear, accumulative process, in which no stagnation and above all no regression is possible? Why would this be the case? Because reality is constantly changing, political and theoretical work necessarily has to keep in step with developments. If they fail to do so, would this not represent a kind of regression of the subterranean development of the consciousness of the revolutionary milieu?
The discussion must be continued!
PART TWO: THE STAKES OF THE PRESENT WORLD SITUATION
1. The inherent tendency (as opposed to its goal, which is surplus value) of decadent capitalism is the destruction, the elimination of humankind. This tendency reaches its culmination point with its final phase, that of its decomposition.
This tendency is not limited to the role of imperialist war – although its main manifestation in the 20th century were the two world wars and the development and first use of nuclear weaponry. A list of the other factors towards the wiping out of our species would include, among other things:
- environmental destruction and global warming
- the growing threat of the progressive exhaustion of fertile soil and of fresh water supplies
- the shrinking of the population in many of the developed capitalist countries coupled with a veritable population explosion in the more underdeveloped areas.
This list is anything but exhaustive.
Despite the multiplicity of factors, they cannot all be put at the same level. In particular, the discourse of the bourgeoisie, according to which global warming and environmental destruction are the main dangers today, serve, among other things, to downplay the danger of imperialist war and to foster the idea of a kind of united front of all classes and ‘people of good will’ to ‘save nature’. Although we certainly should not underestimate the gigantic dangers flowing from capitalism´s destructive relation with nature (of which imperialist war is an essential part), it is quite possible that bourgeois society – through its technological and other manipulations - can postpone the extinction of our species through environmental crises for the next 50 or one hundred years (at the expense of an unspeakable barbarism, for instance possible genocides against environment refugee movements).
As opposed to this, the destruction of humanity through imperialist war, in particular in its thermo-nuclear version, can take place quickly and radically. Why is this distinction important? Because the threat of imperialist war can eventually favour the development of class consciousness, since at least parts of the proletariat would have to be mobilised for such wars, and because this issue has the potential to awaken, within the working class, the memory of the internationalists in particular from World War I (associated with the names Lenin, Liebknecht and Luxemburg) and which, in reality, have never been quite forgotten. In other words: the danger of world war in particular, can in the long run stimulate class consciousness – as long as world war has not yet broken out.
As long as the taboo on thinking beyond capitalism still holds sway (as it does today) the environmental criticism of the ruling class ends up calling for pressure on the bourgeoisie to ‘do its job’. It does not go in a revolutionary direction but enforces the feeling of guilt today being put on the proletariat and on humanity.
With the bombardment of Europe’s largest nuclear power station, with the blocking of a harvest which is important for the whole world, and with its syphoning off of gigantic financial resources which thus can no longer be used to counter global warming etc, the Ukraine war is beginning to illustrate how today, imperialist war is increasingly the most important accelerating factor of global environmental disaster.
2. Our Theses on Decomposition were right at the time they were written. These Theses never said that the tendency towards bi-polarity (towards the regroupment of rivalries around two main leading protagonists) or towards the formation of imperialist blocks disappears. What it said, and rightly so, is that, at the time of writing, there was no country existing (and none in sight) capable of challenging the United States, and that therefore world war was no longer on the agenda. In this situation the Theses were also right to insist that, even without world war, capitalism remained tendentially condemned to eventually wipe out our species, through local wars, general chaos, the destruction of nature etc. Not surprisingly, three decades later the situation has changed. Above all because China is developing the global potential to challenge the United States. But also because Russian imperialism has regained its capacity of counter-attack (a power with many weaknesses, but which still possesses inter-continental rockets which threaten America).
The rise of China has put the question of World War back on the agenda of history. This represents, in a sense, a kind of ‘normalisation’ in relation to the history of decadent capitalism. The period after 1989, during which the ruling class was not getting ready for world war, was an exception to the rule. An exception which is now over. This does not mean that a Third World War is inevitable: throughout the Cold War, it was also on the agenda, yet it never broke out. What we can be sure of, however, is that the proletariat, humanity as a whole, and the planet will be made to pay a terrible price for the Sino-American conflict, one way or the other, whatever forms it takes.
But not only the danger of modern, more or less conventional wars (at least to begin with, the risk of a nuclear escalation is always present) between the great powers is back on the agenda, but also the risk of unplanned, mad nuclear losses of control. The latter danger already existed during the Cold War, and whereas the proletariat was able to constitute a real hindrance to a classic war mobilisation of the two blocs, it also could not have prevented the kind of crazy losses of control such as happened at least twice during the 1980s, when a nuclear world war almost took place ‘by accident’. One of the most welcome steps forward of the ICC, since the Ukraine War (and also in the Reply to Steinklopfer) is the growing recognition of this danger. Whereas before the tendency was to deny any danger of military confrontations between the big powers ‘because the working class remains undefeated’. The reply to Steinklopfer even recognises that the danger of uncontrolled atomic conflicts is greater than during the Cold War – and the danger continues to grow. However, the ICC itself does not even seem to notice that this very real menace of a nuclear loss of control coming out of the Ukraine war stands in contradiction with its present analysis of this war, which is that the United States ‘wanted’ Russia to invade Ukraine.
The growing danger of the destruction of our species, or of large parts of it, through unplanned and even literally ‘accidental’ nuclear wars, illustrates the perfectly insane situation in which capitalism has placed us. Who could prevent a ‘nuclearisation’ of the present Ukraine war, for example? The proletariat? Unfortunately, not for the moment. The bourgeoisie? Certainly not. Both on the American and the Russian side, parts of the ruling class are already arguing that nuclear war has allegedly become not only ‘wage-able’ but even ‘win-able’. The world is in the hands of fools.
All of this does not mean that nuclear warfare is ‘inevitable’. But what it means is that we are in a situation in which we are going to need a large portion of good luck, which we hope will last long enough for the proletariat to be able to recover from its present weakness. That it has come to this is perhaps the most dramatic illustration of the seriousness of the situation today.
3) But if it could not at present prevent an eventual MAD (the military experts call this “Mutually Assured Destruction”) nuclear escalation (and they also have their arsenals of chemical and biological weapons), does the proletariat at least constitute a serious obstacle to a so-called conventional war, such as it did from 1968 onwards in relation to the Cold War? Above all: does the proletariat today block the path towards a major war between the United States and China? What speaks in our favour is that the American and the Chinese working class not only belong to the biggest sectors of the world proletariat, their central parts belong to the most sophisticated, educated, in every sense most ‘modern’ fractions of their class. However, both lack in proletarian revolutionary tradition. The US working class participated but little in the revolutionary wave at the end of World War I; in China it participated belatedly and suffered a crushing defeat (Shanghai-Canton 1926-27). Moreover, both have suffered ideological deformations (in China through Stalinism, in America through anti-communism and the ‘American way of life’). Both proletariats have been further weakened, in China through the ‘Economic Miracle’, in America through the rise of right wing populism on the one hand, and of ‘Black Lives Matter’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ on the other (in the wake of the ‘finance crisis’). In both countries, nationalism has been gaining ground.
But also, on the international scale the situation of the proletariat is much more difficult than it was from 1968 to 1989. At that time, there were two clearly defined imperialist blocs, and the dividing line of their conflict lay right in the heart of Europe – where the proletariat has had the biggest revolutionary experiences (on both sides of the Iron Curtain). As opposed to this, the European proletariat finds itself today in a much more peripheral position at least in relation to the America-China conflict. Moreover, the European proletariat is also much weaker than before. The fact that the territorially largest and second largest countries in Europe (Russia and the Ukraine) have been able to wage a most brutal war for more than six months now, illustrates the terrible weakness of the class in eastern Europe today. Although less so, the western European proletariat is above all politically and theoretically weakened.
Compared to the period of blocs during the Cold War, we no longer have such clear cut criteria for judging the evolution of the balance of class forces. What we can be relatively sure of is that the bourgeoisie still has some distance to cover before it can be able to mobilise the populations of the USA and China for a major war. At the present moment in time we can neither confirm or rule out that they will succeed in this in the future. What is certain is that the bourgeoisie has already started to get ready for this. Revolutionaries will have to be extremely attentive towards the evolution of the balance of class forces. It would be a mistake to want to rule out the possibility that the bourgeoisie might (maybe only partly) succeed with such a mobilisation. It was already this idea that the working class, because it is ‘undefeated’, prevents military conflicts between the big powers, which also played a big role in the blindness of the ICC in face of the coming Ukraine war.
4) Since 1968, the proletariat has suffered a number of defeats. One of the most positive aspects of the present reply to Steinklopfer is that it more clearly recognises the reality of these defeats. It recognises both the defeat of the politicisation after 1968 and that of the loss both of class identity and of the revolutionary communist goal by the working class around 1989. And it now recognises (as Steinklopfer had previously pointed out) that the understanding of these defeats is consistent with our theory of decomposition. This represents a real step forward when you consider that, not long ago, the organisation was arguing that any talk of defeats is defeatist. The reply is much less clear about the more recent defeat, that of the attempted politicisation (from the anti-CPE in France to the Indignados in Spain), which was swept away by the leftist and by right wing populism in the aftermath of the ‘finance crisis’of 2008. In other words, the finance crisis triggered the Indigados or Occupy movements, but also, and much more powerfully. populism. The centre of this defeat was the United States, manifested in the development of Trumpist populism on the one hand, and of BLM and Cancel Culture on the other. However, I feel confident that the organisation will evolve in its position on this defeat also.
At all events, we agree on the fact that the proletariat can still recover from its present weaknesses. The defeats we are speaking of here are not part of a counter-revolution, since they were not preceded by a revolution or an attempted revolution. However, it is extremely difficult to judge the precise nature and impact of these defeats, since they are historically unprecedented. Never before did the proletariat lose its class identity and its revolutionary goal as it has presently done. All of which makes it more difficult to estimate by which means the class can recover its strength and begin to go forward again.
5) While continuing to retreat on the questions of the danger of wars between the big powers and on the question of defeats, the ICC continues to claim that the main divergence lies in my separating the political from the economic struggle, rejecting, disdaining, or at best underestimating the latter. For me the divergence lies elsewhere. My divergence is that I disagree with the organisation because it thinks that the economic struggle is the main crucible of the recovery of the class, out of which the political and theoretical development can take place. For me, on the contrary, there is no such main crucible. The proletariat can only begin to go forward when it advances on all three levels. Our expectation that politicisation in particular would develop out of the economic struggles was already disproven in the 1980s. Why should it be more successful now in the absence of class identity and a revolutionary perspective? There is not one main crucible. When the proletariat advances, it will do so concerning all three dimensions of its historic struggle: the economic, the political and the theoretical dimensions.
In fact, never in the history of the proletariat did its political organisations and the works of theory develop one-sidedly out of the economic struggle. In the 19th century the revolutionary organisations of the proletariat in Europe (such as the Chartist movement in Britain or the Social Democracy in Germany) developed out of a political break with the progressive, in some cases even revolutionary bourgeoisie, based on the recognition: our goal is not the bourgeois revolution but the proletarian revolution. The same thing happened, in a more embryonic form, already in 1525 during the Peasant War in Germany and during both the English and the French bourgeois revolutions. Today, one of the departure points will have to be the break with bourgeois reformist illusions, the recognition that the way forward really lies beyond capitalism.
The discussion must be continued!
Steinklopfer. 06/09/2022.
[1] Divergences with the Resolution on the International Situation of the 24th ICC congress (explanation of a minority position, by Ferdinand) [44]
Explanation of the amendments by comrade Steinklopfer rejected by the Congress [46]
Reply to comrade Steinklopfer, August 2022 [43]
Reply to Ferdinand [45]
We publish here an exchange of views with T, a contact in Germany, focusing on the mobilisations in support of “Freedom for Palestine”.
Letter from T
Comrades,
Here is a contribution to the discussion from me:
One criticism I have is that the ICC portrays other political positions that do not correspond to the ICC's understanding of internationalism as anti-internationalist. Lenin had a different position on the anti-colonial/anti-imperialist struggle than Rosa Luxemburg - but was he not an internationalist? A brief search on the subject reveals that Lenin clearly supported the anti-colonial struggle politically. Central to this is the "right of nations to self-determination". He wrote: "Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation - and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination - but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion - and if need be, their revolutionary war - against the imperialist powers that oppress them."[1] [48]
He also accuses those socialists who do not stand up for the right to self-determination of being lackeys of the imperialist bourgeoisie. With regard to these socialists, he writes that such socialists “are behaving like chauvinists, like lackeys of the blood-and-mud-stained imperialist monarchies and the imperialist bourgeoisie”[2] [49].
And Lenin also brings something important to the point: " As against this philistine, opportunist utopia, the programme of Social-Democracy must point out that under imperialism the division of nations into oppressing and oppressed ones is a fundamental, most important and inevitable fact.”[3] [50]
Even if imperialism is a world system, and I am also convinced that there can be no "progressive" national struggles, the following question nevertheless arises: is the nationalism of the Israeli state the SAME as the nationalism of the Palestinians? Is there no difference between the oppressing side and the oppressed side from the perspective of the ICC? So, to put it very clearly, in a nutshell: it is true that I can see that the nationalist-religious politics of parts of the Palestinian population do not offer an emancipatory, socialist perspective (but rather oppress). In this respect, criticising it is also essential. BUT: where does a policy lead that does not distinguish between oppressor and oppressed? This level of oppression is missing in the ICC analysis. In fact, oppression exists at the level of nationality - as Lenin says, this is an essential element of imperialism! This aspect is not addressed by the ICC, it is not explained, but rather ignored.
If there is no difference from the perspective of the ICC, this would at least explain why the murderous actions of the Israeli state are not the focus of agitation. It would also explain why the criticism of the German state and the imperialist West, with Israel as an ally, is so timid.
I do not arrive at a conclusive solution to the problem. Nor do I fully agree with Lenin's position, but I do think that he addresses important aspects.
The ICC's position appears to be a template, as exactly the same arguments are used for both the war in Ukraine and the war in Palestine. Both cases have similarities - which the ICC emphasises (thesis of decadence, example of a state of decomposition) - but also differ in important respects. For example: Ukraine is a state that is being heavily armed by NATO. Palestine is not a state. It is an occupied territory that was granted an "autonomous authority" by the occupying power. There are many other differences, this was just one example.
Furthermore: The question arises as to how the attack by the militant groups and the bloody massacre on 7 October came about in the first place. Some (or many?) people in Israel are asking themselves: where was Mossad and where was the army? Didn't they fail terribly? How could this happen? The ICC is simply adopting the official "facts" and the official explanation of what happened - which are being fed to us by interested parties.
Here I can even refer to an older ICC article which states: "All too often, when the ICC denounces the Machiavellianism of the bourgeoisie, our critics accuse of us of lapsing into a conspiratorial view of history. However their incomprehension in this regard is not just a misunderstanding of our analysis, but even worse falls prey to the ideological claptrap of bourgeois apologists in the media and academia whose job it is to denigrate as irrational conspiracy theorists those who try to ascertain the patterns and processes within bourgeois political, economic and social life. However, it is not even controversial to assert that lies, terror, coercion, double-dealing, corruption, plots and political assassination have been the stock in trade of exploitative ruling classes throughout history, whether in the ancient world, feudalism or modern capitalism."[4] [51]
You certainly don't now see any possible Machiavellianism with 7 October! Documents have already emerged that raise big questions, see: "Documents reveal Israeli conspiracy to promote 7 October attack"[5] [52]
In an English publication by the ICC, there is an important thought that illustrates the importance of the issue: "But there is something even worse: this Pandora's box will never close again. As in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, there will be no going back, no ‘return to peace’."[6] [53]
In my opinion, this is completely true. The problem I wanted to present lies in the extent to which disgust with the ugly face of Western imperialism leads to collective resistance. A resistance that can rise up against the imperialist logic of war. Anyone who does not take the concrete manifestation of Western imperialism - as we are currently seeing in the indiscriminate murder of over 10,000 people in the Gaza Strip - as a starting point is failing to take a tactical approach.
For example, there have already been proletarian actions, such as the refusal of dock workers to load weapons and ammunition to be used in the Gaza war. Unfortunately, the ICC press does not report anything about this - although this could be a concrete, small step towards proletarian internationalism.
The following assessment is not correct in its generalised statement and is reminiscent of the announcements from German imperialist government circles: "Nevertheless, they [the demonstrators] are actually taking part in demonstrations that are pro-war in character, in which the leading slogan ‘Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea’ can only be achieved through the military destruction of Israel and the mass murder and expulsion of Israeli Jews - a reverse Nakba."[7] [54]
"In truth, [they are] taking part in demonstrations that are pro-war in character"? There are certainly many participants who are not aware of the problem of the nationalist-religious escalation and there are also openly reactionary forces. But to attribute a fundamentally pro-war character to the demonstrations is wrong. And, as already mentioned above, very compatible with the official statements of German and European imperialism. Because what they don't need now is opposition to the slaughter in Gaza. That is why critics are being massively attacked and demonstrations banned. And the ICC is of the opinion that these are "pro-war demonstrations"?
The multi-faith working class in Europe and the USA is raising its voice against the war - millions of times! - and the ICC is of the opinion that they are taking part in "pro-war demonstrations"?
We welcome the contribution of the comrade. He has made a real effort to explain his position in the face of the war in the Middle East, mainly based on the positions developed by Lenin during the First World War. With his critique he participates in the clarification of the nature of the Gaza war, which has already posed serious problems to some political groups in their defence of the perspective of the world working class. For us this is all the more reason to respond carefully to this contribution
But we want to start with a methodological question. Since the comrade makes no appreciation of the analytical framework used by the ICC to develop its position in face of this war, we don’t know if his criticism only concerns specific points in the analysis or the whole political approach of the ICC. It is for instance not completely clear if the comrade is 100 percent in agreement with the internationalism defended by the ICC, or only under certain conditions.
In any case it seems that the comrade is in agreement with the ICC that “this Pandora's box will never close again. As in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, there will be no going back, no ‘return to peace’.” This is an important point because from this we infer that the comrade agrees with us on the concept of the irrationality of this war, in which there will be no winners, but only destruction and further chaos. But this position is not without consequences, because such a position makes it useless to support either camp in this war. Especially when the comrade also affirms that, in the epoch of imperialism, “progressive” national struggles are no longer possible[8] [55].
Oppressors and oppressed
That’s why we are all the more surprised that the comrade brings up the theory of the oppressor and oppressed nations, by following the words of Lenin, that “under imperialism the division of nations into oppressing and oppressed ones is a fundamental, most important and inevitable fact"[9] [56]. And in support of this position, he also adds that “Palestine is not a state”.
It is not exactly clear what the comrade is saying here , but he seems to say that the Palestinian nation is not equal to the Israeli nation, that the Palestinians are actually an oppressed national minority within the Israeli state, an idea which we can accept. This is a situation similar to the oppressed nations in the Czarist Russia before 1917. And it was Lenin who therefore defended the “rights of the nations to self-determination”. But this tactical position aimed at favouring the conditions for the world revolution, turned out disastrously when it was put into practice after the October Revolution. In 1918 Rosa Luxemburg rightly criticised this “tactic”, for instance in her pamphlet The Russian Revolution.
In this pamphlet Rosa Luxemburg showed, on the basis of the empirical facts, that when nations were given “self-determination” after October 1917, they immediately became reactionary formations, and not only turned against each other but also against the revolution[10] [57].
This occurred because of the fact that capitalism had entered its period of decadence, a world completely divided, in a state of historical crisis and irreversible decline. Increased competition between the great powers for a share of the world market led to military tensions, culminating in the First World War. Following the First World War, and with the failure of economic "remedies" for the crisis of capitalism, the only way left for the bourgeoisie to break the deadlock was to rush headlong into militarism and war. But even the smaller nations could not escape this logic. If they wanted to survive they had to accept the flight into militarism and to conform to the global demands of the major imperialist powers.
Every national bourgeoisie must submit to the logic of the permanent war of capital, to its way of life, and to the chain of imperialist conflicts that follows from this. National liberation has become equal to imperialist war and the ideology of "national liberation" in the decadence of capitalism is reactionary.
The distinction of Lenin between oppressor and oppressed nations is not wrong, but it does not touch upon the roots of the capitalist mode of production. Oppression and oppressed are superstructural features that have no direct relation with the basis and an abolition of a particular form of oppression has no fundamental impact on the material conditions of capitalist society. The fight of the oppressed or even the elimination of oppression of Palestinians, Blacks or women – if this would ever be possible under capitalism - does not abolish this very system. On the contrary, as is the case with the Palestinians, we can even expect that their “liberation” from the oppressing Israeli regime, if it ever succeeded at all, would most certainly lead to an oppressive regime like the other Islamic states in the region and thus not to the undermining of capitalism – not to mention its abolition.
Lenin’s position that “division of nations into oppressor and oppressed (…) forms the essence of imperialism” [11] [58] leaves the window wide open for the view that all classes in the oppressed, non-imperialist nations have a common interest in fighting the oppressing nation. In other words: the distinction between "aggressors and aggressed", between "oppressor and oppressed nations" is not only invalid, but forms the ideological framework designed to draw the exploited class into wars in defence of interests which are not its own. Therefore it is widely used by the extreme left of capital to call upon workers to support the struggle of oppressed national populations in the framework of imperialist war. Distinct class interests are hidden and replaced by with the “people’s interests” and the general interests of the oppressed nation[12] [59].
In his theory Lenin did not only start from superstructural features, he also divided countries in the world into three main types and for each of these three types he developed different politics[13] [60]. But the working class is one international class and every policy that seeks to define the best tactics for each part is in contradiction with the principle that the proletarian revolution has to take place on a world-wide level and not according to specific conditions in this or that part of the world. In this sense Rosa Luxemburg is right that “any socialist policy that disregards this defining historical[imperialistic] milieu, and wants to be guided only by the isolated viewpoints of one country in the midst of the world whirlpool, is built on sand from the outset”[14] [61].
The Palestinian regime also suppresses the working class
In contrast to the comrade, we are convinced that Gaza is not only a national entity but that the regime in Gaza has also several functions of a bourgeois state: it collects taxes and has an army, a juridical apparatus, detention facilities, intelligence and police personal, etc. It is the Hamas de-facto administration which exercises these state functions and has, since 2005, under the direction of a highly centralised command centre, been able to fire thousands rockets into Israeli territory. There is only one conclusion possible: the war in Gaza is a war between two imperialist states.
Therefore, we do not agree with the comrade when he draws the conclusion that revolutionaries should take as a starting point for their tactical position the “disgust with the ugly face of Western imperialism (…) as we are currently seeing in the indiscriminate murder of over 10,000 people [and more] in the Gaza Strip”. The ICC, in line with the positions defended by the tradition of the Communist Left, does not choose one of the imperialist camps, neither for tactical reasons nor because of the massacres and atrocities caused by one of the imperialist camps. But the comrade seems to have another view which, as a concrete expression of his theoretical approach, is clearly shown in the critique of the ICC’s position on the pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
In his critique the comrade draws the conclusion that these demonstrations, in contrast to the position defended in the article “The reality behind the bourgeois slogans”, were not pro-war demonstration. According to the comrade, they were pro-Palestine demonstrations, supported by workers, and that this is why the demonstrators’ criticisms of the policy of the western bourgeoisie were attacked by the mainstream media. By not adopting the right tactical stance, the ICC supposedly joins the chorus of the anti-Palestinian campaign. But the article is right when it says that the slogan “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea” can only signify the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population in the region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, “a Nakba in reverse”. And this has nothing to do with an anti-Palestinian or pro-Israeli position, but with a position that approaches and analyses the situation in the Middle East from the perspective of the proletariat, the only class capable of transcending capitalist relations and thus not determined by the antagonistic interests of imperialist states.
To conclude, we must say that war is not the result of certain particular policies, which are "more or less nationalist", "more or less aggressive", etc., but the product of the capitalist system as a whole, resulting from its nature and the historical tendencies of decadence, from which no part of the ruling class can escape. In this sense there is indeed no difference between the nationalism of Israel and the nationalism of Palestine: both ideologies are a cover for the drive to war and for the repression of the working class by the bourgeois state.
[1] [62] V. I. [63] Lenin,The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination Theses [64]
[2] [65] Op cit
[3] [66] Op cit
[7] [73] The reality behind the bourgeois slogans [11]
[8] [74] In order to avoid any misunderstanding, for the ICC “progressive” national struggles in the nineteenth century led to the constitution of a higher unity of the bourgeoisie within particular areas, the centralisation of the national economy and integration of more labour power.
[9] [75] V. I. [76]Lenin [77], The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Theses [64] (1916), 3. “The Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination and its Relation to Federation”
[10] [78] Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, Chapter 3, The Nationalities Question [79]
[11] [80] V. I. [76]Lenin [77], The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination [81]
[12] [82] Examples of the position of the extreme left of capital: “We stand firmly with the oppressed Palestinian masses” (International Marxist Tendency); we express “unanimous solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people” (Socialist Equality Party WSWS); let’s show our “solidarity with the colonized and oppressed Palestinian people” (CPGB).
[13] [83] V. I. [76]Lenin [77], The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Theses [64] (1916),6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations
[14] [84] Rosa Luxemburg, The Junius Pamphlet, Chapter 7 [85]
With its 500th issue, after more than fifty years of publication, Révolution Internationale, our paper in France, continues its revolutionary combat in a determined manner. This round number, marking a remarkable longevity, might at first appear to be that of any old anniversary, an obvious pretext for a ritualistic celebration. In reality, this issue is for us the symbolic mark of a trajectory of struggle, of a constant effort to build an organisation, and evidence of our militant commitment. This is all the more important to emphasise, given that this issue is taking place in a totally new and unpredictable international context, one that is extremely serious.
On the one hand, the decomposition of capitalism is rapidly threatening to destroy humanity. On the other, the renewed struggle of the working class offers the prospect of revolution. Never have the stakes been so crucial as they are today, for both proletarian organisations and for the revolutionary press.
For our press and our paper RI, such a situation constitutes a real challenge, both on the theoretical level and in ensuring a regular intervention. We are therefore, along with the working class, at a kind of crossroads. More than ever, it's important to know where our press comes from and where it's going.
At its beginnings, in the heat of the international wave of struggles of May 68, Révolution Internationale took its first steps groping its way forward without any experience, without any organic links with the organisations of the past. The only thread that allowed us to establish continuity with the past was the solid experience of our comrade Marc Chirik and his patient efforts to transmit a militant spirit and a method of working.
At the outset, our publication was a duplicated, almost "home-made" magazine, sold in bookshops, markets, demonstrations and outside factories. It was the expression of the "Révolution Internationale" group, which would later become the French section of the ICC.
Its strength, as it was for all our movement, lay in its long-term activity, in the footsteps of our predecessors and their heroic publications, with a concern for the reappropriation and critical examination of the experience of the past, and a firm determination to anchor our struggle in the whole tradition of the workers' movement. Our source of inspiration was naturally that of the Bolsheviks, but also, and above all, the essential experience of Marc Chirik and his invaluable legacy drawn from the struggle of the Communist Left in the 1930s.
As workers' struggles developed, our writing and publishing work gradually intensified. Between 1968 and 1972, we published seven issues of our "old series". On the strength of this initial experience and these first steps, we embarked on a more extensive project. In 1973, with more confidence, “we launched the second series of our organ, still in magazine form. This was also the result of an effort to regroup revolutionary forces, since this new series became the instrument of an enlarged French organisation with the merger of three groups. From 1973 to the last months of 1975, the fifteen or so issues of RI which came out in less than three years undoubtedly reflected the acceleration of our organisational solidification, compared with the previous period. Being able to guarantee the regularity of our publication, an irrefutable test for revolutionary groups claiming to play their part in the working class, we moved from bi-monthly to monthly publication of our magazine. This adaptation heralded an even more important change, the transformation of the magazine into a paper. A paper implied a deeper political involvement in the class struggle. This change took place in February 1976, and was a sign of our growing awareness of the revolutionary tasks of the time"[1].This progress was to be put to the test during the waves of international struggle in the 1980s. At that time, our paper was our main tool of intervention, essential for developing a whole range of revolutionary analysis and propaganda at the very heart of workers' struggles. In demonstrations, general assemblies, struggle committees and discussion circles that had emerged from the dynamic that opened up after 1968 - wherever possible and according to its strengths, the ICC took the means to be present with the paper to distribute and fight for our positions.
At the dawn of the 1990s, following the stagnation of workers’ struggles and the collapse of the Eastern bloc, our organisation was faced with a new challenge: to resist, over the long term, the decline in class consciousness and struggle and the huge media hype surrounding the alleged "death of communism". In the face of this ideological steamroller, our paper defended the workers' struggle and the revolutionary perspective by continuing to fight against the tide. This fight for communism enabled tiny minorities of the class to resist the global brainwashing, the biggest lie in history, which equated Stalinism with communism. It was during these difficult years that our paper was able to resist and our website came to the forefront of our publishing work. Subsequently, RI became bi-monthly (at the end of 2012) and then quarterly (in spring 2022), but that didn't stop us from continuing to intervene in struggles with the paper and our leaflets as tools of intervention.
Today, at a time when the proletariat is once again taking the path of struggle on an international level after decades of inactivity, in an increasingly unpredictable, dangerous and threatening context, our printed paper remains more than ever an essential compass, an irreplaceable tool for intervention, as it was, for example, during the major demonstrations in France against pension reform in 2023, where we systematically distributed it.
This paper is the embodiment of the living nature of our organisation, proof in itself of what clearly distinguishes it from all the online bloggers and chatterboxes. But far beyond the immediate struggles, RI remains a genuine tool for reflection for those seeking class positions and revolutionary political clarity, as well as for the proletarian political milieu as a whole.
Naturally, our paper would not be what it is without our readers. We would like to take this opportunity to salute them warmly and to encourage them both for their political and financial support and for the critical sense they have shown on various occasions. Even if we sometimes make mistakes in our articles, we can count on their fraternal criticism, just as we can count on the criticism of all serious working class political groups. Some of our supporters and contacts have not hesitated to write to us with their criticisms or their analyses. Whenever possible, we replied, adding to our "readers’ letters" section or engaging in polemics with other revolutionary organisations. A number of our supporters also took part in writing and translating articles. We thank them and encourage them to continue.
Today, RI is fighting with determination, complementing our other publications and our website. Our paper is continuing its work, participating in all the efforts we wish to develop to fuel a genuine international debate. In the words of Lenin, it remains "a weapon of combat" that we must support and defend.
ICC, 10 January 2024
1] Révolution Internationale 100 (August 1982).
In mid-January 2024, the ruling class in Germany launched a cunning campaign to defend democracy. This campaign shows all the deviousness of the German bourgeoisie in the way it is able to exploit the vile evidence of the decomposition of its system, and especially in its ability to use this against the working class.
A secret meeting over deportation plans - nothing but a trap in defence of democracy
In November 2023, various forces from the AfD, right-wing members of the Werteunion (Union of Values), which was part of the CDU[1] at the time, and other people met ‘secretly’ in Potsdam to discuss drastic measures to take against foreigners and immigrants. In their completely irrational plans, fuelled by hatred and nationalism, which generally contradict the interests of German capital, they apparently intend to carry out millions of mass deportations. The meeting was observed by reporters from Correctiv (and presumably also by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution). The event was made public in mid-January - and shortly afterwards the largest state mobilisation in years was underway against the right-wing and in particular against the AfD, all in defence of democracy.
This happened after intensive campaigning by all the bourgeois parties against there being "too many refugees" and in support of "mass deportations", and after more coercive measures for deportations etc ("asylum reform") had finally been agreed at the European level. This was not by fanatical and hate-filled xenophobic elements from the right-wing camp but made democratically legitimate by the German state itself taking the matter into its own hands and using repressive police measures. CDU politicians, following in the footsteps of the British Conservative government, also want to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. It would be naïve to think that the November meeting was just a lucky break for the ruling class.
Such meetings and the right-wing deportation fantasies of the AfD are too obviously playing into the hands of the state, as one of the biggest campaigns, promoted at the highest level, has now been launched - allegedly to protect those affected and, above all, in the defence of democracy. The aim is to distract attention from the Fortress Europe policy that has been in operation for years, under which countless people lose their lives every year in their desperate attempts to reach Europe or, once they have arrived, end up in refugee camps or have to find some other alternative. But it is about more than the hypocrisy of those in power, who want to cover up their own daily and more widely planned violent measures by denouncing the right-wing deportation plans. In reality, this is a political manoeuvre. The government has called upon the trade unions and all of "civil society" organisations, and hundreds of thousands are now gathering in almost every city, mainly at weekends, to protest against the right and in support of democracy. The state and the forces working in its favour could not have done a better job of rallying the population behind them. The trap of the defence of democracy has proved effective![2]
The real worsening of decomposition does not leave the ruling class helpless
All over the world those in power have a huge problem with the fact that all the parliamentary parties are losing credibility, with more and more people staying away from elections, and more and more people doubting the promises and pledges of the ruling class. People worldwide are deeply concerned about the future of the planet and the spiral of destruction triggered by capitalism with all its wars and the worsening economic crisis. At the same time, they do not have a clear understanding of where the solution lies, and many have been driven into the arms of protest parties by this lack of perspective. Consequently, the membership of the established parties is shrinking and there are more and more of the smaller "fringe parties" on both the extreme right and the left.
In many countries, the growth of populist and right-wing parties is causing major headaches for the traditional bourgeois parties, as it is further undermining the stability of governments and the cohesion of society. But the ruling class would not be a ruling class if it did not seek to exploit this underlying putrefaction of the fabric of capitalist society to its own advantage. The ploy of exploiting the schemes of populists and the extreme right - even dreams of pogromism - is about mobilising the population in support of the campaign for the defence of democracy. At the same time, the population is called on to unite behind the state to defend its preparedness for war and that is why this call for the defence of democracy is also a means of rallying the population behind the state.
Exploitation of growing discontent within the population as a whole
In recent weeks there have been major protests by farmers, taxi drivers, hauliers and other tradespeople against the cuts in various subsidies and in protest at the wave of austerity packages that the government has adopted to a considerable extent as a result of the war in Ukraine. These protests, supported by farmers and other small self-employed people, are a consequence of the global worsening of the economic crisis and the consequences of the war. But because of their disruptive effects on transport, these protests attract a great deal of attention and are given much publicity without them in any way putting pressure on the ruling class. The message is being spread that isolated and radical "blockades" are the main means of resistance. But these road blocks offer no perspective of unity as such against the state and its pro-war policies.
While these protests are indeed fuelled by the anger of those affected by the deterioration of their situation as a result of the effects of the crisis, they also serve as smokescreens of ideological confusion. They are not an expression of the contradictions between the two main classes of capitalism, the bourgeoisie and the working class. They only express the fear and anger of the intermediate strata, the self-employed and managers of small businesses and farms who cannot formulate a perspective beyond and against capitalist exploitation. It is no coincidence that the first frontal attack, namely the social attacks dubbed "austerity measures", was aimed at the intermediate strata. These angry protests with no real political perspectives are intended to hold back the working class from struggling on its own terrain or even lead it into the trap of interclassist struggles.
The defence of democracy is a tool used against workers' struggle
Another important aim of the state in initiating the campaign for the defence of democracy and the broadest possible alliance around the state is also to weaken the working class's growing capacity to fight against the narcotic of democracy.
Last autumn, the unions, in particular the public service union Verdi, where the state is the employer, had to front up several 'warning' strikes to channel the pressure of the workers. As a result of the inflation exacerbated by the war and the years of deteriorating working conditions (work intensification, staff cuts, etc.), Verdi was forced to make greater wage demands, especially at the lower end of the pay scale. These wage negotiations were ultimately all concluded in autumn 2023 - before the train drivers' union GdL came up with its demands in the winter. Of course, the GdL had waited until its rival union EVG and the other transport workers at Verdi had their wage agreements in the bag.
After the train drivers' strike from 24 to 29 January had been announced, and ended on 28 January, healthcare workers were called out on Tuesday, 30 January, airport workers on Thursday, 1 February, and public transport workers in many cities on Friday, 2 February, for warning strikes or protests. They were strictly separated from each other so that nobody would get the idea that there were any shared interests between the workers and to obstruct any possible feelings of solidarity, let alone any sense of the need for, and possibility of any joint actions.
At the same time, workers were denied the possibility of holding any large protest demos which, while they would of course have also been organised and controlled by the unions, would at least have enabled workers to raise common demands against their mutual employer (often the state). In other words, within a week there was resistance and anger by workers in almost all federal states against the worsening of their conditions, but they were all divided and separated from each other! It meant the unions were able to manage the situation with their timetable of neatly separated 'warning' strikes.
Against this background, there has been non-stop propaganda since January in favour of the building of a popular movement of those who are courageous and prepared to defend democracy and so on. Even if there is no "danger of explosion" of the class struggle at the moment, the state-organised protests in defence of democracy serve above all to obscure the class divide between the interests of the working class and the state machine which serves the interests of capital.
While the ruling class tries to use the putrefaction of its own society against the working class and to use sophisticated campaigns to manufacture national unity behind the state in defence of democracy and ultimately in the drive to go to war, the working class must not allow itself to be rallied behind these campaigns. Real class resistance can only be developed by throwing off the shackles of the unions and reaching a conscious understanding of the conflict of interests between capital and labour, and acknowledging the total impasse which the capitalist system has reached.
Wg, 05.02.2024
The history of the workers' movement - what revolutionaries have said about democracy
“The division of society into classes distinguished by economic privilege clearly removes all value from majority decision-making. Our critique refutes the deceitful theory that the democratic and parliamentary state machine which arose from modern liberal constitutions is an organisation of all citizens in the interests of all citizens. From the moment that opposing interests and class conflicts exist, there can be no unity of organisation, and in spite of the outward appearance of popular sovereignty, the state remains the organ of the economically dominant class and the instrument of defence of its interests. In spite of the application of the democratic system to political representation, bourgeois society appears as a complex network of unitary bodies. Many of these, which spring from the privileged layers and tend to preserve the present social apparatus, gather around the powerful centralised organism of the political state. Others may be neutral or may have a changing attitude towards the state. Finally, others arise within the economically oppressed and exploited layers and are directed against the class state. Communism demonstrates that the formal juridical and political application of the democratic and majority principle to all citizens while society is divided into opposed classes in relation to the economy, is incapable of making the state an organisational unit of the whole society or the whole nation. Officially that is what political democracy claims to be, whereas in reality it is the form suited to the power of the capitalist class, to the dictatorship of this particular class, for the purpose of preserving its privileges.” (Bordiga, The Democratic Principle)
“Even in the most democratic bourgeois state the oppressed people at every step encounter the crying contradiction between the formal equality proclaimed by the ‘democracy’ of the capitalists and the thousands of real limitations and subterfuges which turn the proletarians into wage-slaves.” (Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, “Bourgeois and Proletarian Democracy”)
[1] AfD: Alternative für Deutschland, right wing populist party; CDU: Christian Democratic Party, “centre-right” party
[2] As usual, leftist capitalist groups of all stripes welcome and participate in this mobilisation "against the extreme right". For reasons of space, we will not go into this in detail here.
It's 40 years since the year-long miners' strike of 1984-85. The BBC and Channel 4 broadcast some documentaries to commemorate it[1]. These programmes focussed mainly on the testimonies of miners as well as some of their wives who joined the picket lines and protest demos. We were also served up comments from individual police and those state functionaries involved in planning and plotting the defeat of the struggle. The documentaries want to show the tragedy of the strike, the hopelessness of a situation where the miners were overpowered by police, and where there was division and fragmentation across the various regions of the British coalfields and violence on the picket lines between the pickets and miners who decided to cross them. The obvious conclusion from this is that “struggle doesn't pay”.
Revolutionaries must draw the lessons of the defeat and place these events in the broader context of the struggles of the international working class taking place at the time. This strike followed in the aftermath of the 1980 Polish mass strike and in a period when many struggles had occurred and were still occurring across the European heartlands. At the time of the miners' strike there was the potential for a broader struggle with some level of support from striking dockers, or from workers in the steel industry and transport sector, but the TUC and the other unions acted to isolate and disarm the strike, which led to its ultimate defeat. One clear lesson to draw is that there is no way in which one sector of the working class can defeat a capitalist state machine that is well-prepared and well-armed.
The emergence of Thatcherism
The history of miners’ strikes in 1971/72, 1974, and 1981 demonstrated a real solidarity and unity that was effective in enabling workers to push back government attacks and establish the miners as a vanguard sector of the working class during this period. However, a big change was afoot; a new government had taken office in 1979 with a Prime Minister on a mission to apply some drastic surgery to the ailing British economy through privatisations of state-owned sectors, with measures to deregulate and open industry more directly to market forces, and with incentives provided to attract more investment. A key aim was to inflict a serious blow against the resistance of the working class in Britain as a whole. This was part of an international strategy of the ruling class, echoed by the policies of the Reagan administration in the US, the attacks on steelworkers' jobs in France, and so on.
The miners were first in the firing line of this planned offensive. One of the miners actually speaks of discovering, in the aftermath of the strike, that the Tory party had devised a strategy called 'The Ridley Plan' in 1977 to prepare the Thatcher government for a confrontation with the miners. It proposed “Stockpiling coal at the power stations, training a large mobile police force and recruiting 'non-union' lorry drivers to take responsibility for transporting coal” as the way of defeating the miners and strengthening the hand of the capitalist state[2].
In the face of Thatcherism's anti-working class rhetoric, the NUM in 1982 elected Arthur Scargill, a demagogic figure from the left as national leader of the NUM. So, when the government announced the closure of 20 pits in the South Yorkshire, Kent and Scottish coalfields in 1984, with the loss of 20,000 jobs, the reaction in these coalfields was to take immediate strike action, and to deploy pickets across all the coalfields. Scargill and the national leadership were quick to take a strong grip on the situation, and ordered a mass walk-out across the British coalfields. The media portrayed the situation as a battle between two ideologues: “Thatcher versus Scargill”.
Flying pickets travelled to the other non-striking coalfields and there was immediate support from some pits at the outset, but quite early on hesitations began to appear in the Midlands coalfields of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire, where pits were considered more viable and profitable, and thus not faced with immediate closure. With permission from the national leadership, the local NUMs in these areas balloted their members and a particular focus fell on the Nottinghamshire coalfield which voted against strike action; a few individual miners began to cross the picket lines, which in turn gave rise to pickets arriving from the South Yorkshire coalfields. The government had the police on standby and squadrons were deployed from all over the country. They set up roadblocks to intercept miners, arresting them and charging them if they would not turn their vehicles around and return home; as a result, many were arrested. The Yorkshire miners who got through and joined the pickets at Ollerton colliery were held back by armed cops providing a safe passage for those going in to work.
These TV documentaries show that the media at the time painted the miners as violent law-breaking thugs inflicting violence on the police! Thatcher referred to it as “the rule of the mob, against the rule of the law”. The hostile government and media propaganda was used to create further divisions in workers' ranks, while the NUM leadership was happy to continue the physical confrontations with the police and would condone physical violence against those branded “scabs” for crossing the picket lines.
The so-called “Battle of Orgreave”
Both Channels focussed a lot on events at the Orgreave coking plant in south Yorkshire. Channel 4 devoted a whole episode to it, having been given film taken by NUM officials, said not to have been seen before. Orgreave supplied coke to the Scunthorpe steelworks in Lincolnshire and the NUM leadership believed that blockading it en masse could bring a turning point in the strike. Miners from across all the coalfields were sent there to obstruct lorries entering and leaving the plant. We were told that the NUM mobilised 8,000 miners. Those who were present on the day spoke of being surprised that there were no roadblocks and there was no problem finding parking. The police totalled around 6,000. They had come for a fight, dressed with riot shields, armed with batons, dogs and horses.
It was a summer's day, 18June, three months into the strike, and the miners were in tee-shirts and casual clothes, oblivious to what was in store for them. There was the usual push and shove between police and miners, but otherwise the mood seemed light, with some stone-throwing in the direction of the heavily armed riot police. But this stone-throwing became the excuse for the full-scale attack once the miners were hemmed in. One of the programmes shows Scargill urging the miners forward, encouraging them to surge towards the police lines, after which he then got himself arrested and removed from the scene before the onslaught began.
It was a total trap. With the stage set, the sea of police lines was given the order. A pathway for the mounted police cavalry was created and they drove the horses straight into the crowds of unprepared miners. The baton-wielding foot police followed closely behind. The footage shows miners having already suffered terrible injuries being dragged across the ground by teams of cops to then be arrested. And the assault didn't stop there, as the police, including those on horses, drove the miners from the coking plant into the pit village, a deliberate strategy to be able them to charge the miners with “riot”. As one of the defence lawyers who represented the miners in court, Gareth Pierce, explained later, the charge of “riot” requires that a civilian population “is frightened” by protesters. This deliberate framing of the strikers and other lies and deceptions used in court by the police were duly exposed as fraudulent. On the day 95 miners were arrested, 55 charged with “riot”, which can come with a life sentence. The charges were dismissed in court after a 48-day trial and the South Yorkshire police were ordered to pay £425,000 compensation to the miners for assault, unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. By the end of the strike, across the whole of the British coalfields, there were 11,291 arrested and 8,392 charged with breaking the peace or obstructing the highway.
Thatcher revelled in the triumph of her well laid plan at Orgreave, continuing the lie that the miners were the ones who incited the violence. She drew a parallel between her victory in 1982 evicting the Argentinian forces from the Falkland Islands and the victory over the miners at Orgreave. For her, one was the “the enemy without” and the other “the enemy within”.
The defeat inflicted at Orgreave by the British government on the miners weakened the resolve among many miners. So, at the end of August some Yorkshire miners began to return to work for the first time. Nonetheless the strike would be dragged out for a further 6 months. Orgreave symbolised the broader trap laid by the NUM, which aimed to convince workers that the strike could be won through a war of attrition in a single sector, a total blocking of coal supplies, rather than extending the struggle to other sectors of the class.
The demand for the national ballot
In one of the TV programmes a miner in the Nottinghamshire coalfield who was an NUM representative there, strongly criticised the fact that there was no national ballot across all the UK coalfields, which he claimed would have united all the miners behind the all-out strike from the start. This lack of a ballot became a common refrain and a criticism in the media of the 'undemocratic' NUM leadership of Scargill. At the end of August when miners in Yorkshire were returning to work, it is possible that the outcome of a national ballot could have been in favour of a return to work, but this would have weakened Scargill's grip over the miners, so it was rejected by a vote of the NUM executive.
There was a subsequent challenge to the NUM's refusal to call a national ballot, not from within the union, but from the courts. In September 1984 the miners' strike was decreed illegal because of the NUM's refusal to hold a national ballot. The court seized the NUM's assets. At which point, as the programme shows, the NUM's behaviour became farcical as footage shows NUM representatives making approaches to the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, a major financier of terrorist groups like the IRA, for financial support,
Official data claims that there were 26 million strike days in the miners’ strike, the largest since the 1926 General Strike. The funds of the NUM in support of the strikers would run out quite early on and, as the law denied strikers welfare benefits, the miners were dependent on other family members or on financial support from other unions, and concerned groups and from money collected at numerous rallies and demonstrations across the country. The steelworkers’ union, the ISTC, had refused any cooperation with the NUM from the start, but donated food and other means of support in the later stages “but gave no money as they didn't want to be accused of financing the aggressive picketing”. The financial toll on those who were prepared to see it through till the bitter end, on March 3 1985, was a heavy one, leaving families burdened with debts that would take many years to pay off.
What is depicted in the documentaries is a real working class militancy expressed in the testimonies of the striking miners. The mental scars they still bear today from the barbaric violence inflicted on them by the capitalist state were clearly visible, alongside the trauma they suffered from the nauseating propaganda they were subject to in the media. Many went to prison and were denied further work in the coal industry. Deaths of miners and family members occurred. They had been led into a trap and striking workers today must learn the lessons from this. This defeat would prove to be a heavy defeat not just for the working class in the UK. Bourgeois propaganda illustrated with images of the misery inflicted on the miners, isolated from the rest of the working class over the course of a whole year, would circulate around the world and impact the working class internationally.
It is importance for the emerging new generation of militant workers to understand that the working class needs the broadest possible unity of its forces when defending its class interests. This can only occur through the self-organisation of workers' struggles, by organising their own mass meetings and elected strike committees. And that is only possible when workers are able to escape the union traps designed to reinforce division and create conflict between them and their fellow workers in the struggle to defend their living standards against the increasing attacks of the capitalist state.
Duffy 31/3/24
[1] Channel 4 devoted 3 hours to it, the BBC only one hour of TV, but also had similar documentaries in a couple of series on BBC Sounds.
[2] The stocks at power stations in October 1983 had reached 34 million tonnes.
On 27 January, the ICC held a public meeting in Madrid, in person and online, on Bilan's contribution to the struggle for the world party of the proletariat. This was not a call for discussion in a vacuum, as we were able to see that there is an interest in Bilan in the political milieu which had already been expressed on two previous occasions in Madrid.
Why are we organising a public meeting on "Bilan"?
The communist organisations of today are nothing without being fully inscribed in the critical historical continuity of the communist organisations of the past. We claim two links in this continuity: Bilan and Internationalisme[1]. As we said in the announcement of the public meeting: "the proletariat needs its world party, and to form it, when its struggles reach massive international strength, its base will be the Communist Left of which we claim to be a part [...] The public meeting we are proposing is intended to provoke a debate in order to draw up a critical assessment of Bilan's contribution, to appreciate where Bilan is fully valid, where it needs to be criticised, and where we need to go further. Its strengths, its errors, its organisational and theoretical experience are indispensable materials for the struggle of today's revolutionaries".
The critical historical continuity of Marxism
One participant opened the debate by declaring that marxism is dogmatic and immutable. For him, marxism should not take into account the evolution of the historical situation, but should remain fixed and stuck on positions affirmed from its origins. In this respect, he described himself as "sclerotic" and even "trapezoidal", and went so far as to say that only the dead change. The participants present and those who took part via the Internet put forward the following arguments against this point of view:
- In marxism there are basic positions and principles that do not and will not change: that the class struggle is the motor of history, that the class struggle of the proletariat is the only one that can lead to communism, that every mode of production, and therefore also capitalism, knows an ascendant epoch and an epoch of decadence, that the destruction of capitalism is necessary to build communism, that the constitution of a world party is indispensable for the proletariat, that marxism plays a leading role in the development of class consciousness, etc.
- However, from these foundations, which form its bedrock, marxism has developed by responding to the new problems posed by the evolution of capitalism and the class struggle, but also by correcting any errors, inadequacies or limitations associated with each historical period. This approach is fundamental in science, but it is even more vital for the proletariat which, as both an exploited and a revolutionary class, must develop its struggle for communism by working its way through innumerable errors and weaknesses, learning from its struggles and defeats, and ruthlessly criticising its mistakes. All the more so, it must develop its struggle on the basis of a full awareness that it possesses nothing other than its labour power and that, unlike the historical classes of the past, it cannot develop its project without destroying capitalism from top to bottom, as well as eradicating the roots of all exploitative societies.
- This also applies to its revolutionary organisations, which must be capable of critically analysing previous positions and their own positions. Thus, in 1872, in the light of the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels corrected the idea that the state should be taken back from the ruling class as it was, and put forward the new historical lesson that had just been so dearly won by the proletariat: the absolute necessity of destroying the previous bourgeois state. Lenin, in the April Theses, put forward the need to modify the party programme by integrating into it an understanding of the world-wide and socialist nature of the revolution and the seizure of power by the soviets.
It is seriously irresponsible to cling dogmatically to positions that are no longer valid. The social democratic parties did not want to grasp either the decadence of capitalism, or the consequences that flowed from it: the end of the possibility of wresting lasting improvements and reforms from this system of exploitation through struggle, or the nature of imperialist war, or the mass strike, etc. All of this led to the betrayal of social democracy. Trotsky's Left Opposition dogmatically clung to the unconditional defence of the programme of the first 4 congresses of the CI, which plunged it into opportunism, and never engaged in a critical approach to the revolutionary wave of 1917-1924. Finally, after Trotsky's death, Trotskyism betrayed proletarian internationalism by supporting one of the imperialist camps involved in the Second World War and thus passed into the bourgeois camp.
A proletarian organisation which is not capable of a ruthless critical evaluation of its own trajectory and that of the previous organisations of the workers' movement is condemned to perish or to betray. Bilan gives us the method of such a critical evaluation in the article "Towards a Two and Three-Quarter International" (Bilan No. 1, November 1933) in response to Trotsky's Left Opposition: "At each historical period of the formation of the proletariat as a class, the growth of the Party's objectives becomes evident. The Communist League marched with a fraction of the bourgeoisie. The First International sketched out the first class organisations of the proletariat. The Second International founded the political parties and mass trade unions of the workers. The Third International achieved the victory of the proletariat in Russia.
In each period, we shall see that the possibility of forming a party is determined on the basis of previous experience and the new problems which have arisen for the proletariat. The First International could never have been founded in collaboration with the radical bourgeoisie. The Second International could not have been founded without the notion of the need to regroup proletarian forces in class organisations. The Third International could not have been founded in collaboration with the forces acting within the proletariat which aimed to lead it not to insurrection and the seizure of power, but to the gradual reform of the capitalist state. In every epoch, the proletariat can organise itself into a class, and the party can be based on the following two elements:
1. the consciousness of the most advanced position which the proletariat must occupy, the intelligence of the new paths to be taken.
2. The growing delimitation of the forces which can act in favour of the proletarian revolution".
This work is not done by starting from scratch, by taking isolated new developments as a reference, or by examining possible errors without comparing them with previous positions. It is done on the basis of a rigorous critical examination of previous positions, seeing what is valid, what is insufficient or outdated, and what is erroneous, requiring the elaboration of a new position. One participant, attracted by the smoke and mirrors of theories on the "invariance of the communist programme", proposed adapting marxism to modern theories of human behaviour and psychology, by combining it with new scientific discoveries. However, the marxist method does not operate a "change of position", nor does it adapt to apparently new ideas, but proceeds to a development and a rigorous confrontation of reality with its own starting framework, which enriches it and takes it much further.
On the repression of the Kronstadt revolt
The participant who called himself "invariant" described the crushing of Kronstadt as a "victory of the proletariat" and justified the repression of Kronstadt by saying that the party must impose its dictatorship on the class. For us, this position is a monstrosity and we responded in the following way, with the support and active participation of several other speakers. The working class is not a shapeless mass that needs to be kicked or caned to move it forward and "liberate" it. It is clear that behind this blind defence of the repression of Kronstadt lies a totally erroneous vision of the proletarian party and its relationship with the class. The proletarian party is not, like the bourgeois parties, a candidate for state power, a state party. Its function cannot be to administer the state, which would inevitably alter its relationship with the class into a relationship of force. Instead its contribution consists in orienting it politically. By becoming an administrator of the state, the party will imperceptibly change its role and become a party of functionaries, with all that this implies in terms of a tendency towards bureaucratisation. The case of the Bolsheviks is exemplary in this respect.
According to a logical "common sense" point of view that survives in certain parts of the proletarian milieu: "the party being the most conscious part of the class, the class must trust it, so that it is the party that naturally and automatically takes power and exercises it". However, ”The communist party is a part of the class -- an organism secreted by the class in its movement, with the aim of developing the historic struggle of the class towards its ultimate victory, the radical transformation of social relations, the foundation of a society which realizes the unity of the human community:"[2]. If the party identifies itself with the state, not only does it deny the historical role of the proletariat as a whole in favour of a bourgeois conception of the direction of society, but it also denies its specific and indispensable role within the proletariat to push methodically, tooth and nail, for the development of proletarian consciousness, not in a conservative sense, but within the perspective of revolution and the transition to communism.
Moreover, Bilan, while acting with more caution and circumspection on other questions, had a very clear position in its defence of proletarian principles to firmly oppose the use of violence in the settlement of problems and disputes which may arise within our class : "There may be a circumstance in which a section of the proletariat - and we agree that it may even have been an unwitting captive of the enemy's manoeuvres - may come to fight the proletarian state. How are we to deal with this situation, starting from the question of principle that socialism cannot be imposed on the proletariat by force or violence? It would have been better to lose Kronstadt than to keep it from the geographical point of view, because, basically, such a victory could have only one result: to alter the very basis, the substance of the action led by the proletariat"[3].
The world revolution will go through many complicated episodes, but in order to defend its orientation and development, it will have to firmly defend fundamental principles in the actions of the proletariat. One of these is immutable and invariable: there can and must never be relations of violence within the working class, all the more so when acting in its name to exercise and justify repression against part of it, all the more so when this repression claims to be an attempt to defend the revolution. The crushing of Kronstadt accelerated the path towards the degeneration and defeat of the revolution in Russia and towards the destruction of the degenerating proletarian substance of the Bolshevik party.
Drawing militant conclusions from public meetings
Other very interesting and polemical discussions took place, and not only about the supposedly "invariant" positions. We insisted on the substantial difference between Bilan's organisational, theoretical and historical method and that of Trotsky's Left Opposition[4]:
- Bilan remained faithful to the principle of the struggle against the deformation of principles by bourgeois ideology. While the Left Opposition claimed that the Congresses of the CI theorised opportunism and laid the foundations for Stalinism, the left fractions criticised all these opportunist theorisations which developed from the Second Congress onwards. They waged a patient polemical struggle to try to convince the maximum number of militant forces trapped within the opportunist framework of the "tactics" of the Left Opposition.
- Bilan was capable of making a profound and rigorous critique, which enabled them to draw lessons from the erroneous positions of the CI which subsequently led the latter to betrayal, such as the united front tactic, the defence of national liberation struggles, the democratic struggle, partisan militias... enabling them to preserve the defence of revolutionary positions in the class for the future, in line with the positions defended by the Communist Left.
- Their analysis of the relationship of forces between the classes was vital in determining the function of revolutionary organisations in this period, as opposed to the "permanent influence on the masses" that the Opposition sought to gain at all costs.
There are also substantial differences between Bilan's conception and that of the German KAPD, although both fall within the framework of positions defended by the Communist Left. The KAPD, and this was its great weakness, was not based on a historical analysis, it even rejected the continuity of the revolutionary link of its positions with the October revolution and totally neglected the organisational question. In other words, it was Bilan who bequeathed us his vision of political and organisational work AS A FRACTION: "it is the fraction that makes it possible to maintain the continuity of communist intervention in the class, even in the blackest periods when that intervention encounters no immediate echo. This is demonstrated by the whole history of the Left Communist fractions. As well as Bilan, its theoretical review, the Italian Fraction also published a newspaper in Italian, Prometeo, with a bigger circulation in France than the paper of those past-masters of activism, the French Trotskyists”. [5] In the same way, the essential role of the Fraction is to lay the foundations for the construction of the future world proletarian party and to be in a position to analyse the concrete measures to be taken and the moment when it is necessary to start fighting for its direct formation.
Within the framework of work conceived as that of a fraction, as defended by Bilan, the discussion at public meetings must have a MILITANT orientation and not remain a gathering where everyone puts forward their own "opinion", without achieving any result. This was interpreted by the self-declared "sclerotic" participant as a manifestation of ICC sectarianism, a mode of discussion and recruitment on a sectarian basis and, on this pretext, he objected to the conclusions being drawn and stormed out of the meeting before hearing them, taking with him the companion with whom he had arrived[6].
A proletarian meeting must be able to draw conclusions which include a reminder of the points of agreement and the points of disagreement in the discussion, thus consciously determining where it has arrived, highlighting questions discussed on which there has been progress in clarification, and establishing a bridge towards other discussions to come. With this in mind, we tried to urged the two runaways to stay and present any disagreements they had with the conclusions. Unfortunately, we were unable to persuade them to do so, as apparently their taste for informal eclecticism was also an immovable principle!
We invite readers to continue the debate by making contributions or by attending the public meetings and events organised by the ICC.
ICC, February 2024
[1] We particularly welcomed the publication in Spanish of eleven issues of Bilan: "La continuidad histórica, una lucha indispensable y permanente para las organizaciones revolucionarias", published on the ICC’s Spanish website (2023).
[2] The Party disfigured: the Bordigist conception [88], International Review 23 and On the Party and its relationship to the class [89], International Review 36
[3] « La question de l’État », Octobre n°2 (1938).
[4] See What distinguishes revolutionaries from Trotskyism? [37], International Review 139
[5] The international communist left, 1937-52 [90], International Review 61
[6] It is clear that they have also forgotten the principle of the Communist Left to fight to the end within the proletarian milieu in order to draw as much clarity and lessons as possible. We find it very strange that they should claim continuity with Bilan, when it would have been much more coherent and productive for the struggle of our class if they had openly expressed their obvious disagreements with Bilan. Instead, they preferred to avoid confronting the arguments.
Along with increasingly dangerous military exchanges between Hezbollah and the Israeli army on the Lebanese border and the actions of the 50-odd armed groups of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces against US bases in that country, the attack by the Yemeni Houthis on international shipping through the Red Sea and the subsequent bombing of Yemen - largely restricted to American and British forces - represents a significant escalation of the wider war across the region through a multiplication of imperialist clashes . The Houthi attacks are also having an impact at the economic level, forcing ships to steer clear of the Suez Canal and go round the whole of Africa, thus greatly increasing transport costs and disrupting global commerce. The Houthis have thus become an additional factor in the irrationality and unpredictability of the Middle East conflict.
The regional forces aligned to the “Axis of Resistance” against Israel are much more diverse than Hamas, underlining the fact that while Iran is at the centre of this alignment of forces – supplying them, supporting them - it is by no means in a position of “command and control” over all of them. Considering the many differences between all these component parts, this is not a coherent “bloc” but what the bourgeoisie call a “multi-dimensional” convergence of purpose, which is really a living expression of capitalist decomposition. The fact that the groups of this “Axis” cannot possibly be bombed into submission will not stop the futile attempts to do so – as the civilian populations take the brunt of the suffering.
The Yemeni Houthis are a pure expression of capitalist decomposition...
The Houthi movement is a religious and nationalist movement that has its roots in Zaydism, one of the branches of Shiism that appears as a reaction against religious and political corruption. Enjoying a relative territorial autonomy, the Houthi region in the North joined the Royalist forces in the civil war with the Republicans during the sixties. The establishment of the independent Republic of Yemen in the seventies, with a huge political influence of Saudi Arabia, has led to the pre-eminence of the Sunnite elites of the country and a religious pressure by radical forms of Sunnism, like Wahhabism and Salafism, against Zaydism, while Houthis represent more than 30% of the population. From 2004, and activated by the Gulf War of that year, the Houthis rebelled against economic segregation and political and religious oppression by the corrupt Sunnite elites, supported by the Saudis. They made deep connections with other Shiite movements, like Hezbollah, and therefore Iran, while the official government, although adhering to the “partnership against terror”, sought support from al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) and Isis. In 2014 the Houthis began a civil war against the Saudi and western-backed government of President and head of the military, Abudrabbuh Mansur Hadi. They took the Yemeni capital Sana’a and, emphasising the fact that these are not simply Iranian proxies, they did so against the express wishes of Tehran[1]. This expressed an immediate danger for the Saudis, as the Houthis claim certain border provinces in Saudi Arabia (Najran and Asir), populated by similar Shiite tribes
In response, the Saudis, British and Americans unleashed “Operation Decisive Storm” which launched tens of thousands of air strikes deliberately aimed at civilians: schools, nurseries, public transport, hospitals, clinics, etc., in a bombing campaign that lasted 4 years. They also organised a blockade that was aimed to spread starvation and disease, a man-made famine which was very effective in killing children and spreading cholera, all contributing to many tens of thousands of deaths of Yemeni civilians. Much of this horror went unreported in the western press. With the help of Iran and Hezbollah, the Houthis replied in September 2019 with a devastating attack on the Saudi-Aramco oil fields and processing facilities in Jeddah which cut Saudi oil production by half. The result was the offer of a Saudi cease-fire.
Like Hamas, the Houthis were particularly unpopular with their populations before the latest war and the subsequent attacks on Red Sea shipping. At the end of last year there were massive demonstrations in Sana’a and other major cities, led by workers protesting over unpaid wages (Channel 4 News, 20.1.24). But the repressive apparatus of the Houthis responded. This apparatus, which was built up on the basis of the dreaded Saudi/Hadi torturers, is formidable and extensive and even includes trained female torturers (the “zainabiya” who assist in the rape and torture of both women and men - the Houthis have particularly demonised women under the guise of a crackdown on prostitution). Like the Taliban, Hamas or Hezbollah – other pure expressions of decomposition – the Houthis have fashioned their medieval ideology and adapted it to the capitalist world of imperialism and oppression.
The Middle East threatens to get out of control
Within the present tensions and war in the Middle East there is no doubt about the central role played by Iran to increase its leading role in the region. To reach this objective, it has been using its various tentacles and “allies” in order to stir up more trouble against Israel and its western backers. However, these “allies” have their own agenda, which cannot be reduced to the aims of Iran, as was highlighted by the restricted direct military support of the Mullahs to the suicidal offensive of Hamas, as a direct military confrontation with Israel and the USA would put at risk the considerable gains they have accumulated in the region over the last two decades. Within this, Iran itself is racked by the effects of the economic blockade and more globally of decomposition on its fractured society, with the heads of the Islamic Republic engaged in political infighting and facing a working class which remains militant.
Since the collapse of the bloc system in 1989 where, instead of a new millennium of “Peace, Freedom and Prosperity” promised by the ruling class, we have had three decades of austerity, war, chaos and irrationality. Rather than coherence and stable alliances, we see incoherence and every man for himself in international relations as capitalism breaks down and rots from its very roots. Thus, the situation today is much more dangerous than the Cold War when pawns and proxies were generally held in the straitjacket imposed by the major powers, and there was a certain stability and “playing by the rules” in imperialism’s Great Game. Today, that is no longer the case, and the accelerating and world-wide flight into irrationality and everyman for himself has become the dominant tendency of imperialism, so that increasingly uncontrollable escalation is everywhere on the cards.
Baboon, 15.2.24
[1] See Huffington Post 20.4.15: “Iran warned Houthis against Yemeni takeover”.
ICC Introduction
The ICC welcomes the rapid reaction by Internationalist Voice to the escalation of the war in the Middle East: analysing the attacks between Israel-Iran and putting forward an unswerving denunciation of the Israeli and Iranian bourgeoisies. IV also rejects the propaganda about the possibility of peace within decadent capitalism - the bourgeois press is talking of Iran and Israel stepping back from the brink when the threat of a wider war continues to grow.
The unconditional defence of internationalism and the rejection of all sides involved in this conflict is by far the first priority of any group claiming to defend internationalism. And IV rightly insists that only the working class struggle provides an answer to imperialism and its endless wars.
IV is also a co-signatory of the Joint Statement by the Communist Left on Ukraine and the Appeal concerning the war in Gaza, and on this occasion IV is again proving its internationalist credentials
The joint statement recognised that there would still be differences of analysis of the situation by groups of the Communist Left. These are being taken up in the Bulletins of the Communist Left where our readers can find discussion between the groups on these differences.
Against the Barbaric War of Israel and Iran. Capitalism Means War and Barbarism!
Once again, the brutality of capitalism has revealed itself in the form of military tensions. The states of Israel and Iran, widely regarded as war criminals, have turned the Middle East into a battleground for their contentious agendas and flames have engulfed the region. On 1 April 2024, Israel targeted the Iranian consulate in Damascus, resulting in the deaths of several Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and Iranian military advisers. Iran lodged a complaint with the Security Council of the den of thieves (United Nations, UN), which also refused to condemn Israel, instead urging all parties to exercise restraint.
There are speculations that Israel had intelligence on Iranian military commanders and could have killed them as soon as they arrived in Syria, but Israel needed to intensify the existing tensions, and deliberately targeted the Iranian consulate in order to force Iran to challenge Israel directly instead of acting through proxies in the region. Netanyahu’s political position both inside and outside of Israel was greatly weakened, Western countries’ support for Israel was diminished due to the unrestrained killing of civilians in Gaza and internal protests against Netanyahu again spread inside Israel. Its child-killing and civilian-butchering face emerged, and anti-Israeli demonstrations affected public opinion around the world. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, which is one of the most influential Israeli publications, described the situation in Israel just two days before Iran’s attack as follows:
“The war’s aims won’t be achieved, the hostages won’t be returned through military pressure, security won’t be restored and Israel’s international ostracism won’t end. We’ve lost. Truth must be told. The inability to admit it encapsulates everything you need to know about Israel’s individual and mass psychology. There’s a clear, sharp, predictable reality that we should begin to fathom, to process, to understand and to draw conclusions from for the future. It’s no fun to admit that we’ve lost, so we lie to ourselves.”[1] [91]
With Iran’s attack, Israel appeared as the victim again, Netanyahu stabilized his position for the time being, Israel was able to regain the backing of Western countries and the issue of a possible ceasefire was side-lined. Most importantly, Israel was able to gain the unwavering support of America again, and America directly stood up to defend Israel. The US had previously emphasized that Israel did not inform the US of the attack on the Iranian consulate.
Iran informed its neighbours about the operation 72 hours before the military operation and emphasized that the operation would be limited and controlled and would not target Israel’s economic and civilian areas. Turkey had passed this information to America and most likely America had also transferred it to Israel. In addition, Iran had sent a message to America through the Swiss embassy that if America participated in Israel’s retaliatory attack against Iran, American bases in the region would not be safe.
First, on 13 April 2024, Iran seized a cargo ship belonging to an Israeli billionaire in the Strait of Hormuz. That evening, approximately 300 drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles were targeted at Israel, most of which were launched from Iran. According to the published information, all the drones were neutralized by Jordan, France, Britain and America before reaching Israel’s airspace in Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Some of the missiles were also stopped by the aforementioned countries before they entered the Israeli airspace, which made it easier for the remaining missiles to be intercepted by the planes or the Israeli interception system. Israel claims that 99 per cent of drones and missiles were blocked and eliminated by Israeli air defence systems and other Israeli partners. According to the British Guardian newspaper, the cost of interception and neutralization could amount to approximately 1.3 billion US dollars (1.1 billion British pounds).[2] [92]
Iran’s representative in the UN declared that Iran’s operations were not offensive but legitimate defence according to the UN Charter:
“Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations said the country’s military action against Israel was based on Article 51 of the UN Charter regarding the legitimate right to self-defence and in response to the deadly Israeli attack against the Iranian consulate in Syria.”[3] [93]
Iran claimed that it targeted the Nevatim[4] [94] air base in the south and the Negev air base in the north of Israel, causing significant damage to the former and disabling it. On the other hand, Israel stated that only one air base in the south of Israel was “very superficially” damaged in the Iranian attack and that the base is operating normally, and it also published a video of a military plane landing at the same base. The states of Iran and Israel have a long history of lying and inverting facts, although Israel does it more subtly and effectively and has better war propaganda. According to the American ABC report, nine Iranian missiles hit two Israeli air bases, but did not cause major damage:
“Five ballistic missiles hit the southern Nevatim Air Base, the official said, damaging a C-130 transport plane, an unused runway and empty warehouses. Four additional ballistic missiles struck the Negev Air Base, but no significant damage was reported, he added.”[5] [95]
Certainly, such interception and neutralization would not have been possible without Israel’s partners, especially America, who had already prepared themselves for such a scenario. Through a statement, Joe Biden clearly explained how America was ready to help Israel:
“At my direction, to support the defence of Israel, the U.S. military moved aircraft and ballistic missile defence destroyers to the region over the course of the past week. Thanks to these deployments and the extraordinary skill of our service members, we helped Israel take down nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles.”[6] [96]
The chief of general staff of Iran’s armed forces also announced that the operation carried out was the extent of punishing Israel. From Iran’s point of view, the operation has ended and Iran does not intend to target the population and economic centres of Israel. In other words, Iran’s operations were controlled and Iran has no intention of escalating tensions:
“According to Iran, the operation was considered a success and further attacks on its part were not necessary, but if the Zionist regime carries out an action against the Islamic Republic either on our soil or in the centres belonging to us in Syria and elsewhere, a bigger operation will be carried out. Will be done.”[7] [97]
As mentioned, Iran has warned of any possible attack by Israel, and in this context and in line with the propaganda war, billboards installed in the streets of Tehran read in both Persian and Hebrew: “The next attack will be the end of your fake country”. CNN also reflected the threat of the commander-in-chief of the IRGC:
“We have decided to create a new equation, which is that if from now on the Zionist regime attacks our interests, assets, personalities, and citizens, anywhere, and at any point we will retaliate against them.”[8] [98]
Another important fact is that both Iran and Israel and Israel’s partners obtained the chance to test their war equipment in real combat conditions during this attack and, consequently, during the interception and neutralization and to examine the strengths and weaknesses of their war equipment.[9] [99]
The tension between Iran and Israel following Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and even before Iran’s attack on Israel has generated serious economic consequences for Iran. The Iranian stock market experienced a heavy drop of approximately 54 thousand units of the stock index, and the value of the national currency fell by approximately 22 percentage points . After Iran’s attack on Israel, we also saw a drop in stocks in Asian markets and an increase in the price of gold. In other words, the working class pays the price of these imperialist tensions with the fall in their living standards.
The war in the Middle East has increased instability in the region, and this issue is not only a blow to American influence, but also to China’s imperialist ambitions. It has already affected China’s Silk Road. Just as Russia attacked Ukraine without the advice of China and in accordance with its imperialist interests, Israel is busy razing Gaza to the ground for the same reason, to some extent outside the control of America. Israel’s policy undermines the interests of the US and its allies. However, the US and its European allies are in some way facing the situation and are forced to support Netanyahu’s policies, although they also pay a heavy price. America is trying to prevent the situation from getting out of hand and the war from spreading, and that’s why the New York Times, in an article entitled “Military Aid to Israel Cannot Be Unconditional”, demanded that the sending of American weapons to Israel be conditional. The New York Times editorials state that Israel has broken the bond of trust between the two countries, and until Israel restores this bond, the US should not provide weapons to Israel:
“The suffering of civilians in Gaza – tens of thousands dead, many of them children; hundreds of thousands homeless, many at risk of starvation — has become more than a growing number of Americans can abide. And yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his ultranationalist allies in government have defied American calls for more restraint and humanitarian help.”[10] [100]
Almost all Western countries condemned Iran’s operation against Israel and at the same time declared their support for Israel and advised Israel not to launch a retaliatory attack. Now the question of Israel’s retaliation has been raised. The US has asked Israel to inform the US of its plan before any possible response to Iran and has emphasized that it will not participate in any offensive action against Iran. CNN stated in this regard:
“President Joe Biden and senior members of his national security team, seeking to contain the risk of a wider regional war following a barrage of Iranian missiles and drones directed toward Israel, have told their counterparts the US will not participate in any offensive action against Iran, according to US officials familiar with the matter.”[11] [101]
Israel also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and requested that it should firmly condemn Iran’s aggression against Israel and declare the IRGC a terrorist organization, despite the fact that Israel had previously called the council’s decisions shameful. Of course, the Security Council meeting ended without a resolution. During the meeting, the representative for Iran called Israel the cause of instability in the region and emphasized that Iran seeks to avoid the spread of the conflict:
“Iran has no intention of conflict with America in the region. We demonstrated our commitment to peace by exercising restraint over the US military’s involvement in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles aimed at military targets in the occupied Palestinian territories. This reflects our commitment to de-escalation and avoid escalation of conflict. However, if the United States initiates military operations against Iran, its citizens, or its security and interests, the Islamic Republic will use its inherent right to respond proportionately.”[12] [102]
The fact is that the den of thieves (UN) is part of the war policy of different imperialist factions acting against each other. With the hypocrisy of the criminals, the demagoguery of the demagogues and the disgusting shows, the den of thieves, which once gave permission to carry out imperialist wars under the title of defending human rights, in the face of the massacre of approximately 37 thousand people, the majority of whom were children and women, states that nothing can be done, or silently authorizes the slaughter. Apparently, the mask of human rights has fallen and now not Israel itself, but its partners are accused of participating in genocide.
“Germany on Tuesday strongly rejected a case brought by Nicaragua at the United Nations’ top court accusing Berlin of facilitating breaches of the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law by providing arms and other support to Israel in its deadly assault on Gaza.”[13] [103]
All states, whether they appear to be pacifists, or whether they are warmongers, democrats or dictators, use the working class as cannon fodder in imperialist wars and are war criminals. The fact is that if we leave aside the propaganda of the democrats, the two criminal states of Israel and Iran have many similarities. In each one religion plays a fundamental role, and they are both ideological nations, with a long history of massacres, that have or have had thousands of prisoners, and so on. This list can be extended.
Depending on where you live or which front you are in, you will be bombarded with propaganda and the crimes of the other party are considered “war crimes”, while those of your own front are considered “legitimate defence”.
Israel claimed that Hamas intends to take advantage of the tension between Israel and Iran, so Hamas has rejected Israel’s offer and Israel will “pursue its goals in Gaza with all its might”.
Unfortunately, compared to their brothers and sisters in Iran, the Israeli working class is much more influenced by nationalism and religion, and this issue has made the Israeli working class unable to remember past struggles in its historical memory, meaning that the Israeli bourgeoisie can easily mobilize them to war. One of the reasons why the Iranian bourgeoisie does not want tensions to spread is that it knows that it will not be able to mobilize the working class to fight like it did during the Iran-Iraq war. Although the working class has not been able to straighten its back from previous defeats, nevertheless, compared to its class brothers and sisters in Israel, it has much better fighting conditions. It is the most combative battalion of the proletariat of the Middle East, which has recorded glorious battles in its historical memory.
In Iran, apart from their ideologies, pro-Western currents consider the expansion of tensions a window of hope and they hope that the military attack will bring down the mullahs and pave the way for them to come to the field. These factions have good propaganda facilities and are supported by Westerners, Arab countries and Israel in line with their imperialist interests.
The war in the Middle East is not a conflict in only one corner of the globe, but it has affected the whole world. Although all the actors involved in these imperialist goals emphasize the necessity of not expanding tensions, there is a risk that they will get out of control and turn into a regional war. These strained relations are not the product of bellicose leaders, but the result of certain conditions of the history of capitalism, and will continue in the future. Therefore, it is the duty of internationalists to defend proletarian internationalism and expose the imperialist nature of such frictions and their material background to the public and shout loudly that these are against the working class.
History has shown that the only force capable of ending the bourgeois killing machine that is war is the working class. It was the danger of the German Revolution that forced the bourgeoisie to sign the armistice. The same thing is always true. War criminals only refrain from conflict when there is the danger of the proletariat preparing themselves for the class war. Although the global working class is not in such a position today, the evolution of the class struggle can create such a future for the proletariat.
War has become a way of life for capitalism in its decadent age. Capitalism cannot provide a future, as it only spreads brutality and barbarism to more areas. It is an illusion to ask the warmongers to stop the war. The peace of the warmongers can only be a smokescreen in war-seeking capitalism. From within the peace of capitalism, only the flames of war can spread. Only the class struggle of the workers can offer an alternative to the brutality of capitalism, because the proletariat does not have a country to defend and its fight must cross national borders and develop on an international scale. Only the working class, by overthrowing capitalism on a global scale, can destroy the material basis of imperialist tensions and bring permanent peace to humanity.
Workers have no country!
Down with the imperialist war!
Long live the war between the classes!
Internationalist Voice
15 April 2024
Notes:
[1] Saying What Can’t Be Said: Israel Has Been Defeated – a Total Defeat [104]
[2] [105] The Guardian [106].
[3] [107] Iran says military action against Israel based on UN Charter’s Article 51 [108]
[4] [109] Iran claims that this is the base from which the Israeli planes took off and bombed the consulate.
[5] [110] U.S. officials told ABC News and the Wall Street Journal [111]
[6] [112] Statement from President Joe Biden on Iran’s Attacks against the State of Israel [113]
[7] [114] Financial Times [115]
[9] [118] Some of the missiles fired did not have a warhead and were intended to engage the air defence systems so that other missiles would be able to hit the targets by bypassing the air defence systems. All the drones were also sent for the same purpose and apparently Iran did not use its latest-generation missiles in this attack.
[10] The New York Times [119]
[11] [120] Biden tells Netanyahu US will not participate in any counter-strike against Iran [121]
[12] [122] Amir Saeed Irvani, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran [123]
[13] [124] The Washington Post [125]
With the publication of comrade Steinklopfer’s most recent text, and the reply that follows here, we are continuing, after some delay, the internal debate about the world situation and its perspectives which can be followed in a dossier of contributions going back to the 23rd ICC Congress in 2019[1]. The first exchange in this debate, under the heading Internal Debate in the ICC on the international situation, [47] published in August 2020, outlined the main differences between the organisation and the comrades in disagreement around the development of imperialist antagonisms and the balance of class forces, with comrade Steinklopfer discerning a marked tendency towards the formation of new imperialist blocs and towards a world war, based on a different evaluation of the defeats suffered by the working class in the 1980s and its capacity to obstruct the march towards world war. But it also touched on the underlying causes and ultimate consequences of the phase of decomposition.
In the next two texts, Explanation of the amendments by comrade Steinklopfer rejected by the Congress [46] and Reply to comrade Steinklopfer, August 2022 [43], the debate went further into our understanding of decomposition; for the organisation, the positions being developed by Steinklopfer were tending to call this theoretical concept into question, even though the comrade still claimed to be defending it. In May 2022 we published a contribution by comrade Ferdinand, who had voted for the amendments proposed by comrade Steinklopfer. The focus of this article was on the ICC’s approach to the emergence of China as a world power, and the response of the organisation, Reply to Ferdinand [45] devoted a large section responding to what Ferdinand saw as our underestimation of this undoubtedly important historic development, one which is again central to the latest contribution by Steinklopfer and our reply. In both the ICC replies, we argued that despite certain initial errors, our recognition of the historic significance of the rise of China is clear – the difference is over how we interpret this in the context of capitalism’s terminal stage.
We invite our readers to go back to these articles in order to follow the main threads of the debate, which has very concrete implications for our capacity to analyse the real dangers facing the working class and the whole of humanity, and to fully understand both the role of the working class as an alternative pole to capitalist barbarism and the function of the revolutionary organisation in the current conditions of the proletarian struggle.
********************************************************
That capitalist civilisation is on its last legs, that it increasingly threatening the very survival of humanity, is becoming more and more evident. The more intelligent factions of the ruling class already recognise this with their notion of the “poly crisis” linking pandemics, economic and ecological breakdown with the proliferation of war and military tensions[2]. For the different components of the revolutionary marxist milieu, who have been highlighting the alternative between socialism or barbarism for over a century now, the slide towards barbarism is also becoming more and more concrete. But there are considerable divergencies between the organisations of the communist left about the precise form and trajectory of this slide today, and thus about the most urgent dangers confronting the working class and humanity as a whole. The majority of these groups argue that we are seeing the formation of stable imperialist alliances or blocs dominated by an undisputed leader, and thus a definite course towards a new world war. This also implies that the ruling class now has the ability to mobilise the working class – on a world scale – to enlist in the war effort of these hypothetical contending blocs. In particular, both the organisation and comrades in disagreement accept that the overarching imperialist conflict on the planet pits the USA against its new challenger, China, and that, especially since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, there is a mounting danger of military clashes not only between secondary or tertiary imperialist states, but between the great powers themselves. We can also note that the debate has clarified certain erroneous interpretations of our application of the concept of decomposition. For example, as comrade Steinklopfer notes in his most recent text: “Another clarification is the answer it gives to my criticism that the ICC now considers the imperialist each against all to be a kind of second main explanation for capitalisms entry into decomposition. The article explains that the ICC considers this each against all to be a contributing factor and not a cause of decomposition. I have understood this now comrades, you will not hear this criticism from me again”.
Nevertheless, there are still fundamental disagreements between the two points of view, regarding the implications of the “each for himself” tendency in imperialist relations, and the capacity of the bourgeoisie to mobilise the working class for war. And as we will try to show again in this article, the positions adopted by Steinklopfer in his most recent contribution still tend to call into question the foundations of the ICC’s notion of decomposition.
The implications of the rise of China
For Steinklopfer the most important change to have emerged since 1990 is the emergence of China as a real challenger to the USA. As he puts it in his latest contribution:
“Our Theses on Decomposition were right at the time they were written. These Theses never said that the tendency towards bi-polarity (towards the regroupment of rivalries around two main leading protagonists) or towards the formation of imperialist blocs disappears. What it said, and rightly so, is that, at the time of writing, there was no country existing (and none in sight) capable of challenging the United States, and that therefore world war was no longer on the agenda. In this situation the Theses were also right to insist that, even without world war, capitalism remained tendentially condemned to eventually wipe out our species, through local wars, general chaos, the destruction of nature etc. Not surprisingly, three decades later the situation has changed. Above all because China is developing the global potential to challenge the United States. But also because Russian imperialism has regained its capacity of counter-attack (a power with many weaknesses, but which still possesses inter-continental rockets which threaten America).
The rise of China has put the question of World War back on the agenda of history. This represents, in a sense, a kind of ‘normalisation’ in relation to the history of decadent capitalism. The period after 1989, during which the ruling class was not getting ready for world war, was an exception to the rule. An exception which is now over. This does not mean that a Third World War is inevitable: throughout the Cold War, it was also on the agenda, yet it never broke out. What we can be sure of, however, is that the proletariat, humanity as a whole, and the planet will be made to pay a terrible price for the Sino-American conflict, one way or the other, whatever forms it takes”.
As we say in our update on Militarism and Decomposition (May 2022), when we analysed the possibilities for the formation of new imperialist blocs in 1990, we did not take into account the rise of China on the economic and imperialist levels. This is certainly a development of enormous significance and there is no doubt that, unlike the candidates we considered at the time (Germany and Japan), China has shown itself to be a more credible challenger to the USA’s global domination. Despite its deep divisions, all the main factions of the US bourgeoisie recognise the need to block the ascent of China and, at least since the Obama administration, have evolved a strategy of encircling China through military alliances such as AUKUS and the Quad, through mounting economic pressure – and the attempt to weaken China’s most powerful military “friend”, Russia, by surrounding the latter with NATO member-countries and pushing it to strike back in Ukraine[3]. China too has its strategy for attaining global hegemony – building up its economic strength over an extended period, broadening its commercial (and military) reach through the construction of the “New Silk Roads”, and thus preparing for the more direct imperialist confrontations of the future.
However, the reality of the “bipolarisation” between the US and China, and the real existence of these longer-term imperialist strategies, does not signify that we are now much further advanced towards the constitution of new imperialist blocs than we were in 1990. True, we now have in China a serious contender for the role of bloc leader, but at the same time, the counter-tendency of each for themselves at the level of international relations, and within the national bourgeoisies, has also grown more powerful. The unpredictability in the political life of the American ruling class is a clear sign of this. A Trump victory in the coming elections would undermine the present administration's strategy towards China by adopting a much more conciliatory attitude towards Russia, in contrast to the current US efforts to put pressure on Russia and weaken its capacity to act as a serious military ally of China; Trump would also give Israel a free hand to pursue its scorched-earth policy in the Middle East, which can only have the result of intensifying instability and barbarism throughout the region; and Trump’s “pay up or else” attitude to the NATO countries would reverse Biden’s efforts to bring NATO back into the US military fold. But even if Biden wins, this would not substantially improve the capacity of the US to impose its will on Israel or to discipline its “allies” in Europe, where powerful centrifugal forces have been gestating. If the war in Ukraine, at first sight, appeared to conform to the model of two clearly defined sides that were typical of the 1945-89 period, notably the war in the Middle East and the IS-K terrorist attack in Moscow, expressing a new threat on Russia’s Asian borders, have brought to light the truly chaotic nature of inter-imperialist conflict today.
For its part, China’s dreams of forging a solid alliance against the USA are also coming against significant obstacles. The period of its “economic miracle” is drawing to a close under the weight of a vast accumulation of debt; these economic weaknesses, together with mounting instability in the Middle East and elsewhere, are threatening the future of its entire Silk Road project; while at the same time China’s undoubted economic power makes all of its neighbours and potential allies, including Russia, extremely wary of submitting themselves to a new form of Chinese domination[4].
Of course, the more aggressively the US steps up its encirclement of China, the more China will be pushed towards lashing out, notably by invading Taiwan, and this would necessarily provoke a military response by the US, entailing risks of nuclear escalation no less and perhaps even greater than those currently inscribed in the Ukraine war. Comrade Steinklopfer welcomes the fact that the previous reply to him recognises “that the danger of uncontrolled atomic conflicts is greater than during the Cold War – and the danger continues to grow”. But for us, such uncontrolled catastrophes are profoundly embedded in the very process of every man for himself, of growing imperialist chaos, and are thus entirely compatible with the analysis of decomposition. For Steinklopfer, on the other hand, the formation of blocs and a “controlled” march towards world war doesn’t contradict the theory of decomposition:
“According to the August 2022 Reply, both Steinklopfer and Ferdinand ‘still insist that they agree with the concept of decomposition, although in our view some of their arguments call it into question’.
Which are these arguments?
The first argument cited is that Steinklopfer and Ferdinand fail to understand that the bourgeois each for himself has become a major impediment to the formation of new blocs.
Yes, I fail to understand this. The formation of imperialist blocs is itself not the diametrical opposite of each for himself, but on the contrary a product of each for himself. Blocs are one possible form taken by the struggle of each against all, since competition is inherent to capitalism. Whether this struggle of nation states against each other takes a more chaotic, unbridled form, or whether it takes the form of alliances and even blocs, depends on circumstances. Which circumstances? After 1989, the circumstances were such as to rule out the formation of new blocs, and our Theses were quite right to recognise this. The most important circumstance here was that there was only one remaining superpower, the United States, so that all the others had the overriding concern to avoid their own room for manoeuvre being cut or eliminated by this one giant. Today the circumstances are changing. If China succeeds in continuing its present ascent, so that it would become a second superpower alongside America, all the other countries will find themselves under increasing pressure to choose between Washington and Beijing (or, to put it more correctly, they will have to define for themselves which of the two powers represents the greater threat to their own interests)”.
But our position on the possibility of new blocs (developed not so much in the Theses on Decomposition but in the orientation text on militarism and decomposition, published in October 1990[5] ) did not limit itself to the truism that blocs are, in the final analysis, the product of capitalist competition, but argued that in addition to the lack of a real candidate for a new leader, the mounting disorder of the new phase was itself a counter-tendency to the formation of new blocs. In the new period, citing the fact that “the centrifugal tendencies amongst all the states as a result of the exacerbation of national antagonisms, cannot but be accentuated”. Therefore “the more the bourgeoisie's different fractions tend to tear each other apart, as the crisis sharpens their mutual competition, so the more the state must be reinforced in order to exercise its authority over them. In the same way, the more the open historic crisis ravages the world economy, so the stronger must be a bloc leader in order to contain and control the tendencies towards the dislocation of its different national components. And it is clear that in the final phase of decadence, the phase of decomposition, this phenomenon cannot but be seriously aggravated.
For all these reasons, especially the last, the reconstitution of a new pair of imperialist blocs is not only impossible for a number of years to come, but may very well never take place again: either the revolution, or the destruction of humanity will come first.
In the new historical period 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 characterized 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”.
Within a few years, as previously stated, we had concluded that, far from maintaining a minimum of order, the USA’s increasing resort to military force, above all in the Afghanistan and Iraq, had become a main factor in the extension and intensification of disorder, and that was the case well before the marked acceleration of decomposition and chaos in the 2020s.
We can add that it is surely significant that comrade Steinklopfer makes no mention of the fact that the founding event which made it possible to speak of decomposition as a qualitatively new phase in the life of capitalism was precisely the collapse of an entire imperialist bloc without a world war – a profound expression of the process of “inner disintegration”(to use the term used to define the new epoch of decadence at the Comintern’s founding Congress in 1919) which came into its own in the final phase of this epoch.
What the Theses on Decomposition make clear, and again we repeat, is that society is putrefying, falling apart at the seams, because neither class is able to offer a perspective for the future; and for the ruling class, this also implies the ability to unite society behind this perspective, as it was during the years of the counter-revolution when the working class had suffered a frontal and historic defeat. We will return to this point when we consider the situation of the world proletariat today, but first we must examine a question which further contributes to comrade’s overestimation of the bourgeoisie’s capacity to maintain its control over society: the question of ecology, the capitalist destruction of nature.
Decomposition and the growth of “destructive forces”
In the German Ideology of 1845 – when capitalism was advancing towards its zenith – Marx and Engels already foresaw that “in the development of productive forces there comes a stage when productive forces and means of intercourse are brought into being, which, under the existing relationships, only cause mischief, and are no longer productive but destructive forces (machinery and money)”. In their impatience to see the proletarian revolution, they saw this change in quality as being more or less imminent. They soon drew the lessons of the revolutions of 1848 and concluded that capitalism still had some time to go before its historic crisis would open the door to the communist revolution; but Marx in particular returned to this question towards the end of his life, in his researches into ancient communal forms and growing problems in man’s “metabolism” with nature, asking himself – faced with the need to answer the questions posed by revolutionaries in Russia – whether it would be necessary for every country to go through the fires of capitalist development, with all its destructive consequences, before a world revolution became a real possibility. Again, the effective conquest of the globe by imperialism in the last part of the 19th century showed that the process of brutal destruction of pre-capitalist forms and the plundering of natural resources was ineluctable. But this headlong race only hastened the point at which capitalism plunged into its epoch of “inner disintegration”, signalled by the outbreak of World War One, when the revolution presented itself not only as possible but as a necessity if humanity was avoiding a catastrophic regression.
Against numerous misinterpretations, the ICC has always insisted that the decadence of capitalism does not mean a halt in the development of the productive forces and can indeed include a prodigious development in certain branches of production. However, precisely because capitalism’s continued survival has been a burden on humanity’s back which grows heavier and heavier through the decades, we are more and more seeing the productive forces of capital turning into destructive forces. The most obvious expression of this change is the development of the cancer of militarism – a permanent war economy to meet the needs of near-permanent imperialist war. This is classically illustrated by the advent of nuclear weapons, in which the most profound advances in science have been marshalled to produce weapons that could easily destroy all life on Earth, a grim fulfilment of Marx’s words in his Speech at the anniversary of the People’s Paper, in April 1856: "At the same pace that mankind masters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy. Even the pure light of science seems unable to shine but on a dark background of ignorance. All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life and stultifying human life into a material force."
Another striking example: the spectacular development of computing, the internet, and artificial intelligence. Potentially a means of shortening the working day and doing away with repetitive and exhausting labour, decadent capital has seized on the computer and the internet as a means of blurring the distinction between working life and private life, of laying off huge numbers of workers, of spreading the most pernicious ideological intoxication, while the widespread use of artificial intelligence – even if its potential dangers may be deliberately exaggerated to hide more imminent dangers resulting from capitalist production - now appears not only as a threat to jobs but as a potential means for the replacement and destruction of the human species.
In the reply by comrade Steinklopfer, however, the destructive side of capitalism’s “development of the productive forces” seem to be severely underestimated. Thus, for him, the transformation of millions of peasants into workers by the Chinese economic miracle, accompanied by the frenzied urbanisation of the entire country, seems only to be a gain for the future proletarian revolution: “In the past 30 years anything up to half a billion peasants in China have been proletarianised, by far the most massive numerical development of the proletariat in the history of capitalism. Moreover, this gigantic new proletariat, to an important extent, is very skilful, educated and inventive. What a gain for the productive capacities of humanity! What a potential above all for the future!”
The world working class, in moving towards the revolution, will certainly harness the potential of these new proletarian masses. But Steinklopfer makes no mention of the fact that the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of China in the past few decades has also been a factor in the acceleration of the global ecological crisis, including the gestation of pandemics like the explosion of Covid 19[6]. As the Theses on Decomposition explain, the prolongation of capital’s life into the phase of decomposition should not at all be seen as a necessary precondition for the world proletarian revolution. On the contrary, they insist that decomposition is essentially a negative factor in the development of proletarian class consciousness, while capital’s debt-fuelled “globalisation” in the past few decades threatens above all to undermine of the natural bases for a future communist society. Once again, we think that this is further evidence that Steinklopfer, despite claiming to agree with the Theses on Decomposition, is really opposing them at the most essential level.
Further evidence of Steinklopfer’s underestimation of the ecological question can be found in this passage: “Although we certainly should not underestimate the gigantic dangers flowing from capitalism´s destructive relation with nature (of which imperialist war is an essential part), it is quite possible that bourgeois society – through its technological and other manipulations - can postpone the extinction of our species through environmental crises for the next 50 or one hundred years (at the expense of an unspeakable barbarism, for instance possible genocides against environment refugee movements”.
In this view, the destruction of nature appears to be acting somewhat “in parallel” to the drive towards war, even if the comrade recognises that imperialist war is a part of it. But what has been emphasised by the ICC, in particular since the beginning of the present decade, is the growing inter-action between the ecological crisis and imperialist war: a lucid demonstration of this is provided by the ecological cost of the current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East (rapid increase in emissions, threat of destruction of agriculture and famine, danger of nuclear and other forms of pollution, cutting back of projected “green” measures by western governments in order to pour more resources into war, etc). Simultaneously, the exhaustion of natural resources and the race to exploit remaining energy sources can only exacerbate national and thus military competition. We can also add that a number of scientific studies have shown that capitalism’s proposed “technological fixes” to climate change (such as the massive injection of sulphur dioxide into Earth’s upper atmosphere to thicken the layer of light reflecting aerosol particles artificially, or the idea of Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage – BECCS) are more than likely to exacerbate the problem in the not-so-long run[7].
The working class and the danger of war
We have already referred to the inability of the bourgeoisie to mobilise the working class of the central capitalist countries for world war. At one level, this is expressed by the continuing resistance of the working class to the bourgeoisie’s attempts to reduce living standards in the “national interest”, for which read the imperialist interests of the nation state. But the problem facing the bourgeoisie is also an ideological one. To cohere different countries around an imperialist bloc, a unifying ideological glue is needed, such as anti-fascism and the defence of democracy in the 30s and 40s. This all-encompassing “bloc ideology” was swiftly succeeded in the late 40s and over the next few decades by the fables of “anti-totalitarianism” in the West and “the defence of the socialist fatherland” in the East, although it must be said that the capacity of the ruling class in the West to switch enemies from Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia, and get away with it, would not have been possible but for the fact that the counter-revolution was still in full swing. As a unifying force, it lacked the power of anti-fascism because the influence of Stalinist ideology on the working class in the West was still strong during that period. In any case, one of the signs that the counter-revolutionary period was reaching its end in the 1960s was the tendency for the working class to detach itself from some of the main themes of bourgeois ideology. One expression of this was the development of the so-called “Vietnam syndrome” in the USA, an open admission of the inability of the ruling class to continue the direct mobilisation of proletarian youth in the name of “containing Communism”.
In the period of decomposition, it is evident that the ruling class in the central countries is seriously lacking an ideology that could serve to convince the working class that it is worthwhile and necessary to sacrifice itself on the altars of imperialist war. The “War against Terror”, designed expressly in the USA to replace anti-Communism as a justification for war, ended in the fiascos of Afghanistan and Iraq and in breeding even more forms of terrorism, such as Islamic State. It’s true that the call to defend democracy against the “autocracies” in Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is currently being taken out of mothballs, but given the extreme scepticism towards the “democratic process” in the advanced countries, there is some way to go before a new crusade for democracy could be used by the bourgeoisie to oil the wheels of the war machine; and although much of this scepticism is largely being taken in hand by the forces of populism rather than by a proletarian critique of democracy, populism itself is no more effective as a war ideology, because it is a direct product of decomposition and of the fractures in the ruling class which result from it; and it can only feed itself through further stoking these divisions, real or imaginary (culture wars, denunciation of the elites, scapegoating of immigrants etc). It lacks the “responsibility” to guide major nation states through a war effort (which doesn’t of course preclude the resort to highly “irresponsible” acts of war when it does seize the reins of government).
We could add that the potential leader of a new bloc – China – is far too dependent on ruling either through blatant repression or economic pressure while lacking the ideological strength to attract other global forces into its orbit. What bourgeois commentators like to call “Leninist capitalism” is much less effective at this level than the “socialist” and “anti-imperialist” claims of the former USSR or China itself under Mao.
These are real problems for the bourgeoisie today but they are conspicuous by their absence in Steinklopfer’s arguments.
Comrade Steinklopfer’s reply does of course address itself to the question of defeats suffered by the working class in assessing the capacity of the ruling class to go to war. He lays out his position in the second part of his reply (point 4):
“Since 1968, the proletariat has suffered a number of defeats. One of the most positive aspects of the present reply to Steinklopfer is that it more clearly recognises the reality of these defeats. It recognises both the defeat of the politicisation after 1968 and that of the loss both of class identity and of the revolutionary communist goal by the working class around 1989. And it now recognises (as Steinklopfer had previously pointed out) that the understanding of these defeats is consistent with our theory of decomposition. This represents a real step forward when you consider that, not long ago, the organisation was arguing that any talk of defeats is defeatist….
At all events, we agree on the fact that the proletariat can still recover from its present weaknesses. The defeats we are speaking of here are not part of a counter-revolution, since they were not preceded by a revolution or an attempted revolution. However, it is extremely difficult to judge the precise nature and impact of these defeats, since they are historically unprecedented. Never before did the proletariat lose its class identity and its revolutionary goal as it has presently done. All of which makes it more difficult to estimate by which means the class can recover its strength and begin to go forward again”.
In reality, the organisation did not discover the idea of defeats a couple of years ago when the previous reply to Steinklopfer was written, and if it believed that merely to talk about defeats was “defeatist”, it would have to level this accusation at itself. As we said in the previous reply, the ICC has always adhered to Rosa Luxemburg’s dictum that “revolution is the only form of ‘war’ – and this is another peculiar law of history – in which the ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of ‘defeats’” (“Order Prevails in Berlin”, 1919). In the 1980s, for example, we wrote about the serious defeat of the mass strike in Poland and of the miner’s strike in Britain. The resolution on the balance of forces between the classes from the 23rd Congress[8] clearly explains that the latter was part of a global counter-offensive of the ruling class which, along with the growing effects of decomposition on the class, explains its inability to take forward the third wave of struggles since 1968, which certainly exacerbated the enormous impact of the ideological campaigns around the collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989.
The question dividing us here is not whether or not we talk about defeats, but the nature, the quality of such defeats. For us the very notion of decomposition is founded on the argument that the class in the advanced countries, in any moment since the 1980s, had not suffered a frontal, historic defeat comparable to what it went through in the 20s, 30s and 40s. This was why we talked about a stalemate and not a victory for the bourgeoisie. This is why we are still arguing that the preconditions for the mobilisation of the class for world war remains the same. In our view, evidence for this lack of a historic defeat and the continuing capacity of the proletariat to respond to the capitalist crisis is provided by the break-through in the class struggle which has been ongoing since the struggles of the proletariat in Britain in the summer of 2022 and has not abated. Comrade Steinklopfer does not mention these historically important events in his text. It is true that this was written in September 2022, before the revival of struggles was confirmed by the outbreak of movements in other countries (notably in France), but even in the autumn of 2022 it would have been possible to have made a preliminary assessment of the movement in the UK and of the organisation’s analysis of it – most notably our insistence that these struggles marked the beginning of the recovery of the lost class identity mentioned in Steinklopfer’s reply.
(c) On the development of class consciousness
In the two parts of comrade Steinklopfer’s reply, there are two points made about the specific question of class consciousness. In the first part, he takes up our criticisms of his idea that, instead of seeing a “subterranean maturation” of class consciousness, we are actually going through a process of “subterranean regression”.
“But there is another idea in the Reply, which is that I deny the concept of subterranean maturation. This idea is based on the fact that I have spoken of a ‘subterranean regression’, by which I mean a stagnation or regression of the politicised vanguard as a whole. All of which poses a very interesting question: is subterranean maturation necessarily always a linear, accumulative process, in which no stagnation and above all no regression is possible? Why would this be the case? Because reality is constantly changing, political and theoretical work necessarily has to keep in step with developments. If they fail to do so, would this not represent a kind of regression of the subterranean development of the consciousness of the revolutionary milieu?”
To begin with, the comrade’s answer gets off on the wrong tack when it asks “is subterranean maturation always a linear, accumulative process”? We have never talked about the maturation of consciousness in the class, whether open or hidden, overground or underground, as a linear process which must always go forward. What we have said from the time we first started using this idea in the 1980s was that, even in periods where the spread of class consciousness on a general level (“consciousness in the class”), class consciousness, communist consciousness, can deepen and advance through the theoretical activities of revolutionaries, as it did in the 1930s for example through the work of the left fractions. At the same time, we have argued that such a process of maturation is not limited to the reflection and elaboration of political organisations, but can also develop on a much wider scale, above all in periods when the working class has not been crushed by the counter-revolution. In our view, we are seeing evidence of precisely such a process in the current strike movements, which are not merely a response to the immediate attacks facing the class, but the surfacing of discontent that has been building up for years (“enough is enough”), and which has also provided signs of a reappearance of working class memory, as in the references to the struggles of 1968 and 2006 in the movement in France. Alongside this, we are also seeing the appearance of more directly politicised elements searching for clear positions, notably around the problem of internationalism. Such are the fruits of a real underground growth, and it would be a serious mistake for revolutionaries to fail to notice them. Finally, while it is true that parts of the communist left are indeed “regressing” into opportunism or remain hamstrung by outdated formulae, we don’t think that the ICC itself is a victim of such stagnation or backward steps, even if the combat against the influence of the dominant ideology is necessarily a permanent one for all revolutionary organisations.
The second point relates to the connection between the different dimensions of the class struggle: economic, political and theoretical.
“My divergence is that I disagree with the organisation because it thinks that the economic struggle is the main crucible of the recovery of the class, out of which the political and theoretical development can take place. For me, on the contrary, there is no such main crucible. The proletariat can only begin to go forward when it advances on all three levels. Our expectation that politicisation in particular would develop out of the economic struggles was already disproven in the 1980s. Why should it be more successful now in the absence of class identity and a revolutionary perspective? There is not one main crucible. When the proletariat advances, it will do so concerning all three dimensions of its historic struggle: the economic, the political and the theoretical dimensions.
In fact, never in the history of the proletariat did its political organisations and the works of theory develop one-sidedly out of the economic struggle. In the 19th century the revolutionary organisations of the proletariat in Europe (such as the Chartist movement in Britain or the Social Democracy in Germany) developed out of a political break with the progressive, in some cases even revolutionary bourgeoisie, based on the recognition: our goal is not the bourgeois revolution but the proletarian revolution. The same thing happened, in a more embryonic form, already in 1525 during the Peasant War in Germany and during both the English and the French bourgeois revolutions. Today, one of the departure points will have to be the break with bourgeois reformist illusions, the recognition that the way forward really lies beyond capitalism”.
Despite affirming the unity of these three dimensions, we think that the comrade actually persists in isolating the economic from the political and theoretical aspects. The struggles of the proletariat did not remain on the purely economic level after the heady days of May-June 68 in Paris. The inevitably political side of every strike movement worth its name was already affirmed by Marx and Engels in the ascendant period, but it is even more true in the epoch of decadence where the tendency of the struggle is to come up against the power of the state. The workers of Poland in 1976 and 1980 knew this perfectly well, as did the miners in Britain in 1972,74 and 84. The problem, of course, was that the potential to take this implicit politicisation further was and continues to be hampered by the ideological domination of the bourgeoisie, actively imposed by the forces charged with keeping the class struggle under control, in particular the trade unions and left parties. But the fact remains that the need to develop a broader and deeper vision of the direction of the class struggle, linking it to the whole future of humanity, requires the stimulus of the economic crisis and the willingness of the workers to fight on their own terrain. This approach was already put forward in the concluding parts of the Theses on Decomposition, and is being confirmed once again by the present revival of class struggles, which are taking the first steps towards the recovery of class identity, finding a route through the fog of confusion created by populism, identity politics and inter-classist mobilisations. And the fight to push forward the political and theoretical dimension of these movements is the most characteristic, specific role of the revolutionary organisation. On the other hand, the tendency to separate the economic from the political dimensions of the class struggle, which we can still discern in Steinklopfer’s text, has always been the first step towards the modernist view which sees the working class being trapped in its purely economic resistance, or even fully integrated into bourgeois society. At the same time, aside from emphasising the necessity for the revolutionary organisation to develop its theoretical weapons (which no one would disagree with in itself), the full range of implications for our militant activity -defence and construction of the organisation, intervention in the class struggle – remains unexamined in the contributions of Steinklopfer and Ferdinand, and would have to be further explored in the discussion if it is to move forward.
Amos, April 2024
[1] Dossier: Internal debate on the world situation [126], ICC Online
[2] See Update of the Theses on Decomposition (2023) [127], International Review 170
[3] Steinklopfer disagrees that the USA pushed Russia into the invasion of Ukraine because such a tactic contains the risk of nuclear escalation. But such risks never inhibited the western bloc from engaging in the same strategy of encirclement and provocation against the USSR during the Cold War - a strategy which the US considered to have been a major success, since it led to the collapse of the “Evil Empire” without a global military conflict. As Steinklopfer says himself, “the world is in the hands of fools”, fully prepared to risk the future of humanity in the defence of their imperialist interests.
[4] See in particular Reply to Ferdinand [45] on how the ICC has followed the ascent and then the mounting difficulties of the Chinese economy.
[5] Orientation text: Militarism and decomposition [128], International Review 64
[6] After agreeing that the collapse of the old bloc system (itself a product of decomposition) made it possible for China to “take off” economically from the 90s onwards, Steinklopfer seems to have second thoughts: for him, our Reply argues that this means decomposition is a new “source of the development of the productive forces”. We would prefer to say that it is marked by reaching a new level in the development of the “destructive forces”.
[7] See for example the critique of proposed technological fixes in Jason Hickel, Less is More, How Degrowth will save the world, 2020. Hickel also makes cogent criticisms of the “Green New Deal” ideas of the left. But the “degrowth” theorists – including Kohei Saito’s “degrowth communism” - still remain within the horizon of capitalism, as we have shown in a recent article: Critique of Saito's "Degrowth Communism" [129]
[8] Resolution on the balance of forces between the classes (2019) [130], International Review 164
In several countries there are now significant populist parties, some of them even in government. Populist parties have a serious weight in at least a dozen parliaments in European countries, but the most critical populist events were Trump becoming US President, and Britain’s Brexit. However, we should not overlook the extension of this tendency to Latin America, with the Bolsonaro government in Brazil, or the government currently in place in Argentina headed by Javier Milei.
Governments like Milei’s have their roots in deepening economic upheaval and the rotting of the capitalist system, which is causing growing tensions within the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, and destabilising the political apparatus as a result. Governments, both left and right, promise to improve the situation, but in the end they only worsen poverty, which generates hope among the population for bourgeois groups that falsely present themselves as critics of traditional policies... At his inauguration, Milei declared that he was ushering in "a new era in Argentina, an era of peace and prosperity, an era of growth and development, an era of freedom and progress...". But only a few weeks passed before it was clear that behind these promises there was a further deterioration in wages, redundancies and repression.
Argentinean workers are not only faced with direct attacks from the government, they are also confronted with the traps that the unions and opposition parties are preparing to divert the discontent.
While Milei shouts "Long live freedom", misery and exploitation increase
In an attempt to attenuate the impact of the economic crisis, the bourgeoisie will always tend to increase the exploitation and misery of workers. This observation has been corroborated in a particularly dramatic way in the case of the Argentinean proletariat. The "anti-inflationary" shock measures imposed by Milei, in less than 100 days, triggered real hardships and desperation for workers. In the first two months of this government, wages have lost their value to such an extent that they are no longer enough to buy the basic necessities of life. Food prices have risen by 66% and medicine by 65%, leading to a fall in consumption of 37% for the former and 45% for the latter. But that's not the only thing that's become unaffordable: the price of public transport has risen by 56%, fuel by 125%, electricity by 130%... and to all this we must add massive redundancies, which have already reached a figure of between 50-60,000 and are expected to rise to 200,000 over the course of the year. The situation is so desperate that people are forced to sell their furniture on the streets.
The official references and figures for assessing the living conditions of the population point to an accelerated increase in poverty. Figures for December 2023 show that around 10,000 people were living on the streets and 44.7% of the population were below the "poverty line", but by January 2024 this had risen to 57.4%, meaning that there are already 27 million people (out of a total population of around 46 million) living in extreme poverty. And the attacks don't stop: basic teachers' salaries have been cut, retirement "adjustments" and greater "labour flexibility" are being prepared, which means dismissals without compensation, the abolition of overtime pay and, of course, the banning of strikes. Hunger and job losses are the main reasons why workers have taken to the streets. These demonstrations, although in their infancy, have expressed a great combativeness, which is why the bourgeoisie is fully committed to diverting this anger.
The left of capital reorganises to subjugate the proletariat
The parties of the left and other capitalist currents have reorganised themselves, diverting discontent towards the defence of the national economy, as the CGT did during the strike of 24 January, with the slogan "the country is not for sale"[1], or as the governors "in revolt" do, trying to reduce the problem to "the constitutional defence of the resources of the provinces", or, like the Peronist deputies, trying to concentrate the force of the discontent on the call for the impeachment of Milei. The "opposition" gave priority to nationalism, trying to ensure that the demands for jobs and higher wages, which were present in the demonstrations, were drowned out by the defence of the economy, and that all fighting spirit was trapped in the false dilemma between the "more State" policies proposed by Peronism and Milei’s "neo-liberal" or "libertarian" policies.
In this tangle of false choices for the state, the actions of Peronism stand out. After its years in government, where for decades it was responsible for implementing anti-crisis measures, it is now determined to erase the memory of its past by once again assuming the role of opposition to the government, as part of the division of tasks that all the parties carry out in the game of taking turns at government. Faced with the shock measures, people like Sergio Massa (former presidential candidate) and Peronist governors joined forces to "stand up" to the government. Above all, there was Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (former president, and vice-president of the last government) who, with her February letter “Argentina in its third debt crisis" and the governor of Buenos Aires Axel Kicillof (former economy minister in Kirchner's government) with his report at the opening of Congress in March, set the tone for the bourgeois opposition forces. Their "fiery" speeches criticising the adjustment plans focus solely on the procedural differences in the adoption of economic measures, i.e. using the chainsaw with moderation and discretion, but only to strengthen the national economy.
This brutal attack on Argentinean workers can only be carried out with a strong trade union and political apparatus and, to do this, it relies not only on Peronist organisations like the CGT and the CTA, which play an important role in presenting themselves as the organised expression of the workers' movement, but also on more "radical" or "critical" "alternatives" like the left-wing apparatus grouped within the Left Unity Front (FIT-U)[2]. The latter accuses the leaders of the opposition of being "treacherous bureaucrats", thus stimulating the hope that, for example, the CGT can be "saved" by "forcing" it to take on the leadership of the demonstrations, a role which, according to leftism, should be played by the country's largest trade unions. Of course, in these moves, we must include other "more grassroots" organisations which, like the Union of Workers of the Popular Economy (UTEP) and "Pickets Unity", called for demonstrations at the end of February to demand more money for canteens, as if the solution to wage exploitation were the management of misery and adaptation to hunger![3]
In the struggle against the brutal assaults waged by the bourgeoisie, neither the unions, nor the Peronists, nor the FIT-U parties, nor the "grassroots" and "independent" organisations are on the side of the workers; they are all instruments used by the bourgeoisie to control workers’ actions and dissipate discontent.
In this context, there are two latent dangers for Argentine workers:
- interclassism, in which actions promoted by the petty bourgeoisie dilute proletarian demands and mix them with the demands of other social strata that do not have the same interests, as happened with the “yellow jackets” in France (2018). In Argentina, these expressions were experimented with, for example, during the popular revolts of 2001, when workers left their class terrain of defending their working and living conditions.
- bourgeois mobilisations, whose objectives have nothing to do with workers' interests, such as the demonstrations for democracy in Hong Kong (2019), or the illusion of sustainable development or racial equality within capitalism, as in the case of the recurrent youth climate marches (YFC -Youth For Climate) and the "Black Lives Matter" demonstrations (2013)[4]. Conflicts over provincial resources in Argentina, for example, point in this direction.
We must avoid the trap of polarisation between for and against Milei, and more specifically between populists and anti-populists, because this is a minefield which diverts discontent and combativity from the real problem of defending the interests of the working class against capital.
In the face of capitalist poverty and exploitation, the only way out is workers' struggle.
As we said at the beginning of this government "...the bourgeoisie knows that the unity of the proletariat is the only force that can stop Milei's chainsaw, which is why it needs the left-wing apparatus and the trade union structure to get its way. These organisations are cogs in the state serving the interests of the bourgeoisie and they are already preparing to prevent the emergence of unity and solidarity among the workers. For example, the unions have already begun to present "radical" speeches against austerity, to win the sympathies of workers and to drag them into false, controlled struggles, into dead ends "[5].
The mobilisations that have taken place, as we have said, although still embryonic and controlled by the trade union and political apparatus, must be welcomed for their determination to defend their living and working conditions because, in reality, the attacks can only be stopped by workers in struggle, as demonstrated by the workers' struggles that have developed since 2022, starting in central Europe and continuing throughout Europe, the United States and other countries.
The next step must necessarily be to consider that the struggle only has a future outside the call and control of the unions and the opposition parties of the bourgeoisie. This means that workers must take control of their struggles from the outset by defining their demands and making their own decisions. "In the US, the UK, France, Spain, Greece, Australia and all the other countries, to end this organised division, to be truly united, to reach out to each other, to encourage each other, to expand our movement, we must wrest control of the struggles from the hands of the unions. These are our struggles, the struggles of the whole working class!"[6]
T/RR, 29-03-2024
[1] In continuity with this campaign, the CGT (Confederación General del Trabajo) and the CTA (Central de Trabajadores Argentinos) took part in the march on 24 March in defence of "the homeland and democracy".
[2] Composed of el Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas, el Partido Obrero, Izquierda Socialista and Movimiento Socialista de los Trabajadores
[3] For those who read Spanish we recommend reading the following articles from the ICC’s publication in Mexico on past struggles of the working class in Argentina: Movimiento piquetero en Argentina I [131] (RM no. 82) y Comedores populares: ¿Lucha contra el hambre o adaptación al hambre? [132] (RM no. 90).
[4] Report on the international class struggle to the 24th ICC Congress [133] (2021), International Review no. 167
On the back of the 800 civilians and 300 Israeli soldiers killed in the Hamas raid on Israel on October 7, a new round of barbarism has led to 150 being shot dead and 300 wounded, some with knives, by an Islamic State (IS) commando unit that attacked a rock concert on the outskirts of Moscow on March 25. In between these two tragic events, the horrors of the Israeli offensive in Gaza and the intensification of the bloody war between Russia and Ukraine has sent a constant stream of innocent people to their graves with entire towns razed to the ground. In Gaza there are now more than 32,000 predominantly civilian deaths, which includes more than 13,000 children. And the deadly combination of constant bombing, growing famine and the spread of epidemics among a population literally on its last legs will only add to the death toll. At the same time the intensification of the war in Ukraine has meant that the two-year death toll of the conflict is now alarmingly at least 500,000 deaths, without counting the civilian victims and the ruins and desolation inflicted across many parts of Ukraine, or the threat to the Russian city of Belgorod, regularly bombarded by Ukrainian artillery, and to Moscow itself and other parts of Russia.
Since the collapse of the Eastern bloc and the dissolution of the Western bloc in 1990, the wars intrinsic to decadent capitalism are no longer symptomatic of the tensions between two rival imperialist blocs and the discipline they exercise. They increasingly obey the logic of every man for himself and of generalised chaos. The current world situation provides a graphic illustration of this tendency insofar as one country, Russia, is now at war with two adversaries, namely Ukraine and the Islamic State, who have not entered into an alliance with each other.
Behind the monstrosity of the Moscow attack lies the gravity of the global situation. By inciting Russia to invade Ukraine in order to weaken it through the ensuing conflict, the United States did not wish to cause its collapse, with all the immense risks that a break-up of the Russian Federation would entail. Nonetheless, this has now become a serious risk.
Chaos on the borders of Russia
The IS, the butcher of the attack on the outskirts of Moscow, is also emblematic of the trend towards widespread chaos. Increasingly, sinister militias are taking part in imperialist conflicts, seeking to impose their rule through terror and sometimes by killing each other, nearly always under the banner of religious fundamentalism, like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah,...
The Islamic State in Khorassan (IS-K), which claimed responsibility for the attack in Moscow, is an Afghan branch of the terrorist group. It broadcast its responsibility, accompanied with a video showing its four assailants in action. There can be no doubt about the significance of this barbaric act, which is also an act of war and not without antecedents in Russia. On 31 December 2018, a building in a town in the Urals had already been bombed, killing 39 people. A few hours later, the town was the scene of an armed confrontation. IS-K had recently demonstrated its "military" capabilities, as it was behind the attack in Iran on January 3 that killed almost ninety people. Its members, who carry out particularly brutal attacks in Afghanistan against girls' schools and hospitals, are now even in open combat with the Taliban.
The rivalry between IS-K and Moscow is the result of Russia's weakening position on its borders, which has allowed the terrorist group to infiltrate the former Soviet republics of Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, from where the perpetrators of the attack originated) and certain autonomous republics of the Russian Federation itself. The rapprochement between Moscow and the Taliban is explained by Russia's need to defend its influence in the region. But for Russia it also means opening up a second military front at a time when it is exhausted in an interminable war in Ukraine.
Great problems ahead for Putin and Russia
Putin's handling of the terrorist attack in Moscow is bound to weaken his credibility. His initial reaction of attributing direct or indirect responsibility to Ukraine was grotesque, when everything pointed to IS as the culprit, with the United States having previously warned various countries, including Russia, they might be targeted by terrorist attacks. When he realised his mistake, Putin added to the farce by declaring that there was still some doubt as to who was behind the attack. It was then that the IS's claim of responsibility for the attack put the nail in Putin's coffin. He could do nothing but keep a low profile, especially as there was a precedent to support the plausibility of the warning transmitted by the American intelligence services.
Indeed, this terrorist attack could hardly have come as a surprise to the Kremlin, given that " Vladimir Putin had already expressed alarm on 15 October 2021 about 'the ambitions and strengths of the Islamic State jihadist group in Afghanistan', stressing the 'combat experience' acquired by its members in Iraq and Syria ". Putin, questioning the ability of the Afghan Taliban to defeat these armed groups, said at the time that " the leaders of the Islamic State are preparing plans to extend their influence in the countries of Central Asia and the Russian regions by stirring up ethno-religious conflicts and religious hatred ". (1) What's more, IS-K had already organised an attack on the Russian embassy in Kabul in September 2022. Putin has thus just committed a huge faux pas, which will certainly not go unnoticed at a time when he is launching a spring conscription campaign, to draft 150,000 people for compulsory military service: in short, a campaign to requisition cannon fodder for the war. This miscalculation can only undermine his authority and legitimacy in the face of his rivals.
As the war continues to weaken the Kremlin's authority, the danger of a pure and simple break-up of the Russian Federation is growing. At the forefront of the consequences of such a break-up would be the spread of the nuclear arsenal among different warlords with their own uncontrollable ambitions. It would also represent a formidable headlong rush into chaos, in the heart of a region that is particularly strategic for the world economy (raw materials, transport, etc.). So far from benefiting any one belligerent, this new hotbed of war could have dramatic consequences for an entire region of the world.
Fern, 3 April 2024
1 "Attentat près de Moscou : l'Asie centrale, nouvelle tête de pont de l'organisation État islamique", Le Monde (25 March 2024).
Since the end of 2023, the winds of war are blowing in South America. Venezuela and Guyana are taking diplomatic and military measures due to their long-standing dispute over the territory of the Essequibo[1].
Although the conflict is currently in "hibernation", it is taking place in a global context that is conducive to it exploding and escalating into a major confrontation. Indeed, since the second decade of the 21st century, new wars and armed conflicts have broken out around the world: the war in Ukraine, now in its third year; the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas that began almost six months ago, which is dragging on and accentuating the armed confrontations in several Middle Eastern countries; the escalation of conflicts in North Africa and the Sub-Saharan region, and so on.
In these conflicts, major powers such as the USA, Russia and China intervene through their policy of "appeasement" and "credit diplomacy". Second-tier countries or powers also intervene, such as Western European countries (Middle East, Africa) or Iran, which has a significant presence in several Middle Eastern countries. Each of the countries involved in the conflicts, obviously including the countries directly at war, intervenes for its own benefit, mainly geopolitical. This situation is due to the fact that, after the collapse of the Russian bloc in 1989 and the consequent weakening of the USA as the world's gendarme, a "multipolar" world has developed, in which countries of the second or third order in economic and military terms can more easily develop their own imperialist interests.
In this sense, we reaffirm what we say with regard to the conflict in the Middle East: “The current conflict has nothing to do with the old "logic" of confrontation between the USSR and the United States. On the contrary, it represents a further step in the drive of global capitalism towards chaos, the proliferation of uncontrollable convulsions and the spread of ever more conflicts.”[2]. Thus the present scenario of wars and armed conflicts between nations confirms the analysis Rosa Luxemburg put forward in 1916: “Imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.”[3]
Another macabre characteristic of the wars of this decade, in addition to their irrationality, is their "scorched earth" character with destruction and death everywhere. We see this in the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza. Therefore, we affirm that these military confrontations, together with the economic and ecological crisis, create a "whirlwind" effect that brings with it "the risk of destabilising ever larger regions of the planet, with shortages, famines, millions of displaced people, increased risks of attacks, confrontations between communities...The war in Gaza like the war in Ukraine shows that the bourgeoisie has no solution to war. It has become totally powerless to control the spiral of chaos and barbarism which capitalism is inflicting on the whole of humanity."[4]
The Guyana-Venezuela confrontation moves the imperialist chessboard in the region
The conflict between Venezuela and Guyana contains the potential elements for the development of a larger confrontation. The regime of Nicolás Maduro, through the call for a Referendum, has called for patriotic unity over the claim to the territory of the Essequibo, referring to how Venezuela has been historically usurped, first by the British Empire and then by US imperialism. The Referendum has served as a basis for creating legislation on the disputed area: a new map of Venezuela with the annexed territory, the appointment of a state authority for the region and the mobilisation of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) towards the border with Guyana. For its part, the Guyanese government is not standing idly by: President Irfaan Ali is raising flags in the area, distributing economic aid to the population that has been abandoned for years, and declaring that it will not succumb to Maduro's trickery and that it will defend its country by any means necessary.
Both countries, each with the means at their disposal, develop their own imperialist policies. In the case of Venezuela, Chávez developed an imperialist policy towards the region, using the sale of cheap oil as artillery, even challenging the USA itself. China has given it important economic support, sustained by the supply of Venezuelan oil; Russia, as a supplier of armaments, has a military presence in the country; Iran, together with radical Islamic movements of the Middle East such as Hamas and Hezbollah; Cuba also has a military and intelligence presence in the country; sectors of the leftist guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) of Colombia act openly on Venezuelan territory. This spectrum of "anti-imperialist" forces was established by Chavismo with the aim of developing an "asymmetrical war", anticipating an open confrontation with the US. Today, Maduro's government openly proposes the annexation of the disputed territory of the Essequibo.
For its part, Guyana, which plays the weaker country, has made progress in exploiting the oil resources of the disputed area, establishing economic and military alliances with the US and European countries that exploit these resources, as well as with China in the economic sphere, through Chinese consortiums that also exploit the resources of the disputed area.
A sign of the possible escalation of tensions in the region, after the Venezuelan government's decision to annex the disputed area of Esequibo became known, was when US Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured Washington's "unconditional support" for the Guyanese government and troops from the Southern Command immediately began exercises with Guyanese military forces, with the possibility of having a permanent presence in Guyana. Then, earlier this year, the British military vessel HMS Trent arrived off the coast of Guyana to conduct military exercises with the armed forces of its Commonwealth partner. The Caribbean governments grouped in CARICOM[5] have given their support to Guyana, even though they have agreements with the Venezuelan government for the supply of oil.
On the other hand, Lula intervened by positioning Brazil as a "mediator" in the conflict, declaring that "We don't want wars and conflicts, we need to build peace". However, he ordered the deployment of a military contingent in the Brazilian state of Roraima, on the border with Guyana and Venezuela. In this way, he is not only trying to maintain his status as a regional imperialist power, but is also making use of the alliance with Chavismo, which he has used in his confrontation with the US since his first government took office. For their part, Cuba and Colombia are not taking a position on the conflict, because, by positioning themselves against Maduro, there could be negative repercussions for the Cuban regime due to the economic and military agreements that exist between the two countries; and in the case of Colombia, the agreements established with the leftist government of Gustavo Petro could be affected. These are all purely geopolitical calculations of an imperialist nature.
The Maduro regime is under strong pressure, internally, due to the advance of the opposition sectors, and internationally, mainly due to the sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union. For this reason, it is not out of the question that the Chavista leadership will embark on the adventure of war against Guyana, which would open another front of war for the USA, this time in its own "backyard".
Faced with this conflict, the proletariat and the population as a whole in Venezuela and Guyana are faced with an unprecedented situation: the possibility of being dragged into a war which would not only have repercussions in these countries, but at the regional level.
Left and leftist parties: false internationalists
As in every situation of conflict between nations, the governments of the day call on the workers and the exploited masses to support and mobilise against the opposing government, accusing it of being the aggressor. The workers of Guyana and Venezuela must refuse to participate in these campaigns, which only benefit the governments that exploit them and subject them to misery. The same must be done by workers in the wider region, for if a conflict breaks out they will be called upon to support one side or the other.
The rejection must not only be against the calls of the leaders and parties of the respective governments, but also against the opponents of those governments. All of them want to drag the working and exploited masses into being cannon fodder in a conflict that is not their concern, but in the interest of the ruling class of the warring nations. In the case of Venezuela, the calls of Maduro and the PSUV[6] leaders for "national unity in defence of the homeland" must be rejected. Also the calls of the opposition parties to Chavismo, both in the country and in exile, for "the defence of Venezuela and our territory". In the case of Guyana as well, the workers and exploited of that country must oppose the calls of the government of Irfaan Ali and the entire Guyanese ruling class to defend the homeland.
Even more important is the rejection of the calls and slogans of other parties and groups of the left of capital, such as the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), as well as Trotskyist groups and organisations. The PCV criticises the Maduro government for leading the country towards "a strategic defeat of Venezuela's legitimate aspirations over the Essequibo territory and an advance in the positioning of transnational capital and the interests of the imperialist powers in the region "[7]. The Trotskyists, like the Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo, do the same, because "It has been this government that is carrying out a policy that brutally facilitates the plundering of our resources and that is a real humiliation and subordination of the country to foreign capital "[8]. They claim to defend internationalist positions, but we see how they present themselves as the best defenders of the interests of each national capital; both of them, since World War II, have mobilised the workers as cannon fodder, defending the camp of democratic imperialism and Stalinism against the fascist imperialists and, during the Cold War, calling on the workers to support and fight in favour of the countries under the orbit of the former USSR. Chavists, Stalinists and Trotskyists are of the same stock, all defenders of the capitalist system.
The slogan to defend: "The proletariat has no fatherland".
The exacerbation of tensions between Venezuela and Guyana represents a real danger for the proletariat of these countries and the whole of Latin America. If a conflict breaks out, there will be further destabilisation in the region, with its aftermath of hardship, famine, millions of displaced people to add to the 8 million Venezuelans who have emigrated due to the economic crisis and the exacerbation of tensions between Venezuela and the US since the Obama presidency. In this sense, the region has already been suffering for years from the effects of the economic crisis and the decomposition of the capitalist system at all levels: political, economic, social and environmental.
Any struggle in the defence of a state can only mean the political defeat of the proletariat, as is happening today in Ukraine and Russia, as well as in Gaza and Israel, i.e. proletarians trapped in the defence of their homeland. Against this background of the winds of war, the proletariat must make its own the slogan of the revolutionary organisations of yesterday and today: "The proletariat has no fatherland".
LB 29/3/24
[1] The Essequibo is the name of the river that runs from north to south through the territory of Guyana, a country located in the north of the subcontinent of South America, bordering Venezuela to the west and Brazil to the south. Venezuela claims as its own the territory west of the Essequibo River, which covers three-quarters of Guyana's territory, which it calls Essequiba Guiana.
[2] After Ukraine, the Middle East: capitalism’s only future is barbarism and chaos! [9], World Revolution 399
[3] The Crisis of Social Democracy, also known as the Junius Pamphlet.
[4] After Ukraine, the Middle East: capitalism’s only future is barbarism and chaos! [9], World Revolution 399
[5] The Caribbean Community
[6] The United Socialist Party of Venezuela, founded by Chavismo
International Communist Current
Online public meeting
Saturday 4 May, 2pm to 5pm UK time
The devastating world wars of the 20th century showed that capitalism as a social system had become totally obsolete. They were followed by a “Cold War” between two imperialist blocs in which proxy conflicts killed as many people as the world wars. The old bloc system fell apart in the 1990s but imperialist wars didn’t go away – they just got more chaotic and unpredictable. Of the many wars ravaging the planet today, the carnage in Ukraine and the Middle East are the clearest proofs - alongside an ecological crisis which the system can’t begin to solve - that capitalism’s decline has reached a terminal phase in which the threat to the very survival of humanity has become increasingly evident.
This meeting will discuss the historical background of the war in the Middle East and analyse the interest of the different imperialist powers involved. But it will above all seek to argue that the only possible response is the intransigent defence of internationalism against all the false responses offered by those who defend one or another form of nationalism, and against all capitalist states and governments, from Israel to Iran and Hamas, from Russia to Ukraine, from the USA to China. All of their wars are genocidal imperialist wars, and the only power on earth that can put an end to the nightmare of decomposing capitalism is the international working class.
If you want to take part in this meeting, write to us at [email protected] [22]
Find us online at www.internationalism.org [138]
In Britain, the group Lotta Comunista hides behind the “Internationalist Workers Club”, which runs food banks in London. It may at first sight look like an internationalist organisation from the tradition of the Communist left. This article argues that appearances can be deceptive.
There exists in Italy a group called Lotta Comunista (Communist Struggle) that not only claims to pass itself off as a vanguard of the working class, an internationalist group, but even to be one of the political formations belonging to the communist left, i.e. to come at least politically if not organisationally from the political current that, starting in the 1920s, opposed the degeneration of the Third International. We will see how this is completely without foundation and how LC in fact pursues very different objectives.
LC and the Communist Left
In reality, Lotta Comunista is the name of the newspaper it publishes, but the real name of this grouping is Leninist Groups of the Communist Left. LC has never explained what its political and theoretical connection to the Communist Left consists of. In its press we have never found any reference to the experiences of those minorities that in various countries, such as Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Russia, Mexico, France, clashing with the forces of capitalist repression, have tried to maintain the real thread of marxist continuity.
If LC carefully avoids any reference to the positions of the Communist Left, while continuing to bear its name, it is because the origins of this organisation are at the political antipodes of the Communist Left. They are in fact rooted in the so-called 'Resistance' to the occupation of Italy by German troops during World War II. A number of partisans, including Cervetto, Masini and Parodi, later joined the anarchist movement, forming the Proletarian Anarchist Action Groups (GAAP) in February 1951 with L'Impulso as their press organ. The GAAP founding conference, held in Genoa-Pontedecimo on 28 February 1951, is considered by LC itself to be the starting point for the whole organisation as we know it today, so much so that on 28 February 1976 a 25th anniversary commemoration event took place in Genoa-Rivarolo. In those days the city of Genoa was plastered with posters indicating the place and time of the demonstration and with the words in big letters "Lotta Comunista - 25 anni"; nothing else.
It is more than evident, therefore, that LC's reference to the Communist Left is a pure historical forgery.
LC and Marxism
For LC, marxism is something metaphysical, suspended above society, the classes and the struggle between them and not, instead, the expression of the real movement of emancipation of the proletariat. It is but a revelation, a religion - passed off as a science to be applied, detached from the reality and material situation of the proletariat in its contradictory relationship with capital. LC’s 'marxism' is merely the product of the thinking of ideologues based on philosophical speculation. To give itself some credibility, Lotta Comunista attaches the adjective 'scientific' to its elucubrations and thus believes it is saving its soul: we then have the party as the place where the science of revolution is born and lives, we have the 'scientific' revolutionary programme, 'proletarian science'. The development of this purported marxist science takes place in the brains of thinkers, albeit armed with 'revolutionary science' and not as a theory expressed by the proletariat in its movement, which is antagonistic to capitalist society. Today this immutable corpus of "marxist science" is supposedly the dowry of Lotta Comunista, which uses it to develop itself outside the oscillations of the real movement and outside the ebbs and flows of the class struggle.
LC and the analysis of society
For LC, the economic crisis does not exist; on the contrary, it is a fable invented by the bosses to attack the working class. In 1974 LC even printed a pamphlet with the significant title "But what crisis?".
Capitalism is said to be expanding thanks to whole areas and markets that capitalism has yet to conquer.
LC sticks to the statistics of the OECD or Fortune magazine or the Financial Times without any marxist interpretation. The paper, instead of being a journal of study but also of propaganda and struggle is, after the front page that could be described as a colourless, aseptic examination of the concentration of car companies, pharmaceutical firms, the mass media, with nowhere a concern for the emerging revolutionary perspective. The references to the working class in the column on workers' struggles in the world are just a photographic statistic of strike hours without any reference to the level of consciousness, the degree of combativeness, let alone autonomous organisation. After all, it is not strange: LC sees in the proletariat only a producer of surplus value, of variable capital, exactly like capital does. There is no analysis, no dynamic vision of the becoming of the class struggle and its prospects, but only a static vision, in which the proletariat is conceived as a statistical summation of atomised individuals, to be led, tomorrow, to the revolution - or what is believed to be the revolution.
LC, the class struggle and trade unions
In order to understand LC's position on the working class and the class struggle, we must refer to three different elements that combine to determine LC's conception of the problem: the 'Leninist' conception of the party, the role of the trade unions, and finally the current economic phase that apparently requires an “orderly retreat” on the part of the class. Let us try to analyse these three elements in order.
LC has a conception of consciousness and of the party according to which the proletariat is unable to develop a communist consciousness; this should instead be transmitted to it exclusively by the party, made up of bourgeois intellectuals dedicated to the revolutionary cause.
In this view, LC takes no account of the real struggles of the proletariat, but focuses mainly on the level of unionisation of the working class and its own influence within its adopted union, the 'red' CGIL. LC's argument is simple: being the revolutionary party, we have to organise and direct the working class and, to achieve this, we have to take over the union, by whatever means.
The consequence of this is that its interventions in the working class are never aimed at raising the consciousness of the proletariat, but only at gaining new political spaces to control and recruiting a few more cadres.
Finally, insofar as LC believes that the economic phase of capitalism is one of continuous growth and that it is essentially up to the working class to wait for events to mature, i.e. for capitalism to be implanted in all its glory, in 1980 this group launched the watchword of “orderly retreat”:
"... we have long since taken up the courageous Leninist watchword of gathering around the revolutionary party the conscious and healthy forces of the working class willing to fight in an orderly retreat, without zig-zags, delusions, confusions, demagogy."[1]
This implies working to dampen the aggressiveness of struggles, in order to avoid, apparently, having to suffer a “disorderly rout”. In this sense LC even goes so far as to reproach the old Italian Stalinist party, the PCI, for having gone too far on this level for mere party interests:
"As it is no coincidence that the PCI has instead gone so far as to use the trade unions to aggravate the disorderly course of workers' struggles in order to defend its own parliamentary weight in the exclusive interest of the bourgeois factions."[2]
Same criticism of the 'big union', namely the CGIL, a union of which LC dreams of being able to put itself at the head:
"Having, instead, disregarded the task we indicated at the beginning of the restructuring crisis, of organising an orderly retreat to then be able to reorganise the recovery, the big union has ended up making entrepreneurs and rulers cry not because of its strength but because of its crisis of authority and confidence."[3]
Here are the mosquitos who advise - unheeded - the union on what to do. But the latter does not listen to them and goes into crisis, making entrepreneurs and rulers cry. And why would entrepreneurs and rulers cry over the union's crisis? Because those whose moral and material authority keeps the workers chained behind the wagon of capital are failing in their job. This is how base committees[4] come into being; if, on the other hand, the union had listened to LC's advice, it would not have to contend with the base committees, i.e. the workers' tendency to break free from the union prison and start organising themselves autonomously, forcing unionism to radicalise in an attempt to better contain the workers.
All of this produces a political practice whose objective is not to foster maturation in the working class, but only the strengthening of 'party' positions on the skin of the class itself. Here is an example of this policy with profoundly negative consequences. In the first half of 1987, when the school workers organised themselves into base committees, LC peeped into a few assemblies to proclaim that the problem was not to set up a new trade union organisation, but to take the political direction of the existing ones. This meant not abandoning the CGIL but leaving the leadership of the movement to LC itself, and everything would be fine. But the school workers' movement in 1987 was a movement that was beginning to organise on a class basis, albeit with all its weaknesses. Well, given that it was sent packing, LC subsequently preferred to denigrate it publicly by calling it a “southern' movement” (due to the fact that it was more developed in southern Italy, almost as if it were a regionalist movement), a “breeding ground for future leaders of parliamentary parties”, calling instead for an extraordinary congress of the CGIL. Put simply, the CGIL had to wake up and not let the struggling school workers slip through its fingers. Here are the 'revolutionaries' at work!
LC and bourgeois institutions
LC declares itself "against all parliamentary parties" and "against the state and democracy", but then signs a press release together with the main bourgeois parties - PCI, DC, PR, DP, PSI - in which it unanimously reaffirms its "firm condemnation of terrorism and all those forces linked to it" and invites "all workers to reject the serious attack carried out by those economic and political forces that tend to destabilise democracy in our country".
As far as elections are concerned, LC declares that it does not believe in them and is abstentionist, except when abstentionism becomes too unpopular to be maintained, as in 1974 on the occasion of the referendum on the abrogation of the right to divorce, demanded by Fanfani's DC. LC then brought out an issue of its newspaper consisting of a single sheet, at half price, in which it denounced “petty-bourgeois mass-based state capitalism” and called for a 'no' vote. Of course, the whole thing was peppered with phrases like “the vote is not enough, we must continue the struggle”. In fact LC, like the extra-parliamentarians of those years, took sides for one bourgeois faction against another.
LC and the Resistance
The question of participation in imperialist war is a particularly loaded question because it acts as a watershed between the proletarian and bourgeois camps. Although LC claims to be internationalist, it appears particularly compromised on this level.
In a pamphlet of April 1975 it is explained to us that after 8 September 1943 “faced with the collapse of the bourgeoisie the first workers' nuclei spontaneously organised themselves: from strikes they moved on to armed struggle. IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE RESISTANCE! The workers go to the mountains, organise themselves clandestinely in the cities and factories. The first obstacle to the construction of the new society is the presence of the fascists and Nazis. It is against these servants of capital that the partisans must begin to fight. But the workers know well that this cannot be the goal but only an obligatory step towards socialism”[5].
This discourse is completely on a bourgeois terrain. In fact the partisan bands are groupings at the service of 'democratic' imperialism, and even the organisations that acted in the city and in the factories, the GAP and the SAP[6], although formed by workers, were totally led by the PCI and the other bourgeois parties. The revolutionaries, on the other hand, had to denounce the fact that workers had allowed themselves to be caught up in a 'people's war' in the service of imperialism in which they were not defending their own interests but those of their class enemy. It is true that in March 1943 the workers went on strike with class-based and not anti-fascist demands, but it is equally true that these strikes and those that followed were distorted and diverted into an anti-fascist function. The proletarians in German army uniforms - either because of class instincts or because of memories of workers' struggles handed down to them by their parents - in some cases sought contact with the striking workers or showed their sympathy by throwing cigarettes at them,[7] but they were confronted by the Stalinist scum of the PCI who shot at them to prevent fraternisation between proletarians regardless of nationality and language. Italian workers and proletarians in German uniforms[8] were beginning to spontaneously put proletarian internationalism into practice. LC, on the other hand, saw these proletarians - defined as Nazis tout-court - as the first enemy to be put down.
Again in the same pamphlet we read that the workers will understand that power must be taken away from the bourgeoisie "and this is what they will try to do where they will succeed in seizing power, even if only for a short time: formation of new political structures in which the power to make laws and enforce them is unified, appointing mayors and officials directly; management of the factories; direct exercise of judicial power and liquidation of the fascists"[9]. Here LC's shamelessness has no limits. They would have us believe that the National Liberation Committees (CNL), referred to in the previous passage, were proletarian bodies, when it is well known that in the CLN there were only the parties of the bourgeoisie that subjected the workers to the demands of imperialist war.
The tragedy of the Resistance is that proletarians allowed themselves to be caught up in a 'people's war' in the service of imperialism for objectives that were not their own; and it is a further misfortune that groups like LC, passing themselves off as the heirs of the Communist Left and Lenin, come to exalt the Resistance by presenting it as a failed revolution. For revolutionary communists, on the other hand, the Resistance was the culmination of counter-revolution, the blackest period of counter-revolutionary stagnation, where true internationalists had to guard against both the Gestapo and the Stalinists, often being killed by the latter.
In the 1970s, when LC's pamphlet on the Resistance came out, anti-fascism - democratic or militant - was in fashion, and LC, in order to gain militants, adapted to the times. Thus, while other groups collected signatures to outlaw the MSI[10], Lotta Comunista, like the nascent 'workers' autonomy' current, opted for action in the streets. One was for democratic anti-fascism, the other for militant anti-fascism. The result does not change: both practices go against class interests.
In other cases, against fascism, LC preferred denunciation: in a 1976 pamphlet, it complained that the MSI received 4.5 billion in public funding. LC really has a delicate stomach: let them fund the DC, the PCI and all the other parties, but not the MSI, it just doesn't go down well. Of course this would be class-based, proletarian anti-fascism, as if the proletariat's historical task was to fight against a specific form of bourgeois rule and not against the bourgeoisie as a class and its state.
LC and internationalism
Finally, one has to ask: on what does a group like LC, which came out of the Resistance and has not made any attempt to separate itself from this experience with a minimum of criticism of its past, base its internationalism? On nothing, given that, again in homage to the idea of completing the bourgeois revolution before being able to put its hand to the proletarian one, LC has set itself the task of supporting all national struggles against particular countries defined as imperialist. It has never taken on board Rosa Luxemburg's lesson that shows how in the age of capitalism's decadence all states, big or small, strong or weak, are forced to pursue an imperialist policy.
Thus LC puts forward the idea that "to actively intervene against every manifestation of the predominant imperialist force in one's own country means to place oneself in the front line of the international class struggle. To participate in every struggle that directly or indirectly affects one or all sectors of imperialism, to participate by distinguishing oneself ideologically and politically with one's own theses, watchwords, resolutions and by denouncing the unitary dialectic of imperialism". And it sets as its task "in the colonies and semi-colonies to fight imperialism by all means by supporting all those actions and initiatives of the national bourgeoisies that actually concretely go against imperialist forces, foreign or local."[11]
LC has also republished all the articles of its historical founder Cervetto[12] where it defends, among other things, both the policy of support for Korea:
"... we consider it the task of the working masses to fight so that American and Chinese troops leave Korea and the Korean people are left free to conduct their national and social emancipation by the revolutionary path alone, without Soviet or Chinese or UN interference."[13]
And in favour of African independence:
"The anti-imperialist revolt of the African peoples in no way preludes the formation of socialist society on the continent. It is a necessary stage for the rupture of imperialist domination, for the disintegration of feudal stratification, for the liberation of economic forces and energies necessary for the establishment of a national market and an industrial capitalist structure, (...). For this reason alone we support the struggle for African independence."[14]
The logical consequence is feeling obliged to pay tribute to the personalities of the bourgeoisie, who fell in the struggle fought against other bourgeoisies:
"Lumumba is a fighter of the colonial revolution on whose grave the proletariat will one day lay the red flower. We who, as marxists, have criticised and criticise his confused political actions, defend him from insults (...). Lumumba knew how to die fighting to make his country independent. We internationalists defend his nationalism against those who make their (white!) nationalism a profession."[15]
LC also has flattering words for Castroism:
"Castroism becomes revolutionary despite its origin, that is, it is forced to make a decisive break with the past"[16].
and, of course, for Vietnam:
"For those who, like us, have always supported the struggle for state unification as a process of the Vietnamese bourgeois-democratic revolution, the historical significance of the political and military victory in Hanoi transcends the contingent fact."[17]
To conclude ...
There are many other critical points in LC's remote and less remote past that should be examined, such as the coexistence for about 10 years with Raimondi's Maoist-like current (which in 1966 would merge into the M-l Federation of Italy)[18] or with a character like Seniga, who had left Togliatti and Secchia's PCI taking the party's cash box with him[19], or the policy of forming power bases, often involving episodes of physical violence against unwelcome characters or ex-militants[20].
But concretely what emerges from what we have seen is that, faced with the class struggle and the problems of internationalism, fundamentally LC never takes the right position in the class confrontation and therefore, beyond all the goodwill and even good faith that LC militants may put into their work, this is destined to produce effects exactly opposite to those necessary for the triumph of the class struggle.
Ezekiel, 6 April 2010
[1] Lotta Comunista No. 123, Nov. 1980.
[2] Idem.
[3] Parodi, Criticism of the Subaltern Trade Union, Lotta Comunista editions.
[4] Parodi, op. cit., p. 30.
[5] Viva la Resistenza operaia, pamphlet of Lotta Comunista, April 1975, page 5.
[6] Patriotic Action Groups and Patriotic Action Squads.
[7] See Roberto Battaglia, Storia della Resistenza italiana, Einaudi.
[8] We are of course talking about the German army, formed for the most part by proletarians like all armies, not the Gestapo or the SS.
[9] Viva la Resistenza operaia, pamphlet of Lotta Comunista, April 1975, p. 5.
[10] Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI), at the time a neo-fascist party later converted to ‘democracy’ under the direction of the current president of the Chamber of Deputies, Fini, with the name of Alleanza Nazionale and then merged into Berlusconi's Party of Liberties.
[11] From L'Impulso, 15 December 1954, now published in L'imperialismo unitario, p. 133, edizioni Lotta Comunista (emphasis ours).
[12] Arrigo Cervetto (1927-1995) was born in Buenos Aires to Italian emigrant parents. As a young worker in Savona he participated in the liberation with the partisans against fascism and militated in libertarian trade union organisations. He collaborated on the editorial staff of Prometeo and Azione Comunista until 1964, creating the LC group around him and working on the construction of the new 'revolutionary workers' party', founded on a 'daily work of organisation and education of the proletariat'.
[13] From Il Libertario, 13 December 1950, now published in L'imperialismo unitario, p. 70, edizioni Lotta Comunista.
[14] From Azione Comunista No. 44, 10 April 1959, now published in L'imperialismo unitario, p. 258, Lotta Comunista editions.
[15] From Azione Comunista No. 59, 25 March 1961, now published in L'imperialismo unitario, p. 326, Lotta Comunista editions.
[16] From Azione Comunista No. 54, 10 October 1960, now published in L'imperialismo unitario, p. 329, Lotta Comunista editions.
[17] From Lotta Comunista No. 57, May 1975, now published in L'imperialismo unitario, p. 1175, edizioni Lotta Comunista.
[18] The conception of the Party held by Cervetto and Lotta Comunista (Part 2) [139], ICC Online
[19] Idem.
[20] Idem.
In the space of a few months, the appalling Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip has swept away tens of thousands of lives in a furious torrent of barbarism. Innocent civilians, children and the elderly are dying in their thousands, crushed under the bombs or coldly shot by Israeli soldiers. To the horror of the bullets we must add the victims of hunger, thirst, disease and trauma... The Gaza Strip is an open-air mass grave, an immense ruin symbolising everything that capitalism now has to offer humanity. What is happening in Gaza is a monstrosity!
How can we fail to be disgusted by the cynicism of Netanyahu and his clique of religious fanatics, by the cold nihilism of the IDF's assassins? How can you not get carried away when the slightest expression of indignation is immediately branded "anti-Semitism" by low-grade editorialists and Tel Aviv propagandists? Of course, the images of the horror and the testimonies of the survivors are bloodcurdling. Even among the Israeli population, traumatised by the despicable crimes of Hamas on 7 October and subjected to the steamroller of warmongering propaganda, the indignation is palpable. Rallies in support of the Palestinians are multiplying around the world: in Paris, London and, above all, in the United States, where university campuses are the scene of particularly large-scale mobilisations.
The indignation could not be more sincere, but revolutionaries have a responsibility to say it loud and clear: these demonstrations are not remotely on a working class terrain. On the contrary, they represent a deadly trap for the proletariat!
Capitalism means war!
"Immediate ceasefire", "Peace in Palestine", "International agreement", "Two nations at peace"... Calls for "peace" have multiplied in recent weeks in demonstrations and on platforms. Some of the organisations on the left of capital (the Trotskyists, the Stalinists and all the variants of the "radical" left like La France Insoumise in France), all have the word "peace" on their lips.
It's a pure mystification! Workers must have no illusions about any so-called peace, in the Middle East or elsewhere, or about any solution from the "international community", the UN, the International Tribunal or any other den of capitalist brigands. Despite all the agreements and peace conferences, all the promises and UN resolutions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for over 70 years and is not about to end. In recent years, like all imperialist wars, this conflict has only become more violent and atrocious. With the recent atrocities of Hamas and the IDF, the barbarity has taken on an even more monstrous and delirious face, in a scorched-earth logic that goes to extremes and shows that capitalism can offer nothing but death and destruction.
So, to the question "Can there be peace in a capitalist society", our categorical answer is no! The revolutionaries of the early twentieth century had already made it clear that, since 1914, imperialist war has become the way of life of decadent capitalism, the inescapable result of its historical crisis. And because the bourgeoisie has no solution to the downward spiral of the crisis, we have to say it very clearly: chaos and destruction can only spread and increase in Gaza as in Ukraine and everywhere else in the world! The war in Gaza threatens to ignite the whole region.
Pacifism, a dead end and a preparation for war!
But beyond the impasse represented by calls for peace under the yoke of capitalism, pacifism remains a dangerous mystification for the working class. Not only has this ideology never prevented war: on the contrary, it has always prepared it. Already in 1914, Social Democracy, by posing the problem of war from the angle of pacifism, justified its participation in the conflict in the name of the struggle against the "warmongers" on the other side and the choice of the "lesser evil". It was because society had been imbued with the idea that capitalism could exist without war that the bourgeoisie was able to assimilate "German militarism", for some, and "Russian imperialism" for others, to the camp of those who wanted to undermine "peace" and who "had to be fought". Pacifism since then, from the Second World War to the war in Iraq, via the countless conflicts of the Cold War, has been nothing but a means of collaborating with this or that imperialism against the "warmongers" in order to hide the reality of the capitalist system.
The war in Gaza is no exception to this logic. Using the legitimate disgust aroused by the massacres in Gaza, the "pacifist" left calls straight out to support one side against another, that of the "Palestinian nation" victim of "Israeli colonialism", saying with its hand on its heart: "We are defending the rights of the 'Palestinian people', not Hamas". This is to quickly forget that "the rights of the Palestinian people" is nothing more than a hypocritical formula designed to conceal what must be called the State of Gaza, a devious way of defending one nation against another. A "liberated" Gaza Strip would mean nothing more than consolidating the odious regime of Hamas or any other faction of the Palestinian bourgeoisie, of all those who have never hesitated to put down in blood the slightest expression of anger, as in 2019 when Hamas, which lives like a real predator on the backs of the Gazan population, brutally repressed demonstrators exasperated by poverty. The interests of proletarians in Palestine, Israel or any other country in the world are in no way the same as those of their bourgeoisie and the terror of their state!
Trotskyism in its traditional role of recruiting sergeant
Trotskyist organisations, particularly in the universities, no longer even bother with the hypocritical verbiage of pacifism to feed the dirty war propaganda of the bourgeoisie. They shamelessly call for support for the "Hamas resistance". In the name of "national liberation struggles against imperialism" (fraudulently presented as a Bolshevik position on the national question), they seek to mobilise young people on the rotten ground of support for the Palestinian bourgeoisie, with thinly veiled hints of anti-Semitism, as we heard in the universities: "At Columbia University in New York, demonstrators were filmed chanting: 'Burn down Tel Aviv [...] Yes, Hamas, burn down Tel Aviv [...]'. ‘Yes, Hamas, we love you. We also support your rockets’. Another shouted: ‘We don't want two states, we want the whole territory’. In the same vein, some students no longer content themselves with chanting ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, they now hold up signs in Arabic. The problem is that it says 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab', meaning that there will be no Jews from the Jordan to the Mediterranean”[1]
Trotskyist organisations have a long tradition of supporting a bourgeois camp in war (Vietnam, Congo, Iraq...), first in the service of the Eastern bloc during the Cold War[2], then in favour of any expression of anti-Americanism.
However, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a leitmotif of Trotskyism's selective indignation. In the past, the "Palestinian cause" was a pretext for supporting the interests of the USSR in the region against the United States. Today, these organisations are exploiting the war in Gaza to support Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthi "rebels" against the same "American imperialism" and its Israeli ally. The claimed internationalism of Trotskyism is the International of scoundrels!
To end the war, capitalism must be overthrown
Contrary to all the lies of the left-wing parties of capital, wars are always confrontations between competing nations, between rival bourgeoisies. Always! Wars are never fought for the benefit of the exploited! On the contrary, they are the first victims.
Workers everywhere must refuse to take sides with one bourgeois camp against another. Workers' solidarity is not with Palestine or Israel, Ukraine or Russia, or any other nation! Their solidarity is reserved for their class brothers living in Israel and Palestine, in Ukraine and Russia, for the exploited of the whole world! History has shown that the only real response to the wars unleashed by capitalism is international proletarian revolution. In 1918, thanks to a huge revolutionary upsurge throughout Europe, which had begun in Russia a year earlier, the bourgeoisie was forced to stop one of the greatest butcheries in history.
Of course, today we are still a long way from that prospect. For the working class, it is difficult to imagine concrete solidarity, let alone direct opposition to the war and its horrors. However, through the unprecedented series of workers' struggles which have taken place in many countries over the last two years, in Great Britain, France, the United States and even more recently in Germany, the proletariat is showing that it is not ready to accept every sacrifice. It is perfectly capable of fighting en masse, if not directly, against war and militarism, then against the brutal attacks demanded by the bourgeoisie to feed its arsenal of death, against the consequences of war on our living conditions, against inflation and budget cuts. These struggles are the crucible in which the working class can fully reconnect with its past experiences and its methods of struggle, rediscover its identity and develop its international solidarity. It will then be able to politicise its struggle and chart a course by offering the only possible perspective and way out: the overthrow of capitalism through communist revolution.
EG, 30 April 2024
[1] “Most Jews and Palestinians want peace. Extremists, narcissists and other 'allies' only block the way", The Guardian (26 April 2024).
[2] Arguing that their respective nations (France, the UK, Italy...) had every interest in joining the bloc led by the so-called “Degenerated Workers’ State”, the USSR
The situation in a number of countries, particularly in Central America, is a monstrous caricature of how society is mired in the putrefaction of the capitalist world. The most extreme case is certainly Haiti, which is going through yet another crisis, even more tragic than the last.
Violence and brutality have intensified dramatically in recent months, and appalling living conditions have led to a mass exodus of tens of thousands of Haitians.
Since the end of February, a whole series of terrible events has taken place. Prisons have been stormed, leading to the escape of several thousand inmates, and hospitals and police stations have been attacked by gangs. The "humanitarian crisis" is worsening, food shortages and hunger are growing, and cholera has made a comeback. In 2023, 3,334 people were killed and 1,787 others kidnapped, with 1,000 deaths last January, many of them victims of the gangs that are carrying out a reign of terror; but a number were also killed during the police suppression of demonstrations against former Prime Minister Ariel Henry and his government
Criminal gangs now control 80% of the capital and the surrounding roads, as well as the port. According to the International Organisation for Migration, 362,000 people, half of them children, are currently displaced in Haiti. But in reality, these are not simply gangs, as is usually understood, but armed militias that have been recruited and set up by successive governments, most recently that of Ariel Henry, as auxiliary forces to suppress popular revolts against corruption and poverty, in addition to their mafia activities. For example, a demonstration in 2018 against the high cost of living and the voracious class in power led to the "repression of a popular mobilisation" - which called for the prosecution of ex-president Moïse, who was cleared of any wrongdoing - but which was savagely repressed in La Saline, a shantytown in Port aux Princes. On that occasion, 71 people were murdered and mutilated, women raped and bodies burned. One of the perpetrators of the massacre, Jimmy Cherizier, alias "Barbecue", owes his nickname to this vile act. A practice designed to spread terror in the cause of social order, using the grave for the benefit of the bourgeoisie and the dominant gangs. This is a practice that is widely known to the “international community” and the UN, which, apart from declarations of good intentions that still allow such a daily hell, does nothing. A UN report quoted in Le Monde clearly points to the political and criminal collusion and its breeding ground: a "situation of oligopoly over imports" and "controlled by a relatively small group of powerful families, who put their competing commercial interests above all else". The gangs, the report stresses, are "used by the political and economic elite as well as by senior civil servants", and "the siphoning off of public resources bears witness to endemic corruption", with deliberate sabotage of the judicial system. Impunity is total. But the report, which seems bold at first sight, is careful not to mention the abuses of ex-president Moise, who was assassinated in 2021, or the unpopularity of recently resigned prime minister Ariel Henry, whose record was catastrophic and who enjoyed the unconditional support of the "international community", which has hidden behind the interminable delays in the investigations...
For the people of Haiti, the first country to be freed from a colonial power, from France in 1804, this is nothing new, as they have for decades been prey to clashes between rival gangs that have reigned through terror throughout the country.
A long history of corruption and repression
Since the succession of military juntas that followed the American military occupation between 1915 and 1934, the infamous paramilitary militias of the "Tontons Macoutes" in the pay of the unshared power of the Duvalier family ("Papa Doc" and then "Baby Doc"), which emerged from these juntas between 1957 and 1986, have been followed since the "re-establishment of a democratic regime" by bloody struggles between rival gangs and clans for the conquest of power. The waves of massacres and terror unleashed by the gangs have become permanent since 2004, plunging the poorest country in the western hemisphere ever deeper into terrible poverty (more than half the population lives below the poverty line and suffers from chronic food insecurity). This situation has been exacerbated by the ravages of appalling and devastating recurrent disasters, including the 2010 earthquake which killed more than 300,000 people. The country has become one of the areas most vulnerable to particularly deadly climatic disturbances (a succession of cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes and drought), with the overwhelming majority of the population already plunged into extreme poverty and totally unhealthy living conditions, This has encouraged the return of deadly epidemics such as cholera, under the stony and complicit gaze of the guarding powers such as France, the former colonial power, and the United States, the former occupying power, which, despite everything, support the local bourgeois factions likely to provide a semblance of political stability.
Prime minister Ariel Henry resigned in response to a number of pressures, and was dropped by the United States... but also under pressure from armed gangs, one of which is led by "Barbecue", promising to escalate the civil war if he did not.
For one Haitian researcher, "Barbecue, a former policeman, is the Frankenstein [monster] who has freed himself from his master", and considers that the armed gangs "are more powerful than political power and the forces of law and order" and have finally "decided to become autonomous". In fact, it could be said that this type of alliance and abject behaviour, fascinated by wealth is a pure product of the putrefaction of capitalism as expressed in the periphery of capitalism. This provides a caricature of what the ICC means when we speak of the bourgeoisie's loss of control over its political apparatus.
Over the last forty years, Haiti's political life has been shaken by coups d'état, foreign interference, army insurrection and electoral farces, a political instability which has plunged it into the current chaos.
After the prime minister resigned, a transitional presidential council was appointed from Jamaica under the leadership of the United States to choose a new prime minister, but the gangs have already declared that they will not accept any agreement from abroad. This time the United States does not want to deploy its own forces on the ground and is relying on the promise of Kenyan police to "maintain order", but this only exists in rhetoric.
All this is first and foremost the consequence of the economic crisis and a mode of production in decomposition which has led to the incompetence of the fractions of the ruling class, tearing each other apart and fuelling tensions heightened by the political game played by the major powers. This situation, far from being unique, has similar manifestations in other parts of the world, such as Central and South America, and a growing number of countries on the African continent.
In countries already overwhelmed by poverty and decomposition, reality shows that it can always get worse. Some countries that had not yet reached this stage are now seeing the threat become clearer. This is the case, for example, in Ecuador, hitherto presented as a "haven of peace" in Latin America, where the bourgeoisie and its state apparatus are facing an accelerated process of fragmentation, finding themselves totally implicated in and compromised by the drug trade and its dominance of the national economy in the face of its competitors. Already in 2023, the spectacular rise in violence has resulted in an 800% increase in homicides compared to the previous year, i.e. 7,800 murders, affecting 46 out of every 100,000 inhabitants. Ecuador has become a hub for exports linked to drug trafficking, and its organised crime gangs are at the crossroads of various competing mafias vying for control (Mexican cartels such as Jalisco and Sinaloa, as well as Peruvian and Colombian gangs linked to the supplier country, and other mafia gangs of Albanian, Russian, Chinese and Italian origin). Since the State is already heavily plagued by corruption and is itself linked to the country's most powerful agribusiness group, which is also involved in drug trafficking, its attempt to regain national control of the drug trade resulted in an unprecedented outbreak of violence at the beginning of 2024, with clashes in the streets between the army and organised gangs, We also saw the hostage-taking of journalists from a public television channel, the escape of two gang leaders, multiple revolts in gang-held prisons and a brutal crackdown that only served to exacerbate tensions and social contradictions. For the working class, this militarisation of society has resulted in a 15% increase in VAT, which has led to a sharp rise in consumer prices. The wave of protests that followed was harshly repressed by Daniel Oboa's new government.
We could go on and on with examples of how these situations are leading to increasing gangsterisation, which is becoming more and more endemic in countries such as Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, where gangs are wreaking havoc on the population, forcing them into mass exoduses (the incessant flow of caravans of migrants trying to reach the United States by any means necessary via Mexico), and whose successive governments have been swimming in widespread corruption for years, and in Mexico itself, where gangs control entire regions of the country. The same situation has characterised East African countries such as Somalia, Sudan and Libya for years, to mention only the most obvious examples. However, this phenomenon of uncontrollable armed bands or paramilitary militias fighting for power or control of territory is also spreading to the western part of the continent, whether they are made up of mercenary troops, manipulated by one power or another, inspired by religious fanaticism (Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb etc.) or driven by mafia interests.
This is not to mention the arrival or return to power of totally irresponsible populist regimes among sections of the bourgeoisie, which are part of the same general dynamic expressing the putrefaction of the capitalist system, as is the trend towards the proliferation of indiscriminate attacks used by all sides to strike at populations, as in Moscow in March. The gangsterisation of states, instability and chaos, the growing outbreaks of murderous imperialist conflicts and the proliferation of terrorist attacks all threaten to plunge ever larger sections of humanity into a bottomless ocean of barbarism, misery, chaos and irrationality.
Such a situation is the product of the rotting of society, the pace of which is accentuated by the whirlwind of calamities that are hitting the world.
However serious and dramatic it may be, this situation, a grave threat to humanity’s future is not inevitable. There is only one solution, and that is the development of the struggle of the world working class, the only class capable of opening up the prospect of transforming social relations from top to bottom, of eradicating exploitation by overthrowing capitalism.
Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/800px-iskra_12-1900.jpg
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/content/3154/zimmerwald-1915-1917-war-revolution
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/200401/317/1903-4-birth-bolshevism
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/200404/310/1903-1904-trotsky-against-lenin
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/200407/304/1903-1904-birth-bolshevism-lenin-and-luxemburg
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/international-review/199704/2088/april-theses-1917-signpost-proletarian-revolution
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/199712/5385/lenins-state-and-revolution-striking-validation-marxism
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/090/october-1917-80-years-on
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17454/after-ukraine-middle-east-capitalisms-only-future-barbarism-and-chaos
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17421/massacres-and-wars-israel-gaza-ukraine-azerbaijan-capitalism-sows-death-how-can-we
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17428/reality-behind-bourgeois-slogans
[12] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17416/call-communist-left-down-massacres-no-support-any-imperialist-camp-no-pacifist
[13] https://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/201410/10486/bilan-and-arab-jewish-conflict-palestine
[14] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17447/ambiguities-anarchist-internationalism
[15] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17408/swp-justifies-hamas-slaughter
[16] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17414/internationalist-positions-against-war
[17] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17443/trotskyists-hear-call-imperialist-war-and-answer-ready-serve
[18] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17434/war-atrocities-used-justify-new-atrocities
[19] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17455/war-gaza-workers-have-no-country
[20] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17449/spiral-atrocities-middle-east-terrifying-reality-decomposing-capitalism
[21] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17476/houthi-movement-yemen-another-factor-extension-war-and-chaos
[22] mailto:[email protected]
[23] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17284/capitalism-leads-destruction-humanity-only-world-revolution-proletariat-can-put-end-it
[24] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17422/war-middle-east-another-step-towards-barbarism-and-global-chaos
[25] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17237/militarism-and-decomposition-may-2022
[26] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17357/report-imperialist-tensions
[27] https://antimilitarismus.noblogs.org/english/
[28] https://antimilitarismus.noblogs.org/post/2023/08/29/the-revolutionary-movement-and-the-second-world-war-interview-with-marc-chirik-1985/
[29] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17185/between-internationalism-and-defence-nation
[30] https://antimilitarismus.noblogs.org/post/2022/09/13/anarchist-antimilitarism-and-myths-about-the-war-in-ukraine/
[31] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17390/struggle-ahead-us
[32] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17396/ict-and-no-war-class-war-initiative-opportunist-bluff-which-weakens-communist-left
[33] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17183/ukraine-dossier-capitalism-war-war-capitalism
[34] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17159/joint-statement-groups-international-communist-left-about-war-ukraine
[35] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/left_opposition.jpg
[36] https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/ilo/1923-lo/ch02.htm
[37] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism
[38] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/82jrniuxwsuzvcye.jpg
[39] https://fr.internationalism.org/revolution-internationale/201312/8832/bonnets-rouges-attaque-ideologique-contre-conscience-ouvriere
[40] https://en.internationalism.org/content/16748/yellow-vests-france-inter-classist-movement-obstacle-class-struggle
[41] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17513/new-response-steinklopfer
[42] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17467/steinklopfer-response-reply-icc-august-2022
[43] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17245/reply-comrade-steinklopfer-august-2022
[44] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17181/divergences-resolution-international-situation-24th-icc-congress-explanation-minority
[45] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17274/reply-ferdinand
[46] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17190/explanation-amendments-comrade-steinklopfer-rejected-congress
[47] https://en.internationalism.org/content/16898/internal-debate-icc-international-situation
[48] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn1
[49] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn2
[50] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn3
[51] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn4
[52] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn5
[53] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn6
[54] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn7
[55] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn8
[56] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn9
[57] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn10
[58] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn11
[59] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn12
[60] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn13
[61] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftn14
[62] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref1
[63] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/feb/29b.htm
[64] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm
[65] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref2
[66] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref3
[67] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref4
[68] https://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/200412/670/pearl-harbor-twin-towers-and-machiavellianism-bourgeoisie-part-1
[69] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref5
[70] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/12/02/klox-d02.html
[71] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref6
[72] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17406/neither-israel-nor-palestine-workers-have-no-fatherland
[73] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref7
[74] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref8
[75] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref9
[76] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/13.htm
[77] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/nov/20.htm
[78] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref10
[79] https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch03.htm
[80] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref11
[81] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/16.htm
[82] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref12
[83] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref13
[84] https://d.docs.live.net/216f9113a2196845/Documents/f_Letter%20of%20Tobias%20and%20Reply.docx#_ftnref14
[85] https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/ch07.htm
[86] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/ri_1_ri_500_1.jpg
[87] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/orgreave.jpg
[88] https://en.internationalism.org/content/2758/party-disfigured-bordigist-conception
[89] https://en.internationalism.org/content/3131/party-and-its-relationship-class
[90] https://en.internationalism.org/content/3202/international-communist-left-1937-52
[91] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn1
[92] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn2
[93] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn3
[94] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn4
[95] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn5
[96] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn6
[97] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn7
[98] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn8
[99] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn9
[100] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn10
[101] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn11
[102] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn12
[103] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftn13
[104] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-11/ty-article-magazine/.premium/saying-what-cant-be-said-israel-has-been-defeated-a-total-defeat/0000018e-cdab-dba9-a78e-efef6ba10000
[105] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref2
[106] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/how-irans-attack-on-israel-was-stopped
[107] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref3
[108] https://english.news.cn/20240414/e3a5f12abb7f4ff398207b5db2cdb0ee/c.html#:~:text=TEHRAN%2C%20April%2014%20(Xinhua),in%20Syria%2C%20the%20official%20news
[109] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref4
[110] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref5
[111] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-15/ty-article/u-s-sources-half-of-iranian-ballistic-missiles-failed-idf-aircraft-damaged/0000018e-e0d0-d7e5-a1fe-e7d1bf3a0000
[112] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref6
[113] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/13/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-irans-attacks-against-the-state-of-israel/
[114] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref7
[115] https://www.ft.com/content/1b9b50dd-a0a5-4fd7-8c3b-a15bae40dba9
[116] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref8
[117] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/14/middleeast/israel-iran-attack-response-intl/index.html
[118] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref9
[119] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/13/opinion/israel-military-aid.html
[120] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref11
[121] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/biden-netanyahu-israel-iran-response/index.html
[122] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref12
[123] https://en.webangah.ir/2024-04-14/news=99474/
[124] https://en.internationalistvoice.org/against-the-barbarian-war-of-israel-and-iran-capitalism-means-war-and-barbarism/#_ftnref13
[125] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/09/israel-gaza-nicaragua-germany-genocide-court/942e26e4-f655-11ee-9506-c8544e5c9d86_story.html
[126] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17468/dossier-internal-debate-world-situation
[127] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17377/update-theses-decomposition-2023
[128] https://en.internationalism.org/content/3336/orientation-text-militarism-and-decomposition
[129] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17488/critique-saitos-degrowth-communism
[130] https://en.internationalism.org/content/16703/resolution-balance-forces-between-classes-2019
[131] https://es.internationalism.org/rm/2004/82_piqueteros1.html
[132] https://es.internationalism.org/cci-online/200511/261/comedores-populares-lucha-contra-el-hambre-o-adaptacion-al-hambre
[133] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17054/report-international-class-struggle-24th-icc-congress
[134] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17458/milei-takes-his-chainsaw-argentine-working-class
[135] https://en.internationalism.org/content/17412/strikes-and-demonstrations-united-states-spain-greece-france-how-can-we-develop-and
[136] https://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n388252.html#google_vignette
[137] https://www.laizquierdadiario.com.ve/Unidad-de-los-trabajadores-y-pueblos-de-Venezuela-y-Guyana-no-a-la-confrontacion-tras-intereses-que
[138] http://www.internationalism.org/
[139] https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/lotta2
[140] https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/haiti_gangs.jpg