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If Marx is presented as a daring and somewhat subversive philosopher, whose supposedly outdated contributions nevertheless enabled capitalism to avoid its worst failings, the same cannot be said of Lenin.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. 

A collection of articles illuminating the origins of and current conflict in the Middle East

Neither Israel nor Palestine: After Ukraine, the Middle East: capitalism’s only future is barbarism and chaos! [9]

Massacres and wars in Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Azerbaijan... Capitalism sows death! How can we stop it? (international leaflet) [10]

The reality behind the bourgeois slogans [11]

Call from the communist left: down with the massacres, no support to any imperialist camp! No to pacifist illusions! For proletarian internationalism! [12]

Position of the internationalists in the 1930s: Bilan & the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine [13]

War in the Middle East: The ambiguities of anarchist internationalism [14]

The SWP justifies Hamas slaughter [15]

Internationalist positions against the war [16]

Middle East war: The Trotskyists hear the call to imperialist war, and answer: ready to serve! [17]

Capitalist barbarism: War atrocities used to justify… new atrocities [18]

War in Gaza: workers have no country! [19]

Spiral of atrocities in the Middle East: the terrifying reality of decomposing capitalism [20]

War across the Middle East, The Houthi movement in Yemen: another factor in the extension of war and chaos [21]

Leftist support for Palestinian nationalism is a dose of capitalist poison – don’t swallow it [22]

The ambiguities of internationalist anarchism The ACG takes another step towards supporting the nationalist war campaign [23]

Reader's letter Support for “Free Palestine” means support for imperialist war [24]

War in the Middle East: The obsolete theoretical framework of the Bordigist groups [25]

More than a century of conflict in Israel/Palestine [26]

War in Ukraine and the Middle East: Two expressions of the horror and irrational madness of capitalism! [27]

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] [124]

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

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 [129] », 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 [131]: 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 [132]: 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 [133]: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) [134]: 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 [135]: 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 [136]: 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: [137]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.

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

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

Democracy is still an effective means of deception, as Lenin and Bordiga wrote more than 100 years ago:

“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”)

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

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

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

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, [137] 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 [136] and Reply to comrade Steinklopfer, August 2022 [133], 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 [135] 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

1. The question of “bloc ideologies”

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.

1. Once again on the question of defeats

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

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

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

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] [124]

Find us online at www.internationalism.org [155]

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) [156], 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

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.

The party of Le Pen had not yet consummated its triumph in the European elections when President Macron announced the dissolution of the National Assembly and the calling of legislative elections in its wake. Rumours of a dissolution had been circulating for several weeks, but the news did not fail to worry European chancelleries against a backdrop of rising populism in Europe and around the world. After Orbán in Hungary and Meloni in Italy, with the far right at its height in Germany and the clown Farage poised to torpedo the Conservative Party in the UK, Macron, like a poker player, has thrown down his cards, offering the Rassemblement National (RN) an opportunity to come to power in France.

The Rassemblement National, a pure product of the crisis of capitalism

With the prospect of a populist government looming, the RN has been quick to shelve its "social" rhetoric and its most radical positions on Europe in an attempt to reassure the state apparatus, employers and "European partners". But Bardella's government will not waver in its attacks on our living conditions!

But that won't be enough to ward off the crass amateurism of the RN cadres, the racist and ultra-reactionary outrages of this party founded by the dregs of the far right, the risk of outbreaks of violence once the result is known[1], and the political instability that will take hold of the country for a long time to come. All the more so as the populist factions of the bourgeoisie have not only repeatedly proved themselves incapable of effectively defending national capital (like Trump in the United States or the Brexit supporters in Great Britain), but are also particularly unsuited to skilfully driving through "reforms" against the working class. For the bourgeoisie, the RN in power will represent a considerable acceleration of social chaos and a shock wave weakening France, and consequently Europe, in the global arena.

The surge in populism around the world is not therefore the product of well-orchestrated manoeuvres by the bourgeoisie against the working class,[2] even if the left-wing parties repeatedly claim that the "bourgeois bloc" would rather throw itself into the arms of the far right than allow the left to come to power. In reality, in the United States as in Europe, populism is above all a pure product of the profound decomposition of capitalist society.

The contradictions of the system have reached such an inextricable point that the bourgeoisie is now incapable of coping with the crisis and the growing chaos: widespread insecurity and mass unemployment, war on every continent, repeated environmental and industrial disasters, millions of migrants thrown onto the roads, the collapse of health and education systems, the continuing deterioration of working conditions, despair, fear of the future... In the eyes of everyone, the ruling class no longer has the slightest prospect to offer society, apart from trying to "save the furniture" from day to day. It is in this context of crisis and "save what you can” that populism has thrived, promoting its nauseating and irrational ideology, singling out scapegoats and encouraging a retreat into national and racial “identities”[3].

The 'radical' or 'moderate' left is still the bourgeoisie

So the question arises: should we go out and vote to block the way to the RN's shameless racism, its outspoken authoritarianism and its promises of all-out attacks on the working class, particularly proletarians from immigrant backgrounds? Whether Macron succeeds in his gamble, whether the RN or the "New Popular Front" (NFP) win the elections, or whether no majority emerges, the crisis of capitalism will not go away. Whichever bourgeois clique is in power, left or right, radical or moderate, it will only accentuate the attacks on our living conditions. The proletariat has nothing to defend and nothing to gain by taking part in the electoral circus!

The NFP claims to have a programme for a "break with the past", but this coalition will do what the left has always done for a century and in every country: defend the interests of national capital and make the exploited pay for the crisis. The left, even when it claims to be "radical", has always been the wing of the bourgeoisie whose role is to control and mystify the working class. In Greece, Tsípras and his “radical left” government pursued the worst austerity policies for over three years. The Spanish "radical" left, hand in hand with the PSOE, has relentlessly attacked the living conditions of workers, the unemployed, pensioners... Mélenchon, the former apparatchik of the Socialist Party, and his clique of repentant Stalinists, are no exception to the rule. What's more, the NFP has already promised to contribute to the massacre in Ukraine by sending billions of euros worth of arms and munitions. Like Macron or Léon Blum's Front Populaire, tomorrow they will be demanding "sacrifices" to finance the war and France's sordid imperialist interests!

There should also be no illusions about the fate of refugees with the left in power: they will mercilessly hunt down migrants and leave them to languish in detention camps or drown by the thousands in the Mediterranean, as they have always done! If the Greek navy is now at the cutting edge of ignominy, it owes it in particular to the work of the "radical" Tsípras (him again!), who did not hesitate to sign despicable migration agreements with Turkey and was a zealous architect of the veritable "death camp" that was Mória. Do we still need to document the anti-refugee hysteria of the Socialist Party in France or the thinly veiled xenophobia of the French Communist Party under Marchais or Roussel? Is it necessary to recall the abominable 'migration policy' of the left in Spain? Racism and xenophobia, anti-migrant barbed wire and detention camps are far from being the prerogative of the far right alone!

"Anti-fascism", a weapon of war against the working class

As in Germany with the recent demonstrations against the AfD, the French left and trade unions have tried to replay the democratic mobilisations of 2002, when the FN made it to the second round of the presidential election. Then we were also told that we had no choice but to mobilise, not as workers in struggle, but at the ballot box, as "citizens", to defend "democracy" and block the road to "fascism"[4].

The tearful evocation of the 1936 "Popular Front" is fully in line with this propaganda campaign. Because the Popular Front, today as in the past, is the very negation of the proletariat. After the defeat of the revolutionary wave that began in Russia in 1917, the proletariat as a whole was defeated. In Germany, the revolution of 1918-1919 was crushed in bloodshed. The Stalinist counter-revolution mowed down the revolutionaries and totally disorientated the working class. It was on the ashes of defeat that the French bourgeoisie pushed Léon Blum and his coalition to power with the aim of preparing for war. And it was in the name of defending democracy that the Popular Front (which was already locking up Spanish refugees in open-air concentration camps) chained millions of proletarians to the flag of anti-fascism, militarising factories and preparing minds for massacre. Its "work" led millions of workers to their graves during the Second World War for a cause - the defence of the nation - that was not their own[5].

The historical situation has changed a lot since then: the proletariat is not defeated and is not ready to get its skin punctured in defence of the national flag. Quite the contrary! Faced with the "sacrifices" demanded by the war economy and international competition, the proletariat is raising its head. For two years, massive struggles have been multiplying: in the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Germany, Canada, Finland... Everywhere, the proletariat is fighting back and beginning to rediscover its fighting spirit, its reflexes of solidarity, its class identity.

Today, the threat posed to the proletariat by anti-fascist propaganda is not mass recruitment into the war, but the loss of its reborn class identity, which is the precondition for its unity and its ability to rediscover the road to revolution, to the destruction of the bourgeois state, whether "democratic" or "authoritarian".

It's for this reason that the bourgeoisie has been quick to discredit "the workers", allegedly reactionary and xenophobic, who are supposed to vote massively for the RN[6]. This odious lie has no other objective than to divide the proletariat and hammer home the idea that the working class has no future.

But the bourgeoisie can also count on its new instrument of mystification, the New Popular Front, to sow illusions about "democracy" and elections, about the "redistribution of wealth", about a capitalism that is more "ecological", more "inclusive", more "just"... Under the windows of the offices where the bosses of the NFP were meeting to divide up the constituencies, demonstrators, still a little suspicious of these fine promises, chanted: "Don't betray us! The only thing that this so-called Popular Front will not betray is their class: the bourgeoisie!

The future of society will not be decided at the ballot box, but through the struggle of the proletariat. The only way to fight populism and the far right is to fight against capitalism, against the bourgeois state and its democracy, against all governments. Right or left, "authoritarian" or "democratic", "retrograde" or "humanist", the bourgeoisie has only one programme: ever more misery and insecurity, war and barbarism!

EG, 21 June 2024

ICC Introduction

We are publishing two letters sent to us by close sympathisers who took part in an ICC meeting with US contacts, focused on the upcoming US elections and the growing divisions within the US ruling class. We fully endorse what the comrades say regarding

• the need for communists to denounce the mystification of capitalist elections, which can offer no real “choice” faced with a global system heading towards destruction. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have anything to offer the working class except more intense exploitation and rising levels of poverty, above all given the necessity for US capitalism to militarise its economy more and more;
• the rejection of the argument, mainly from the liberals and the left, that voting in these elections is vital in order to defend democracy against the threat posed by Trump and his followers. As the letter from B points out, Trump’s populism has in many ways given an enormous boost to the whole lie of democracy;
• the understanding that, when it comes to imperialist strategy, all factions of the American bourgeoisie are agreed that the USA’s most dangerous rival is Chinese imperialism. At this level there is a real continuity between the foreign policies of Obama, Trump, and Biden.

However, we should also be aware that populism is essentially an expression of the profound irrationality that is being aggravated by the decomposition of capitalism. It is the principal factor in undermining the bourgeoisie’s control over its own political apparatus, since populism embodies most clearly the bourgeoisie’s inability to develop a perspective for the future of its system and is incapable of grasping the overall needs of the national capital. This is abundantly clear at the level of foreign policy. Even though Trump has some understanding of the threat posed by China, his “business-like” attitude to Russia runs directly counter to the current policy of the US state, which has attempted to use the war in Ukraine as a means of weakening Russia and thus, in the longer term, of depriving China of its most important military ally. His threats to vandalise the NATO alliance and to allow Israel free rein in the Middle East would be equally destructive to US imperialist plans.

Finally, on Russia: we agree with B that the elimination of the Prigozhin clique has strengthened Putin's position both domestically and abroad (integration of Wagner Group into more controllable military structures, especially in Africa) but Putin's policy of systematic elimination of his political opponents is not a permanent cure to the underlying tendency towards disintegration, leading to a possible collapse of the Russian Federation, which would be yet another factor in the spread of global chaos.

************************************************

Letter from B

The comrades at the meeting were rightly concerned with the coming election and the possibility of a Trump return to the Presidency and what the consequences of this would be. But it was important to state that the election of either Trump or Biden – neither of them exactly inspiring candidates – is not going to alter the fundamental perspectives of capitalism’s descent into decomposition a great deal. In fact apart from some secondary elements it’s unlikely to affect that already engaged dynamic hardly at all.

As for Trump launching a campaign against democracy, it could be argued that Trump has done more to bolster democracy in the USA (and beyond) than anyone else. About a decade or two ago – and the ICC noted it several times in its publications – there was some fatigue among western populations, and the workers in particular, over the democratic process with the idea that politician were “in it for themselves” or that there was “no real difference between them”. Although basically correct, this mostly expressed a cynicism that in the circumstances of the period (last two decades say) was entirely negative for any development of class consciousness. This cynicism was a reflection of the passivity and impotence of the class in the face of increasing attacks. In the US and beyond, the first Trump candidacy fed on and responded to that cynicism and regenerated the democratic circus with some vigour, mobilising massive meetings and generating a political enthusiasm while drawing many disgruntled workers into supporting his campaign. On the other hand, it also bolstered “the oppositional forces” which also mobilised many workers in the defence against the “Trump menace”.

Trump can be broadly described as an expression of populism – a phenomenon which has affected the majority of western democracies. Trump’s a populist but democracy (elections, voting, the citizen, etc) is an essential and vital part of populism and populism is part of the democratic system. Trump is not against democracy but on the contrary embraces and uses it to good effect. In this way Trump continues to deliver for the bourgeoisie animating the electoral circus, mobilising the Left and campaigns around identity “issues”. In this circus some anti-Trump performers are now accusing Trump of wanting to be a dictator, of wanting to let Russia invade Europe and of being “authoritarian” (as if a Trump-less America would be any the less authoritarian); a useful mobilisation for anti-Trump forces in the democratic process.

However, while no faction of the ruling class can stop the descent of capitalism into its decomposition, the policies of the Trump faction present particular difficulties for US imperialism both “at home” and abroad. This faction represents the dangers of what the ICC’s “Theses on Decomposition” explains as the “loss of control” of the bourgeoisie over the political game and the expression of “every man for himself” (see points 8 and 9). Within the historical weakening of the US, this represents a further weakening and while the first Trump administration was largely (and with some difficulty) held in check by the US state a further Trump term threatens all sort of problems not least in relation to Russia and the war in Ukraine and in relation to Israel in the growing chaos in the Middle East. And while Trump’s insistence that its allies “pay up” to the Godfather for their defence is fundamentally in the interest of the US, the main factions of the ruling class would prefer this procedure to be accomplished through the established diplomatic channels that Trump largely abuses and threatens. This breakdown of diplomacy and protocols is becoming more and more of a global problem, inviting further chaos and loss of control and could be particularly damaging with a second Trump term.

Trump felt hard done that he didn’t win the 2020 election (“I just need 17,000 votes”) and his whipping up of his supporters to attack the Capitol in early 2021 was in continuity with his agenda and general belligerence, marking a particular expression of decomposition in the “beacon of democracy”. But, in this context, twenty years earlier, with hardly a peep from the Democrats, the election was “stolen” from them, when George W. Bush was announced as winner of a very close election by the Republican Governor of Florida – his brother.

The meeting raised the question of Russia and it was briefly mentioned that the success of bringing the Russian state to its knees was now open to some question. So briefly on this, it looks like Putin has reconfigured the war economy and despite heavy losses of men has, through a policy of providing work and widespread repression, succeeded in keeping the working class quiet. The main clique around Putin has certainly succeeded in strengthening its position since the 2023 Mickey Mouse March on Moscow (cheered on by the West and greatly inflated as a real threat to the regime) by Prigozhin and his clique. The elimination of this clique greatly strengthened Putin’s position as well as pulling Belarus back into line and firming up the support of the Chechens. The vast majority of the Wagner Group has now been re-integrated into the Russian war machine; they are mercenaries after all.

In reference to the situation of the working class in Russia at the moment: there have been some small demonstrations and expressions of protest against the war but none of these have taken place on a class basis and the working class here has been severely weakened. This can only emphasise the importance of the proletariat in the west in the longer term.

B. 21.6.24

Letter from K

Dear comrades,

I was very pleased to participate in the meeting. Arising from it, here are some brief thoughts on orienting future articles on the US.

As in all ‘democracies’, but arguably more than in most, the working class in the US is being bombarded with ceaseless campaigns around electoralism, the nomination of party candidates the Presidential election process itself, etc, etc.

The bitter and deepening divisions within the US ruling class are being presented back to the proletariat as the only ‘choices’ to be made in determining the future – for Biden and the ‘caring, inclusive, supportive’ Democrats or for Trumpist Republicanism, the American isolationist revival and freedom from big government. Augmenting the mainstream, conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists and the identarian leftists present their own false alternatives which, more often than not, feed back into support for the main parties when they don’t head off into nihilism and individualist, survivalist or insurrectionist fantasies.

The ICC is well equipped, it seems to me, to follow and frame these events internationally and historically (the reality of decomposing capitalism) and understand the implications going forward of an increase in chaos and further attacks on the producer class whichever faction of the US ruling class heads the next government. How to hone this understanding to the immediate and middle-term needs of intervention?

Rosa Luxembourg said the most revolutionary act was to tell the truth – in American parlance, tell it like it is.

There are deep divisions and differences within and between the ruling class – particularly on how best to cling on to America’s military and economic dominance over their international rivals. These paralysing, competing visions can only contribute to further domestic decay and chaos at a level not seen before. But within this destructive whirlwind, these capitalist factions have interest in common.

All factions will fully participate in dying capitalism’s burgeoning ‘forever wars’ – in Ukraine, in the Middle East, in Africa and closer to home by the strengthening of US borders with Mexico and even Canada. Biden and Trump, Republican and Democrat, disagree over the quantity of immediate aid to Ukraine or who should pay for the upkeep of NATO (and surely Trump’s insistence that the ‘Europeans’ should fund more of their own defence is entirely in line with US interests, even if his attitude toward Russia is not?). But from Obama, through Trump, to Biden and whoever comes next, there’s an implacable will to confront and contain China. This is not in dispute: these rival capitalist factions all want to bleed the proletariat dry to defend the national capital.

This implied and real hike in (global) military spending – and wherever it disbursed – can only be paid for by the working class in increased exploitation, reduced income and services, the decay of infrastructure and by embedding inflation into the global economy.

The Social Democratic propaganda of state spending to cohere and protect ‘citizens’ has foundered on the reality of the demands of imperialism, global, national and individual debt and inflation. Trump’s apparent and impossible dream of pulling up the US drawbridge and letting the rest of the world rot solves none of this and ignores two centuries of growing capitalist inter-dependence in trade and production, not to mention its more recent dance of death that is economic competition-turned permanent inter-imperialist confrontation.

So: for the working class in America, the elections, the politicians’ promises, bluffs and bluster are not the solution – they are part of the problem, and one which will remain after the electoral circus has left town, in preparation for the next show.

The only viable future lies in the hands of the workers themselves, their willingness to organise and struggle to oppose (and eventually to overthrow) the crushing rule of capital as workers in the US and throughout the world have begun again to do in the last two years.

In short, I am arguing for an orientation which, while recognizing the serious divisions within the US ruling class, its lack of control over its own political game, nonetheless ‘goes back to basics’ to demonstrate that whoever wins, it’s the working class which pays and which truly holds the future in its hands.

Fraternally, K

In Britain, as in France, the EU and soon in the USA, the electoral circus is again in full swing. We will be publishing various articles analysing the implications of these and other elections as expressions of the bourgeoise’s growing loss of control over its political machinery. But first we want to reaffirm the basic class position developed in particular by the Communist Left since capitalism entered its epoch of decline in the early years of the 20th century: that contrary to the propaganda of the ruling class, neither elections nor parliament can prevent the headlong rush of this system towards economic crisis, war and self-destruction.

*******************************************************

The bourgeoisie wants us to vote

The arguments put forward by political parties or candidates to convince voters to give them their vote generally boil down to this: elections are a time when citizens are faced with a choice on which the development of society and, consequently, their future living conditions depend. "All men are born free and equal in rights", proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thanks to democracy, we are told, every citizen has the same opportunity to participate in major social choices. In reality, however, this is not the case, since society is divided into social classes with antagonistic interests. One of them, the bourgeoisie, exercises its domination over society as a whole through its possession of wealth and, thanks to its state, over the whole democratic apparatus, the media, etc. It can thus impose its order, its ideas and its propaganda on the working class and all the oppressed. The working class, on the other hand, is the only class which, through its struggle, is capable of challenging the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and its system of exploitation.

Under these conditions, it is completely illusory to think that it is possible to transform the state, including its the democratic institutions, to put them at the service of the great majority of society. That's why all the parties which seek the votes of the exploited, claiming to defend their interests, help to maintain this illusion. In the same way, the "left-right" alternative is really just a false choice designed to hide the fact that, behind the electoral and parliamentary chatter, only the bourgeoisie really has the power of decision. The differences between left-wing and right-wing parties are nothing compared to what they have in common: the defence of national capital. In the service of this objective, they are able to work very closely together, especially behind the closed doors of parliamentary committees and at the highest levels of the state apparatus. In fact, public debates in parliament are only a small and often insignificant part of bourgeois debates.

It is precisely because any change in the living conditions of the exploited class is impossible through the ballot box that the bourgeoisie is so keen to convince us otherwise by hammering home the message: "yes, another policy is possible... provided you vote well".

Does the outcome of the elections have any influence on whether the situation of the exploited worsens or improves?

Even if it is not possible to use the ballot box to establish a society in which human needs can really be satisfied, is it not possible to obtain some improvements in living conditions through elections? More modestly still, wouldn't a particular electoral choice make it possible to limit future attacks?

If, for almost a century, no election has ever led to real social progress, it's because social choices are no longer determined by the outcome of elections. The deterioration in the living conditions of the working class is determined first and foremost by the depth of the crisis of capitalism and by the ability of each national bourgeoisie to make the exploited pay for it, in order to defend the competitiveness of national capital in the international arena. This is why only the eruption of class struggle is capable of hampering the attacks of the bourgeoisie and asserting the interests of the proletariat.

This is also why it is always the bourgeoisie that wins elections and the proletarians have nothing, absolutely nothing, to expect from this masquerade. No parliamentary struggle, in whatever form, is capable, in the present phase of the life of capitalism, of improving the situation of the working class. The illusions entertained on this subject by all sectors of the bourgeoisie are based on a reality of capitalism that is now obsolete:

“In the ascendant period of capitalism, parliament was the most appropriate form for the organisation of the bourgeoisie. As a specifically bourgeois institution, it was never a primary arena for the activity of the working class and the proletariat’s participation in parliamentary activity and electoral campaigns contained a number of real dangers, against which revolutionaries of the last century always alerted the class. However, in a period when the revolution was not yet on the agenda and when the proletariat could wrest reforms from within the system, participation in parliament allowed the class to use it to press for reforms, to use electoral campaigns as a means for propaganda and agitation for the proletarian programme, and to use parliament as a tribune for denouncing the ignominy of bourgeois politics. This is why the struggle for universal suffrage was throughout the nineteenth century in many countries one of the most important issues around which the proletariat organised.

As the capitalist system entered its decadent phase, parliament ceased to be an instrument for reforms. As the Communist International said at its Second Congress: ‘The centre of gravity of political life has now been completely and finally removed beyond the confines of parliament’. The only role parliament could play from then on, the only thing that keeps it alive, is its role as an instrument of mystification. Thus ended any possibility for the proletariat to use parliament in any way. The class cannot gain impossible reforms from an organ which has lost any real political function. At a time when its basic task is to destroy all institutions of the bourgeois state and thus parliament; when it must set up its own dictatorship on the ruins of universal suffrage and other vestiges of bourgeois society, participation in parliamentary and electoral institutions can only lead to these moribund bodies being given a semblance of life, no matter what the intentions of those who advocate this kind of activity”. (Platform of the ICC)

How should we fight? Atomised in the polling booths or through a united, collective and massive struggle?

The bourgeoisie knows full well that it has nothing to fear from workers' consciousness when they are passive spectators at electoral jousts featuring real political professionals who have nothing to do with the interests of the working class. Nor does it have anything to fear from their action when they are divided into so many atomised citizens in the polling booths. On the other hand, it knows that it has everything to fear from their collective strength and united action, expressed through discussion and the organisation of the struggle in the workplace, in general assemblies and in the streets. It is only in this way, and not by passively consuming electoral speeches and marking your ballot paper, isolated in the polling booths, that the life of the working class can be truly expressed.

In the general assemblies of struggle, the floor is shared, debates are open and fraternal and, above all, the elected delegates are revocable. The revocability of delegates is the means through which the assembly retains control of the struggle - particularly in the face of attempts to take this away from them by the "professionals of the struggle", the trade unions. The election and revocability of delegates can ensure that those who will represent the base assemblies are permanently the emanation of their struggle. Experiences of massive mobilisations of the working class, such as in 1905 in Russia, in the years 1917-23 in many countries on the European and American continents, and more recently during the struggle in Poland in August 1980, are the best illustrations of the fact that the weapon of the working class is collective action and not the ballot paper.

It is therefore the capacity of the working class to mobilise on its class terrain with its own methods of struggle, in defence of its interests, against the attacks of capital, which will determine its capacity to resist the attacks, and not the fact of voting massively for this or that party or candidate on the occasion of this or that election.

The working class has nothing to gain by taking part in the elections, except illusions!

Not only are elections not a means of struggle for the working class, but they also allow the bourgeoisie to turn the workers into citizen electors, to dilute them in the mass of the population by isolating them from each other and, ultimately, to make them more vulnerable to its brainwashing.

And it's precisely because electoral and democratic mystification is a prime ideological weapon that the bourgeoisie does everything in its power to maintain and renew its effectiveness through various stratagems:

• the classic demagogic and misleading promises that will never be kept;
• the stigmatisation of those who, because they no longer see elections as useful, are accused of trampling underfoot the sacrifices made by past generations of workers who fought to win universal suffrage (usually hiding the fact that these same representatives of the bourgeoisie, who now even go so far as to make voting compulsory in some countries, were opposed to granting everyone the right to vote in an earlier era);
• the exploitation of feelings of insecurity within the population - which are the consequence of the very insecurity into which capitalism and its democracy are plunging the whole of society. A clear example of this is the way that the different parties aim to channel one part of the working class towards populist and extreme right-wing votes, while others call on workers to participate in elections to "block the road to the extreme right";
• exploiting the traumatic memories left behind by fascism, making people believe that it was the weakening of the electoral system and democracy that gave rise to fascism, when in fact the opposite is true. In Germany, for example, it was the defeat of the working class, following the bloody crushing of the revolution in 1919-23 by the social democrats, which paved the way for the legal and perfectly democratic accession to power by Hitler and the Nazi party.

Today in Britain, a recent poll by the Office for National Statistics[1] has shown that many young people will not be voting in the coming election because there is a growing disillusionment with the existing political parties. The same poll also shows that mere apathy is not the main issue here: many of those interviewed expressed real concern for their future and the future of the planet but had severe doubts whether casting their votes for any of the parties would change anything. This is an important “beginning of wisdom”, although we are continually seeing the rise of “new” parties who promise truly radical measures, seeking to recuperate and distort such initial steps in consciousness. What is indispensable is the development of a clear understanding that the problem faced by the working class is not just the venality of politicians or the hypocrisy of their parties, but the existence of an entire system of production which has become a barrier to the progress of humanity.

WR

“The communists have arrived! Forward to the British revolution! A need to go back to Lenin; Communism is the only solution; The building of a new International!.” These are some of the slogans of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) in the campaign for what it calls “a rebirth, a renaissance!” of its organization “by appealing to people on a directly communist basis”.

Following the example of the section in the UK of the IMT, several national sections have changed the name of their organisation and of their paper: references to “socialism” are replaced by “communism”! At an international conference, between 10 and 15 June, the International Marxist Tendency has been renamed the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI).

The immediate reason for this apparently radical change was the expulsion of the Socialist Appeal group from the British Labour Party in November 2022, followed by the expulsion of the PCB-RR[1] from the Brazilian Communist Party in July-August 2023.

For the IMT, this is a glamorously declared farewell to the historic "entryism" strategy of Trotskyism - the end of the policy advocated by Trotsky in the 1930s, when he suggested that the Trotskyist groups should dissolve themselves and join the Socialist Parties as a faction in order to gain influence in them. Today the IMT, probably one of the last organisations still pursuing until now an entryist policy, boasts with the announcement of “a clean break from the so-called ‘Left’. We aim far higher, in words and in practice”[2].

With the present voluminous campaign, the IMT wants to put itself in the limelight as a genuine political organisation of the working class. But the reverse is true. The IMT is no organization of the working class it will never be, and the same goes for all its predecessors since the Second World War: the WIL, the RCP, the RSL, the Militant Tendency, the CWI and the CMI[3].

The betrayal of proletarian internationalism

Ted Grant, the founding father of the IMT, started his political career in the 1930s. He became a member of the British Workers’ International League, the WIL, “the direct and lineal ancestor of the present-day IMT”[4].  This took place at a moment that the groups related to the Trotsky-inspired opposition were still part of the working class, even if they already increasingly embodied important political confusions. at the end of the 1930s, they decided step by step to give their “critical” support to the democratic bourgeoisies in the imperialist war against the fascist regimes in Europe and betrayed the principle of proletarian internationalism that is cardinal for proletarian organisations.

This happened also with the WIL. After the occupation of France by German military forces, the WIL agreed to adopt Trotsky’s “famous ‘Proletarian Military Policy’ (PMP), which was basically an application of the Transitional Programme to a period of universal war and militarism. (…) It centered around the demand for obligatory military training for the working class, overseen by elected officers, in special training schools run by the state, but under the control of working-class institutions like the trade unions. Obviously, no capitalist state could grant such demands to the working class, since this would deny its own existence as a state”[5].

This policy was actually a kind of a remake of the position defended by Trotsky in the early 1920s in revolutionary Russia: the control of the working class through the militarisation of labour under the direction of the trade unions. But the policy of recruitment for the capitalist war machine on a “proletarian” basis in the imperialist war against “Hitlerism” was only an excuse to mobilise a maximum number of workers who were finally conscripted into the structure of the regular bourgeois army. This policy also implied that the workers should not only defend the western democracies, including the US, which is characterized by the IMT as “the most reactionary force on the planet”, but also the Stalinist Soviet Union. The title of an article of Ted Grant in April 1943: “Aid Red Army with Lenin’s Weapon”, did not mince words about the position of the WIL in this imperialist war.

Thus, like the WIL, Trotskyism definitively positioned itself as a radical leftist faction of the ruling class. And since those years Ted Grant and his fellow militants have consistently supported one or another imperialist camp in all the butcheries that have taken place, be it Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq, etc.

In the war in the Donbas, in 2014, IMT still took sides with one of the warring camps. It supported the “Peoples’ Republics” against the Ukraine government, claiming that. “The Anti-Maidan movement – the source of popular support for the rebels – had a distinctly more working-class character” and that “the uprising in the Donbas was based largely on the working people of the region “[6]. But in reality, they were only proxies of Russian imperialism, and completely dependent on the military power of the Russian army. Regarding the war that began in February 2022, its position is not as outspoken as with the war in the Donbas. But despite all its internationalist declarations, such as “we cannot support either side in this war, because it is a reactionary war on both sides” and even “a conflict between two groups of imperialists”, its preference is still predominantly for Russia. This can be inferred from an article on the war in Ukraine, which says that communists must fight against

• “NATO, and against American imperialism - the most counter-revolutionary force on the planet”;
• “Americans and NATO (…) the most aggressive and reactionary imperialist forces”;
• “the despicable conduct of the Kiev government, its collaboration with reactionary fascists”[7].

In the case of the present war in the Middle-East, they defend the Palestinian bourgeoisie although, as they write, “we have never supported Hamas. We do not share its ideology, nor do we condone the methods it uses. But our differences with Hamas, though fundamental, are not nearly so fundamental as the differences that separate us from US imperialism (…) and its accomplices in crime, the Israeli ruling class”[8].

All these examples, the older and the more recent, show that the internationalism of the IMT is a fraud, and its slogans that claim to express its support for the revolutionary struggle of the working class are a lie! The IMT is, like all other Trotskyist organisations, an instrument of the counter-revolution, destined to sabotage every working class struggle for the overthrow of capitalism.

The defence of the “lesser evil”

Our predecessors in the Gauche Communiste de France (GCF) already made this point in the years after the Second World War, when they wrote that “The whole history of Trotskyism revolves around the ‘defence’ of something’ in the name of the ‘lesser evil’, this something being anything except the interests of the proletariat.” And “It is starting from the eternal choice of the ‘lesser evil’ that the Trotskyists participated in the imperialist war”[9]. The GCF goes on to say that Trotskyist declarations about war usually start “with a general declaration against the war. But once they have correctly quoted from the litany about ‘revolutionary defeatism’, they get onto the concrete issues, and start making distinctions, start with the ifs and buts which, in practice, leads them to join the existing war fronts and to invite the workers to participate in the imperialist butchery”[10]. This shows that for Trotskyism the political practice is more decisive than its political positions and that its practice is relentlessly geared towards the mobilisation for imperialist war

A fake rebirth

In essence Trotskyism is Stalinism without the state bureaucracy and the gulag archipelago. For the rest there is no fundamental political difference with the Stalinist parties. But it camouflages its bourgeois nature behind the figure of Trotsky, who was a true revolutionary until he was assassinated. Needless to say that it is firmly anchored in capitalist relations and that its whole dynamic is determined by the needs of capital.

Since its betrayal during the Second World War, we have witnessed many “rebirths” within this current but, apart from the attempts of a few militants like Munis, Stinas, etc. to break with Trotskyism, they never resulted in organisations joining the camp of the working class. And the recent change in the policy of the IMT will not bring about a fundamental turnaround either. The reason is the impossibility for bourgeois organisations to become part of the working class. And this is also true for all political organisations that were once part of the working class and have passed to the camp of the bourgeoisie.

The IMT can shout a thousand times that it has undergone a “rebirth”, but this “rebirth” does not go much further than changing the names of the organisation, its papers and its sections. It has distanced itself from the “left”, but it still considers itself part of the same political environment and even continues to call the Labour Party in the UK “reformist”, i.e. a kind of sister organisation making mistakes. We agree with the Communist Workers Organisation (ICT) that the new name of the section of the IMT in the UK, the Revolutionary Communist Party means: “Out with the old, in with the old”[11].

But we must not make the mistake of arguing that it has become “a bankrupt political tendency”, as the CWO wrote in the same article. Trotskyism is and remains an important instrument for the bourgeoisie in controlling and derailing minorities in the class who are radicalising under influence of the workers’ struggle or imperialist war. What we see today is a policy of reviving the IMT as a feigned "internationalist International", so that it can better play its role in obstructing the road towards more massive and politicised class confrontations.

Dennis, 2 July 2024

India's parliamentary elections (Lok Sabha) were held from April to June this year. The proletariat, as elsewhere, had nothing to expect from these elections, whose outcome merely determines which fraction of the bourgeoisie will ensure its domination over society and the workers it exploits. These elections took place against a backdrop in which declining capitalism is plunging humanity further and further into chaos as its social decomposition accelerates, generating multiple crises (war, economic, social, ecological, climatic, etc.) which combine and reinforce each other, fuelling an ever more destructive vortex. In India, as elsewhere, "the ruling class is more and more divided into cliques and clans, each putting their own interests above the needs of the national capital; and this situation is making it increasingly difficult for the bourgeoisie to act as a unified class and maintain overall control of its political apparatus. The rise of populism in the last decade is the clearest product of this tendency: the populist parties are an embodiment of the irrationality and “no future” of capitalism, with their promulgation of the most absurd conspiracy theories and their increasingly violent rhetoric against the established parties. The more “responsible” factions of the ruling class are concerned about the rise of populism because its attitudes and policies are directly at odds with what’s left of the traditional consensus of bourgeois politics."[1]

Weakening of the Indian state

India's elections reflect and confirm these growing difficulties for the ruling class. Indeed, from the outset, Prime Minister Modi’s faction's various mandates reflected the confusion between the interests of the Indian state and those of a handful of oligarchs, mainly from the same region, the state of Gujarat (in the west of the subcontinent). A pusher of Hindu nationalist ideology, Narendra Modi's rhetoric is both martial and messianic, and he remains the bearer of an old tradition that was already fighting against the unitary and territorial vision of the "Indian nation" embodied by Gandhi (who was assassinated in 1948 by a member of this radicalised political and religious Hindu movement). Like Trump, part of Modi's campaign was based on the promise to "restore India's greatness"[2], referring to the supposedly glorious history of Hindu culture before it was colonised and destroyed by Muslim and Christian invaders. According to this narrative, even after India's independence in 1947, the Hindu population had been held back by the "corrupt elites" of the Indian National Congress (INC).

Modi claims that Hindu civilisation is superior to any other civilisation and should have a status more in line with its ambitions in the world. Modi accompanies his political delusions with a real cronyism, and many of those who had an interest in supporting his ideology and his party have lined their pockets, such as the billionaires Akshmi Mittal, Mukesh Ambani or Gautam Adani, who finds himself, for example, at the head of a conglomerate valued on the stock exchange at nearly $240 billion, and whose personal fortune has increased by 230% since Modi came to power in 2014! Naturally, the elections only served to confirm this situation, to the detriment of the interests of the Indian state as a whole.

The results of the parliamentary elections, far from marking a stabilisation of the political apparatus, confirm the growing difficulties and fragility of the government, which is being increasingly discredited. Exit polls predicted a big victory for Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But the opposite happened: the BJP lost 63 seats. However, the BJP-led NDA alliance still won an absolute majority (293 out of 543 seats). As a result, for the first time, Modi will have to govern with a coalition that is proving very complex to implement, as the BJP will now be dependent on its allies, including the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Janata Dal (United) (JDU).[3] The growing weight of every-man-for-himself, ambitious leaders and centrifugal forces will mean that negotiations for future government posts in the coalition are likely to be long and very difficult. Many of the highly controversial measures that the BJP wanted to take, such as the redistribution of parliamentary seats by state, also now look set to be very difficult, with the risk of explosive tensions. Any attempt at conciliation within the coalition will necessarily be to the detriment of another component. Thus, there is a great risk of seeing the affirmation of greater autonomy among the components, particularly on the right, with the paramilitary Hindu nationalist RSS organisation inspired by the violent and radical groupings of the extreme right in Europe.[4]

Thus weakened, at the age of 73, Prime Minister Modi is likely to be exposed to many problems, despite the myth of "invincibility" he had tried to construct and his overweening ambitions. India, like other major countries around the world, is becoming increasingly unstable and difficult to govern.

Democratic mystification and nationalist divisions

While the growing weaknesses of the Indian bourgeoisie are affecting its political game and making it more fragile, this does not mean that the proletariat stands to benefit in any way. In fact, the opposite is true, given the reinforcement of democratic mystifications. The spring 2024 elections were presented by Congress Party president Mallikarjun Kharge as "a victory for the public and a victory for democracy", by Prime Minister Modi as "the victory of the world's largest democracy", by Rahul Gandhi as an extraordinary effort in which "you have all come out to vote in defence of democracy and the constitution", and by the Deccan Chronicle [5] as "a testimony to the resilience of Indian democracy". The entire bourgeoisie is only too happy to promote this democratic mystification against the working class, which is based on the idea that democracy is progressive, that it is a remedy for all misfortunes, claiming that the very poor living conditions of the majority of the Indian population can be improved by electing another government. What's more, this ideology is accompanied by strong nationalist propaganda. Of course, all bourgeois parties promise that things will get better if they are elected, but this is totally impossible under the present historical conditions of capitalism. All promises of prosperity and democratic freedoms are lies designed to conceal the dictatorship of capital and its bankruptcy.

Moreover, despite an average annual economic growth rate of 8%, workers are still suffering from years of exploitation and appalling poverty. Yet the government demands that workers grit their teeth even harder and accept yet more attacks. Modi asks BJP workers to "make sacrifices for the country too". He is also waging a religious crusade, dividing workers and fostering an ethnic divide between Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Muslims. The latter are portrayed as India's fifth column. Kashmir and Jammu, where mostly Muslims live, are under a kind of martial law. In the rest of the country, Muslims, who make up 15% of the population, are hunted down by Hindu supremacists. From the point of view of the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole, such a policy is completely irrational, because instead of strengthening the cohesion of the nation, one of the main functions of the state, it weakens it by fuelling murderous disorder.

Unlike someone like Indira Gandhi, who never advanced the project of making India a "Hindu nation", Modi relies on numerous militias to spread terror everywhere. So, not only does his government fail to bring the prosperity and development it promised, it also brings more instability: his policies widen fissures and increase tensions in society. In 2023, 428 incidents were recorded in 23 states, including communal intimidation, violence in defence of sacred cows, and lynchings.[6] The Indian Supreme Court rightly pointed out that violence by Hindu fundamentalists was becoming "the new normal". India is becoming an increasingly dangerous social powder keg, as the Statistical Risk Assessment 2023-24 has affirmed, revealing that India ranks as the fifth most at-risk country for massacres out of 166 listed.

The proletariat: the only real alternative

Faced with this catastrophic situation and the threats posed by growing instability, only workers, who are part of the international working class, are capable of putting forward an alternative. Over the past five years, workers in various sectors have waged a struggle on their own terrain: in the health sector, in transport, in the car industry, in the various agricultural sectors, among public bank employees, as well as textile workers. There have even been three India-wide strikes where Hindu and Muslim workers fought side by side. But the working class in India is isolated and lacks the class consciousness and experience of the working class in Western Europe or the United States. The poison of the ongoing bourgeois ideological campaign hammering home the slogan "Hindus first" (and everyone else afterwards) and the democratic propaganda that accompanies it are an obstacle to the reconquest of its class identity. Nevertheless, Indian workers have shown that they are capable, despite the nauseating bourgeois campaigns, of fighting against the lowering of their incomes, not in terms of religion, caste or ethnicity, but as a class whose interests are everywhere the same: the opposite of those of the exploiting class, and which possesses the capacity to develop its struggles on a global scale for the destruction of the capitalist system.

D/WH 21 July 2024

A few days after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump that claimed the life of one of his supporters, it is still too early to determine the exact motive of the gunman and the reasons for the failure of the service responsible for protecting the former president. However, the attack turned the election campaign upside down, allowing the Republican camp to take another step towards victory. Hit in the ear, his face bloody and his fist raised, almost miraculously, the bravado of Trump's reaction, already the favourite in the polls, contrasts clearly with the increasingly perceptible signs of Joe Biden’s senility.  Be that as it may, this event is yet another manifestation of the growing instability within the American bourgeoisie.

Exacerbation of political violence in the United States

The United States has a long tradition of political assassinations, four of which have reached the highest levels of government. But, after the murder of British MP Jo Cox in the midst of the Brexit campaign in 2016, after the assassination attempt that targeted Bolsonaro in Brazil in 2018, after the murder of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe in 2022, after the assassination attempt on Slovak prime minister Robert Fico in May 2024, or the attack on Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen in the middle of the street last June, this new attack comes against a backdrop of heightened violence and political tensions around the world. Threats, insults, outright xenophobia, the violence of extreme right-wing groups, the involvement of gangs in electoral processes, settling of scores between bourgeois cliques... this creeping chaos, which until now has been contained to the most fragile countries of Latin America and Africa, is beginning, with all due sense of proportion, to become the norm in the major powers of capitalism.
In the United States, while one of the roles of ‘democratic’ institutions is to guarantee the unity of the state, the growing difficulty of containing and confining the violence of relations between rival bourgeois factions testify to a real sharpening of tensions. The atmosphere of violence is at its height. Ever since he left the White House and encouraged the aborted attempt to storm the Capitol, Trump himself has not stopped throwing fuel on the fire, questioning the results of the elections, refusing to acknowledge his defeat and promising to bring down his vengeful arm on the ‘traitors’, the ‘liars’ and the ‘corrupt’. He has never stopped making ‘public debate’ more and more hysterical, spinning tall tale after tall tale, whipping his supporters into a frenzy... The former president proved to be an essential link in a veritable chain of violence that spills out of every pore of society and ended up turning against him.

Towards ever greater instability

The fact that such an irresponsible and grotesque figure has been able to sweep aside any force within the Republican Party remotely capable of effectively managing the bourgeois state, that he has even been able to run for president without encountering serious difficulties, either political or even legal (despite numerous attempts by his opponents), is in itself a striking sign of the impotence and profound instability into which the American political apparatus is sinking.
But if Trump is indeed the mouthpiece of a whole atmosphere of social and political violence, an active factor in destabilisation, he is merely the caricature of the dynamic at work in the entire ruling class. The Democratic camp, although a little more concerned about putting the brakes on this process, is contributing just as much to global instability.
Admittedly, after the incoherent and unpredictable policies of the Trump administration, Biden has proved more effective in defending the interests of the American bourgeoisie, but at what price? Even though the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were intended to halt the decline of American leadership by imposing itself as ‘world policeman’, have ended in fiasco and exacerbated chaos in the Middle East and around the world, Biden proceeded to provoke Russia into intervening in Ukraine[1].
This large-scale massacre is getting bogged down week after week and seems to have no end in sight. With inflation soaring and the global crisis deepening, with imperialist tensions rising and the war economy swelling considerably on every continent, the conflict in Ukraine has only led to further destabilisation on an even wider scale, including in the United States.
At the same time, Biden has heightened tensions with China across the Pacific, raising the risk of direct confrontation. The war in Gaza, which the American president has failed to control and contain, has also considerably accentuated the decline of American power, which will sooner or later lead to an even more barbaric reaction from the United States.
And now the occupant of the White House is reduced to pitifully clinging on to power, while a large part of his camp is openly urging him to step down! But who should replace Biden? The Democrats are divided and discredited, barely able to agree on a replacement. Everyone is already ready to fight. Even Vice President Harris, the only one who could impose herself, is very unpopular even within her own camp. Between Trump, Biden, Harris... the American bourgeoisie is left with only bad options, a sign of its great fragility.
In another sign of the extreme tensions between the Republican and Democratic camps, Trump had not even left hospital before they began vehemently accusing each other of being responsible for the attack. Trump and Biden, aware of the explosive situation, momentarily tried to calm the incendiary atmosphere in the name of national unity... before a torrent of fake news and unfounded accusations was unleashed once again.
But the division between the bourgeois parties, the bitter infighting within them, the constant poker games, the rivalries of egos, the back-stabbings, the scorched-earth strategies - all this is far from being the prerogative of the American bourgeoisie alone. The electoral campaign in America of course echoes the situation in many states in Europe and elsewhere, of which France is the latest shining example. Capitalism is rotting on its foundations and this is having consequences at every level (imperialist, social, economic, environmental...), dragging the political apparatuses of the bourgeoisie into a logic of ‘save what you can’’. This is an ineluctable spiral of instability in which each bourgeois clique tries as best it can to pull the wool over its own eyes... even to the detriment of the general interests of the bourgeoisie.

There's nothing to expect from the elections

Despite the growing difficulties of the bourgeoisie in controlling its own political apparatus, it still knows perfectly well how to use the democratic mystification to reduce the working class to impotence. At a time when the proletariat must develop its struggle against the bourgeois state, the bourgeoisie traps us, through the elections, in false dilemmas: which party would be best suited to manage the bourgeois state? While the proletariat should be seeking to organise itself as an autonomous class, elections reduce the workers to the status of citizen-voters, merely able to choose, under the pressure of the propaganda steamroller, which bourgeois clique will be responsible for organising their exploitation.
There is therefore nothing to expect from the forthcoming elections. If Biden (or his replacement) should ultimately win, the warmongering policies of the Biden administration and all the global chaos they have engendered will be further intensified in order to maintain at all costs the United States' standing in the global arena. If Trump were to confirm the predictions of victory in November, the destabilising and erratic policies of his first term would return with greater force and irrationality. His running mate, J.D. Vance, appeals more directly to the working class, and his demagogic exploitation of his own personal story as a forgotten victim of rural and deindustrialised America allows him to strengthen his influence by convincing the ‘undecided’ that he represents a supposedly ‘new way’ alongside his miraculous mentor.
Whether Trump or the Democrats win, the historic crisis of capitalism will not go away, attacks will continue to rain down and indiscriminate violence will continue to be unleashed.
Faced with the decomposition of the capitalist world, the working class and its revolutionary project represent the only real alternative. While wars, disasters and propaganda constantly clash with its struggles and its capacity for thinking clearly, over the last two years the proletariat everywhere has rediscovered its fighting spirit and is gradually beginning to regain an awareness of being one and the same class. Everywhere, small minorities are emerging and reflecting on the nature of capitalism, on the causes of the war and on the revolutionary perspective. With all its elections, the bourgeoisie is trying to break this combativeness and this maturation, it is trying to prevent any politicisation of struggles. Despite the promises (obviously never kept) of a ‘fairer’, ‘greener’, more ‘peaceful’ capitalism, despite the ferocious guilt-tripping of ‘those who don't stand in the way of fascism’ at the ballot box, let's make no mistake: the elections are a trap for the working class!
EG, 19 July 2024.
 

The rise of populism is a direct product of decomposing capitalism and has created deep divisions in the ruling class. In the US, the Democratic Party seems paralysed in its efforts to prevent Trump returning to the presidency, an outcome that would accelerate the slide towards chaos both in the US and internationally. In France and Britain, the story is a bit different, with Macron and the “New Popular Front” combining to block the National Rally coming to power, and Labour crushing a Tory party which has been profoundly gangrened by populism. Despite this, the forces of populism and the far right continue to grow in the soil of a rotting society.

The ICC will be holding an international online public meeting to discuss this situation because we think it is vital to:

• Analyse and understand the conflicts between different factions of the class enemy
• Denounce the main ideological attacks that accompany these events, notably the “defence of democracy against fascism”
• Draw out the real interests of the working class in the face of these mystifications: not to trust in the ballot box or the election to parliament of parties which claim to speak in its name, but to defend itself through a collective, independent struggle, laying the basis for a political confrontation with the whole capitalist system.

The meeting will be held between 2pm and 5pm UK time on Saturday 20 July. If you want to attend, please email us: [email protected] [169].

In Europe, the United States and just about everywhere else in the world, populist or more traditional far-right parties are enjoying electoral successes that seemed inconceivable a decade ago. This was clearly demonstrated during the European elections in June 2024: the Rassemblement National (RN) in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD - Alternative for Germany) and Fratelli d'Italia (Brothers of Italy) achieved impressive scores. In Great Britain, Reform UK led by Nigel Farage (the main promoter of Brexit) could swallow large chunks of the Conservative Party, the oldest and most experienced political party of the bourgeoisie, at the ballot box. In France, Marine Le Pen's RN is expected to come out on top in the next legislative elections decreed in haste by President Macron and could potentially come to power for the first time. And this against a backdrop in which Trump flew through the Republican Party primaries, outclassed an increasingly geriatric Biden in their last debate and is seriously threatening to take back the White House next November...

The bourgeoisie is tending to lose control of its political apparatus

The European elections have confirmed the reality of a process of weakening which is affecting all the political apparatuses of the bourgeoisie throughout the world, not only in the most fragile countries on the periphery of capitalism, in the most prominent Latin American states such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, but also in the heart of capitalism, in the major democratic powers of Western Europe and the United States.

After the Second World War and up until the dawn of the 1990s, despite a context of ever deepening economic crisis, the bourgeoisie had maintained a certain stability in the political landscape, dominated most of the time by two-party systems, alternations or solid coalitions, as was the case, for example, in Germany (SPD and CDU), in Great Britain with the Tories and Labour, in the United States with the Democrats and the Republicans, or in France and Spain with the opposition of left-wing and right-wing parties. In Italy, the main political force guaranteeing the stability of the state throughout this period was Christian Democracy. This made it possible to achieve relatively stable parliamentary majorities within an apparently well-oiled institutional framework.

However, by the end of the 1980s, decadent capitalism was gradually entering a new historical phase, the phase of decomposition. The implosion of the "Soviet" bloc and the increasing decay of the system were to sharpen tensions within the various national bourgeoisies and increasingly affect their political apparatus. The deepening of the crisis and the increasingly obvious lack of any perspective, including for certain sectors of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, increasingly eroded the "democratic credibility" of the traditional parties. From the beginning of the twenty-first century, these elements gave rise to populist movements denouncing the "scheming of the ruling elites", combined with a rise in abstention and growing electoral volatility.

Gradually, the bourgeoisie's control over its political system began to show cracks. In France, after the "forced cohabitations", the push by Macron to counter the rise of the RN led to the collapse of the discredited Socialist Party, and the fragmentation of the traditional right-wing party. In the UK, the bourgeoisie tried to recuperate the populist pro-Brexit movement through the Conservative Party, leading to its present fragmentation. In Italy, the Christian Democracy also collapsed, giving way to new formations like Forza Italia (already headed by a populist leader, Berlusconi), and then to a slew of populist and far-right movements at the helm of the state (the 5 Star Movement, Salvini's Lega, Fratelli d'Italia). In the Netherlands, three of the four parties in the parliamentary majority are populist. In the United States, since Bush junior and his administration, populist tendencies have been increasingly undermining the Republican Party (such as the Tea Party, for example) and have led to the populist Trump's takeover of the party.

With the acceleration of decomposition in recent years, particularly since the Covid-19 pandemic, the populist wave is forcing more and more states to come to terms with bourgeois factions marked by irrationality, fickleness and unpredictability. Populism is thus the most caricatural expression of the decomposition of the capitalist mode of production.

The rise of populism is not, therefore, the result of a deliberate manoeuvre by the ruling class[1]. The ferment among the most "rational" factions of the bourgeoisie in the face of the populist upsurge expresses their real anxiety. Although populism is fundamentally "one of them" and its xenophobic and retrograde rhetoric is, in truth, a stinking concentrate of the ideology of the bourgeois class (individualism, nationalism, domination by violence...), the access of populist parties and their totally irrational and incompetent leaders to the helm of states can only further complicate the management of the interests of each national capital and aggravate the chaos which is already spreading all over the planet.

Populism, the product and accelerator of chaos and global instability

The rise of populism in several countries confirms what the ICC had already analysed in the Theses devoted to the analysis of the historical period of decomposition, in which we stressed " “the bourgeoisie’s growing difficulty in controlling the evolution of the political situation. Obviously, this is a result of the ruling class’ increasing loss of control over its economic apparatus, the infrastructure of society…The absence of any perspective (other than day-to-day stop-gap measures to prop up the economy) around which it could mobilise as a class, and at the same time the fact that the proletariat does not yet threaten its own survival, creates within the ruling class, and especially within its political apparatus, a growing tendency towards indiscipline and an attitude of “every man for himself”.[2]

This inevitable advance of capitalist decomposition also explains the failure of the measures taken by the traditional parties of the bourgeoisie to halt the rise of populism[3]. For example, the British bourgeoisie tried to redirect the "Brexit" disaster by replacing Boris Johnson and Liz Truss with a more responsible prime minister, Rishi Sunak in 2022. But the "reliable" Sunak responded to defeat in local elections by bringing forward the general election, which many analysts have described as "political suicide" for the Tories, once the emblem of the world's smartest and most experienced bourgeoisie. The same can be said of a Macron, supported for years by all the political forces of the French bourgeoisie (including the left, which voted for him, remember, with a "clothes peg on its nose" to prevent Le Pen coming to power) and who, by hastily dissolving the National Assembly, is potentially paving the way for the RN and, whatever happens, unpredictability and chaos. This scorched-earth policy is completely at odds with the interests of the factions that claim to be the most responsible within the political apparatus, as evidenced by the divisions within the right-wing parties and the hasty formation of a New Popular Front on the left, whose course is uncertain. Finally, in the United States, Trump's ousting in 2020 has not helped the Republican Party to find another, more "predictable" candidate. Nor has the Democratic Party known how to react, and now has to rely on an 81-year-old Biden to stop Trump.

The fact that the leaders of the main capitalist states are playing poker, engaging in irresponsible adventures with unpredictable results, in which the particular interests of each clique, or even of each individual, take precedence over those of the bourgeoisie as a whole and the global interests of each national capital, is revealing of the lack of perspective, of the predominance of "every man for himself".

The consequences of this loss-of-control dynamic are bound to be a major acceleration of global chaos and instability. If Trump's first election had already marked an increase in instability in imperialist relations, his re-election would mean a considerable acceleration of global imperialist chaos by, for example, reconsidering US support for Ukraine or unreservedly backing Netanyahu's scorched earth policy in Gaza. Trump's return to office would further destabilise institutions and, more generally, fragment the fabric of society, as did the assault on the Capitol in January 2021. The economic crisis is also likely to worsen, with increased protectionism not only against China but also against Europe.

This would also have a major impact on the European Union (EU), which is also torn apart by growing tensions over the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, as can be seen in particular in the row between France and Germany over the sending of troops to Ukraine. These tensions are likely to increase with the rise of populist forces, which tend to be less hostile towards Putin's regime and less inclined to support Ukraine financially and militarily. What's more, the EU's policy of economic austerity (limiting budget deficits and debt, etc.) also clashes with the economic and social protectionism advocated by the populists in the name of "national sovereignty".

The bourgeoisie is trying to turn the effects of its decomposition against the proletariat

Whatever difficulties the various bourgeoisies encounter in maintaining control over their political apparatus, they try by every means to exploit them to block the development of workers' struggles, to counter reflection within the proletariat and thus prevent the development of consciousness within it. To do this, they can count on the left, which deploys its entire ideological arsenal and puts forward false alternatives. In England, the Labour Party is presenting itself as the "responsible" alternative to stem the disorder caused by successive Tory governments' irresponsible handling of Brexit. In France, faced with Macron's unpredictable decision to call elections, the vast majority of bourgeois forces on the traditional and more radical left have united in a "New Popular Front" to oppose the rise of the far right. By exploiting the opposition between sectors of the bourgeoisie in the face of the rise of populism and the far right, it is trying to divert the proletariat from the only struggle that can lead to the liberation of humanity through the overthrow of the capitalist system, and to promote the false perspective of defending democracy. While voting mobilises workers as atomised "citizens", the left presents electoral results as a reflection of the state of class consciousness. The bourgeoisie often displays maps showing the growth of the populist vote in working-class neighbourhoods in order to hammer home the idea that the working class is the cause of the rise of populism, that it is a crowd of ignoramuses with no future. It also sows the seeds of division between workers from ethnic minorities who are allegedly the victims of "privileged, white" workers.

It is therefore clear that the increased political difficulties for the bourgeoisie in no way mean an opportunity for the proletariat to use them to develop its own struggle. This situation will in no way lead to an automatic strengthening of the working class. On the contrary, it is an opportunity used and ideologically exploited by the ruling class.

The proletariat needs to politicise its struggles, but not in the way advocated by the left of capital, by committing itself to the defence of bourgeois "democracy". On the contrary, it must refuse to take part in the the elections and fight on its own class terrain, against all the factions and expressions of the capitalist world which threaten to condemn us to destruction and barbarism.
Valerio, 1 July 2024

 

The "International Group of the Communist Left" (IGCL) has been snitching again.

In its latest bulletin, under the title "Against individualism and the 2.0 circle spirit of the 2020s", we read: "... the practice of video meetings is unfortunately tending to replace physical meetings. We have nothing against the organisation of video meetings between isolated comrades, especially at international level, who cannot meet in the same place. On the other hand, the fact that militants tend to no longer make the effort, or even consider it superfluous, to travel and take part in physical meetings, or ‘face-to-face’ meetings as managers in companies call them, is a step backwards in relation to an achievement and an organising principle of the workers' movement."
And this passage refers to a footnote: "We know, for example, that the ICC no longer holds local meetings, even when it has several members in the same town. It holds ‘transversal’ meetings, ‘bringing together’ members from different places, thus isolated from their comrades with whom they are supposed to intervene in the event of workers’ or other struggles, but remaining comfortably at home. The criteria for assigning members to particular video networks can only be arbitrary and personalised. A modern remake of the Zinovievist Bolshevisation of Communist Parties in the early 1920s, which replaced meetings by territorial or local sections with the creation of factory cells, and which the Italian Left strongly denounced."
So here we have the IGCL publicly informing the state and all the world's police forces about how the ICC organises its internal meetings! That's the group's raison d'être: to monitor the CCI in order to divulge on its website as much information as possible about our organisation and its militants. As a reminder, the IGCL or its ancestor the so-called "Internal Fraction of the ICC" (IFICC)[1] have already publicly disclosed :
- the date of a conference to be held by our section in Mexico in the presence of militants from other countries. This repugnant act of facilitating the repressive work of the bourgeois state is all the more despicable in that its members knew full well that some of our comrades in Mexico had already, in the past, been victims of repression and that some had been forced to flee their countries of origin.
- the real initials of one of our comrades with the precision that he was the author of this or that text given his "style" (which is an interesting indication for the police services).
- and even, on a regular basis, extracts from our internal bulletins!

But the attentive reader may have noticed two little words from the IGCL’s pen that are in fact directly inspired by cop techniques: "We know" .

"We know, for example, that the ICC...". They want to show us that they know, that they know what's going on in the ICC, that they know because they have an informer, a mole. By doing so, they want to sow suspicion in our ranks, to distil the poison of mistrust.
Since its inception, every time the IGCL manages to glean from the sewers a 'scoop' on the internal life of the ICC, it shouts it out it at the top of its lungs. In 2014, in its second issue, the IGCL published extracts from our bulletins, boasting that they were exploiting a "leak " (as they put it). To add insult to injury, in a footnote it even pointed out: "We have undertaken not to disclose publicly how and by whom we received the ICC's internal newsletters. Nevertheless, we can assure you that the 'source' is free from any suspicion of police or other affiliation ".
In its latest newsletter, the IGCL continues its work, again in a footnote: "... the ICC’s internal bulletins contain many contributions on the subject. It would certainly be useful to gather them together and publish them one day ".
Victor Serge, in his book What every revolutionary must know about repression, clearly shows that the spread of suspicion and slander is the bourgeois state's weapon of choice for destroying revolutionary organisations: "Confidence in the party is the cement of any revolutionary force (...) The enemies of action, the cowards, the well-installed, the opportunists willingly pick up their weapons in the sewers! They use suspicion and slander to discredit revolutionaries (...) This evil - the suspicion between us - can only be contained by a great effort of will".
The IGCL used exactly the same methods as did the GPU, Stalin's political police, to destroy the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s from within.

The ICC will not fall into this trap.

But in doing so, the IGCL is not only attacking our organisation. It encourages the development of the habits of thugs and snitches, it has broken the taboo on denunciation, and it has gangrened the entire proletarian milieu. Worse still, the IGCL commits all these crimes in the name of the Communist Left!
That's why we call on all revolutionary organisations, all minorities, all individuals who sincerely want to defend the proletarian revolution and its principles, to publicly denounce these acts of snitching.
Only the greatest political firmness on principles, the strongest solidarity between revolutionaries, can build a dam in the face of this filth.


 

Having re-established the facts about our platform, slandered by the “International Group of the Communist Left”[1], we must now defend the content of our intervention dealing with the war, faced with defamatory statements from the IGCL that attribute the following political approaches and analyses to the ICC: "concealing the danger of war", "abstract and timeless internationalism, based simply on sentiment and morality" and "the introduction of bourgeois idealism into the revolutionary doctrine of the proletariat" ...

The ICC ‘disarms the proletariat when faced with the danger of war’!

According to the IGCL, the ICC adopts an approach to war which "can only pave the way to some kind of moral pacifism since it does not root internationalism in the very material ground of the dialectical relation between the very process of imperialist war and that of the class struggle, which is synthesised in the alternative of ‘international proletarian revolution or generalised imperialist war, revolution or war’".[2]

So, how does it apply this to our intervention? Not a word! It's a bluff, an untruth wrapped up in a fancy phrase to dazzle IGCL followers, if there is such a thing.

Contrary to what the IGCL wants to convey, the ICC's policy on war is perfectly anchored in the context of the current world situation and oriented by the perspective of the need for the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat:

- In the present period, the main factor in the development of the class struggle has become and will increasingly be the irreversible deepening of the crisis of capitalism, involving increasingly unbearable economic attacks on the working class. Such a perspective is already illustrated by the global dynamic of class struggle revealed by the renewal of struggles in the United Kingdom in the spring of 2022, which then spread to the main industrialised countries of Europe and to the United States, and has since been confirmed regularly by new struggles.[3] The aim of the ICC's intervention is to strengthen both the capacity of the class to develop its struggles resisting these attacks and its awareness of the need to overthrow capitalism.

- The multiplication and worsening of imperialist conflicts throughout the world constitute a growing threat to humanity and play a role in the proletariat's becoming conscious of the need to overthrow capitalism; clearly the ICC did not wait for the IGCL's posturing and bluster to develop this aspect of its intervention.

As for the IGCL's "red alerts" such as "In the name of decomposition, didn’t the ICC definitively rule out any prospect of a third world war?"[4], this is only designed to sow doubts about our organisation's determination to assume its responsibilities faced with the danger posed by war.

The IGCL's attempt to "kill off" the Joint Declaration adopted by groups of the Communist Left on the war in Ukraine

For the ICC, this declaration testifies to the fact that, "in the face of the accelerating imperialist conflict in Europe, political organisations based on the heritage of the Communist Left continue to brandish the banner of a coherent proletarian internationalism and to provide a point of reference for those who defend the principles of the working class." [5]

This initiative, which manifestly annoys the IGCL, leads it to utter whatever comes into its head, without even the slightest concern for plausibility, in order to denigrate it. Blinded by its hatred of the ICC and ignoring the real content of the declaration, it "aims its fire" in the direction of the various signatory groups, without even bothering about the real positions of each group, all of which it sees as guilty of having signed a joint position with the ICC. Thus, for the IGCL, "The initiative from the revolutionary groups that we would characterise as opportunist, namely the ICC, Internationalist Voice, which the Instituto Onorato Damen joined, puts forward the permanence of imperialist war under capitalism and denies the unfolding reality of a consolidation of imperialist blocs..." [6]

The big lie of the IGCL is that the “Joint statement of groups of the international communist left about the war in Ukraine [172]” mentions neither imperialist blocs nor the idea of any "permanence of imperialist war under capitalism". We invite our readers to check this out for themselves.

The IGCL builds on its own lie, stirring up opposition to "the theory of the decomposition of capitalism", defended only by the ICC which could constitute, in the words of the IGCL, "the ICC’s Trojan horse by which it introduces bourgeois idealism into the proletariat’s revolutionary doctrine"[7]. It then backs this up with the claim that the ICC's conceptions lead to "a situation in which history is at a standstill", insofar as "the determining factor of historical development is no longer the struggle between the contending classes in society but rather the effect of decomposition on society as a whole".

In responding to these arguments, our aim is not to convince a member of the proletarian camp, since the IGCL doesn’t belong to it, but we owe it to ourselves to re-establish the truth in the face of the distortions that these parasites inflict on our analysis of decomposition, just as they have done with the contents of our political platform. What does the ICC really say and what dangers does it warn against? “In this situation, where society’s two basic and antagonistic classes confront each other without either being able to impose its own definitive response [world war for the bourgeoisie and revolution for the working class] history nonetheless does not just come to a stop. Still less for capitalism than for other preceding modes of production is a “freeze” or a “stagnation” of social life possible. As a crisis-ridden capitalism’s contradictions can only get more severe, the bourgeoisie’s inability to offer the least perspective for society as a whole, and the proletariat’s inability, for the moment, to openly affirm its own, can only lead to a situation of generalised decomposition, of society rotting on its feet."[8]  When the ICC writes that "history cannot come to a stop" and that "there can be no 'freezing' or 'stagnation' of social life under capitalism", the IGCL presents us with the notion that "history has come to a standstill"! We all know the expression "he who wants to kill his dog claims it has rabies” It would fit this situation perfectly, except that the rabid party here is not the ICC, but the IGCL!

Contrary to the hallucinations of the rabid IGCL, we insist that history cannot come to a standstill. Indeed, as long as the working class constitutes a force in society, communist revolution remains a possibility on the agenda; the other alternative being the destruction of humanity, as a consequence of either world war or irreversible decomposition. For a world war to take place, two imperialist blocs would have to be formed, which is not currently on the agenda and probably never will be. On the other hand, irreversible decomposition is a much more tangible and developing threat and will be just as catastrophic and probably even more devastating than a world war.

By discrediting the ICC and stirring up opposition to "its dubious theory of decomposition", the IGCL's aim was to drive a wedge between our organisation and the other groups participating in the appeal, and thus to hinder the possibility that such a common approach could be repeated at a higher level.

The IGCL speaks of an imaginary call by the ICC for a new Zimmerwald and presents it as a manoeuvre!

Thus, for the IGCL: "it is curious, even ironic, to see the ICC, that rejects any danger of generalised imperialist war, calling for a new Zimmerwald"[9].

The ICC has never called for a new Zimmerwald as such. For us "the real and lasting significance of Zimmerwald lies in the development of an uncompromising internationalist line within a small minority called the Zimmerwald Left. The latter recognised that the First World War was only the beginning of an entire historical period dominated by imperialist war which would require a maximum programme for the working class: civil war, overthrow of the bourgeois regimes, dictatorship of the proletariat with a new Communist International to replace the bankrupt chauvinist 2nd International.”[10] In and through this debate, Lenin and those around him forged a nucleus which was to become the embryo of the Communist International.

The present situation and its prospects - even if they are not expressed in terms of a Third World War between two established imperialist blocs - are sufficiently dramatic to justify a mobilisation of the political vanguard of the proletariat to prepare the conditions for the emergence of the future party of the communist revolution.

This is not how the IGCL sees it. Its logic as a parasitic and police-like group[11] leads it to make its small contribution to sabotaging such a project by demonstrating its trademark pettiness, using the fabrications that are part of its political toolkit. In this way, it reveals the so-called "hidden face" of our approach to a common position of the Communist Left on the war in Ukraine:

a) "Apart the fact it would serve it [the ICC] in its attempt to exclude the so-called parasites from such an initiative, first and above all our group, to accept its basis would allow it to impose its rejection of the perspective and danger of imperialist war in the name of an artificial unity of the conference. Isn’t this precisely what the Istituto O. Damen had to accept?" [12]

Our response: The content of the joint declaration, no more than our own positions, has no mention of any rejection by the ICC of the reality and aggravation of imperialist tensions. The opposite is true.

b) "Thus, in such a conference today, the ICC would play the role the centrist Kautskyists played within the Zimmerwald-Kienthal conferences and would block the consequent internationalists of today, those who set their actions in response to the dynamics and steps towards generalised imperialist war." [13]

Our response: It goes without saying that the IGCL places itself in the category of "today's leading internationalists". In view of the above, and if the question were not so serious, we would have placed the IGCL in the category of "inveterate comedians".

Nevertheless, we retain this characterisation of the group in our article “The fight against imperialist war can only be waged with the positions of the communist left [173]”, in the section "A reminder of the track record of the IFICC / IGCL group".

"The parasitic network, a chaotic mix of groups and personalities, uses an unpalatable rehashing of the positions of the Communist Left to attack the real Communist Left, to falsify and denigrate it." [14]

ICC, June 2024

In the Russia of the Tsars, as in western Europe in the Middle Ages, it could often start with a wild rumour: the Jews have sacrificed one of our children in their evil rituals. Sinister political groups, the “Black Hundreds”, urged the most miserable layers of the population to attack another poverty-stricken group – the Jews of the ghettoes - to rape, loot and kill. The official police usually stood by and did nothing. This was the pogrom.

Things have changed a lot since then…but not altogether. In the Britain of 2024, wild rumours about the identity of the disturbed young man who carried out a real mass murder of children in Southport are circulated online, and there are attacks by raging mobs, many of them made up of people from the most socially deprived layers of the population, on other, sometimes even more desperate, groups. This time, however, the main target is not the Jews but Muslims and asylum-seekers. Among those political forces fuelling the violence are traditional Nazi worshippers who still see the hand of World Jewry behind every social and political problem. But many of them, like the far right “Celeb” Tommy Robinson, have realised that Islamophobia pays much better dividends today, and even claim to be the best defenders of the Jews against the Islamist threat. But through all this, the spirit of the pogrom lives on. 

Above all, what lives on is the attempt to “divide and rule”: to keep all the exploited and the oppressed weak because divided, to prevent them seeing that the real cause of their misery is not a particular part of the exploited and the oppressed but the social system of their exploiters and oppressors. It is that system – world capitalism - which is responsible both for the wars and ecological destruction which is generating an unprecedented refugee problem all over the world, and for the economic crisis and austerity which is everywhere reducing living standards and access to basic necessities.

Another major difference with Russia at the end of the 19th century: these “race riots” are the product of a capitalism which has been obsolete for over a century and is which is now heading towards chaotic breakdown. The recent violence in Britain is an expression of this chaos, of a mounting loss of control by the ruling class. The more responsible factions of the ruling class don’t want this disorder on the streets. One of the main reasons the Labour Party came to power was to “restore order” on the political level after the mess created by a Tory party that had become profoundly infected by the vandal-like policies of populism[1]. Hence the very tough response by the government, threatening rioters with the “full force of the law” and planning to form a “standing army” of police trained to deal with disorder. The police today are not standing idly by faced with the looting and destruction carried out by the far right. On the contrary, they are presented as resolute defenders of mosques and hotels housing asylum-seekers, and they are arresting far right rioters en masse, while the courts convict them within days of their arrest.  

Capitalism uses its own decomposition against us

Does this mean that the Labour Party and the police are true friends of the working class now? Not at all. Capitalism may be falling apart, but the capitalist class knows that the greatest danger it faces is that the working class around the world becomes aware of itself as a class which has the capacity not only to resist capitalist exploitation but to overturn the entire system. That is why our rulers are perfectly willing to use the disintegration of their own society to obstruct the development of a real class consciousness:

- by intensifying a political campaign around the “defence of democracy against fascism” which is already a theme in the elections in the EU, France and the US, and which aims to drag workers into the dead-end of electoral politics and the idea that they should support one faction of the ruling class against the other;

 - by reinforcing the state’s apparatus of repression while “democratising” the image of the police. Today this apparatus may be directed against “far right thuggery” but tomorrow it can and will be used against the struggles of the working class. Let’s not forget how the police were employed as a “standing army” against the struggle of the miners in 1984-5. It’s the same police with the same function: protecting capitalist order.

 - by distracting attention away from the policy of austerity that the Labour government is already beginning to push through. Since its first days in power, the Labour government, which conveniently discovered a concealed “black hole” in government finances, has announced measures which indicate future attacks on working class living standards: refusal to scrap the policy that limits child benefits to two children, and getting rid of heating allowances for pensioners except for the poorest layers. 

In addition, we should not forget that it’s not only the far right or the populists who target immigrants. The “One Nation Tory” Theresa May was in charge of creating the “hostile atmosphere for illegal immigrants” under the Cameron government, while Labour’s main criticism of Tory gimmicks like the Rwanda scheme has been that it is not cost effective. In the US, despite all of Trump’s bombast against the “foreign invasion”, Democratic administrations under Obama and Biden have been no less ruthless in carrying out massive deportations. All wings of the bourgeoisie defend the national economy and national borders, which, in the brutal struggle of each against all on the world market, are more and more organised around a kind of fortress state to keep out “foreign” imports and labour.

The class struggle is our only defence

In response to the destruction unleashed in the riots, there has been a considerable amount of real indignation and outrage within the working class and the population as a whole. The attempt of the far right to use the Southport murders as a pretext for attacking ethnic minorities and migrants was greeted with the disgust it deserved by those most directly affected by the murders; and there were a number of gestures of support towards the main targets of the violence, as in Southport itself where local residents came together to repair the damage done to the mosque hit by the rioters. On 7 August, responding to the threat of further attacks on immigrant advice centres throughout the countries, thousands of people came out onto the streets in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol, Brighton and elsewhere to surround these centres and prevent them being ransacked (in most cases, the threats came to nothing and the far right didn’t show up).

But we should not have any illusions. These understandable responses were immediately “embraced” by capitalism’s propaganda machine to present the image of “a real Britain” which is law-abiding, tolerant and multicultural. Following the mobilisations of August 7, this line was shared by nearly all the press from left to right. Most telling perhaps was the August 8 headline of the Daily Mail, a right-wing newspaper which has played a central role in the campaign of fear-mongering about illegal immigrants. Its front page had a photo of the demonstration in Walthamstow (perhaps the biggest in the country) and its headline was “Night anti-hate marchers faced down the thugs”.

Outside the mainstream media, the extreme left of capital, the Trotskyists in particular, have been a key factor in calling for these mobilisations and trying to create new versions of the popular front. In short, providing a left cover for the campaign to defend democracy against fascism.

The working class can only defend itself – and stand up to attacks on any of its fractions, whether “native” or “immigrant” – by fighting on its own terrain. That is, the terrain of struggle against the inevitable assault on its living standards demanded by capitalism in crisis - a struggle which has the same aims and interests in all countries and across all national divisions. The working class in Britain has many burdens of the past to throw off, above all the weight inherited from Britain’s imperial hey-day. But we should not forget that Britain was the birthplace of the first independent workers’ party, the Chartists, and - in conjunction with the French workers – of the First International. And in 2022, it was the workers of Britain who played a central role in the revival of class movements after decades of resignation. Their slogan was “enough is enough” - a slogan the far right has tried to steal. But in 2022 the slogan, which was taken up by the workers in France and elsewhere, did not mean “enough foreigners” but enough austerity, enough inflation, enough attacks on our living standards, and that remains the real situation facing the working class today, whatever the colours of the government in office.

In 1905, faced with mass strikes across the Russian Empire, the Tsarist regime responded with its usual trick: stir up the pogroms in order to break the unity of the workers or set the peasants against them. At that moment, the workers had created their own independent organisations, the soviets, and one of their functions was to organise the armed defence of Jewish quarters threatened by pogromists. Today the workers don’t have such independent organisations. But the future development of the class struggle will have to create them anew – organs of mass self-organisation which can not only defend the class from all the attacks of capital, but lead a political offensive aimed at overthrowing the whole system.

Amos, 9.8.24

We are publishing this contribution by a close sympathiser who was moved to write it in response to the barrage of bourgeois propaganda about the racist riots in Britain and the response by the main factions of the ruling class. We fully endorse its clear denunciation of this ideological attack, as well as the article's exposure of the true "record" of capitalism when it comes to the mass killing of children.

ICC

The race riots breaking out across the UK (except Scotland), showing a frenzy of hatred aimed at migrants and Muslims to the point of calling them to be burnt alive, are taking place within a framework of extensive poverty and deprivation that’s been increasing over the last decades in Britain. The scapegoating of migrants and Muslims has been whipped up by openly fascist elements and spread on social media platforms such as Elon Musk’s “X”, where he pursues his Trumpian agenda assisted by other platforms including those set up in the interests of Russian imperialism.

Pitting worker against worker or worker against oppressed is a trick of the ruling class that long predates social media, existing since the beginning of capitalism itself. The major parties of the British state, including the Labour Party, have been stoking up racial tensions for decades and particularly during the life of the last Conservative government where migrant victims of capitalism, mostly destined to join the workforce on levels of greater exploitation or of joining the black economy – which the bourgeoisie is well aware of – are further victimised and terrorised by all levels of unrelenting racist bourgeois propaganda promoted by the right wing press. All this is effectively taken up by the BBC which becomes a major component of capitalist division.

During strikes, the “race riots” or incidents of racial tensions during the second half of the twentieth century, the “independent” BBC news would go for comment on these issues to

cab drivers, market stallholders and shopkeepers with predictable results, but its role in dividing and attacking the working class has become much more sophisticated since. Under the guise of “balance”, the BBC has promoted conspiracy theories and climate change denial, and promoted such despicable individuals as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, as well as keeping up a permanent propaganda barrage against “illegal immigrants” and “boat people” which matched the Conservative governments trawl for “illegals” under Prime Minister May, its “Rwanda” policy under Sunak, and the blatant whipping up of xenophobic fears by Home Secretary Braverman and other senior politicians.

But the BBC’s “balance” also promotes anti-fascism, anti-racism, identity politics, multiculturalism and the specifics of this or that group which also undermines solidarity and weakens the working class. These are other forms of nationalism or the defence of nationalism in disguise, and the only “anti-nationalism” that exists is the internationalism and solidarity of the working class and its own struggle.

The terrible killings of three young children at a social event in Southport at the end of July turned into – and were deliberately turned into – a firestorm of hatred against brown, black and Asians – any old scapegoat. The young man arrested for the murders, the son of a migrant with Rwandan heritage who has been working in Britain for years, appears to be mentally distressed but the colour of his skin was more relevant to the agenda of the forces of populism, racism and division.

Decomposing capitalism and the killing of children

In this context, the killing of children in capitalist society bears some examination. The random or planned killing of children is not a new phenomenon but one that belongs to class society which has been greatly expanded and “perfected” by capitalism. In Dunblane, Scotland, 1996, a middle-aged man entered a primary school and shot 16 children and one teacher dead while wounding 15 others. Doctors and nurses have been involved in mass infanticides (Beverly Allit, Lucy Letby, etc). Mass killings of children in nurseries seem to be happening frequently in China and Russia also. At an elementary school in Sandy Hook, USA, 2012, 26 people were shot dead, including 20 children aged between six and seven years old. An event outrageously denied by conspiracy theorists and some populists. “USAFacts” reports that in the USA “From the 2000–01 to 2021–22 school years, there were 1,375 school shootings at public and private elementary and secondary schools, resulting in 515 deaths and 1,161 injuries.” In 2000-1 there were 30 shootings (stabbings not included). These figures steadily increased as capitalist decomposition took its toll, rising dramatically from 2017/18, to reach 327 separate attacks in 2021-22. It’s difficult to find correct figures for infanticides in Britain from the Home Office but it’s clear that most children are killed by their parents or someone that they knew.

The lives of the children of the working class and the oppressed are nothing to capitalism and – as has always happened – this precious commodity is wasted with abandon. Throughout the wars of the 20th century, the wholesale slaughter of civilians through bombing, shelling or mass executions have become the norm, and thus all the great capitalist nations have been totally complicit in the mass extermination of children.

Today, Netanyahu’s Zionist regime is carrying out wholesale acts of terrorism and murder against children, aided and abetted by its Western allies. And in Sudan today, where all the major imperialisms (US, UK, Russia, France, as well Middle Eastern Emirates and local powers) are fomenting war, the fate and plight of children is probably much worse than Gaza. Capitalism is the killer of children.

Turning a particular murder of 3 children into a battle of hatred and xenophobia on such a scale is a reminder of the dangers of decomposition and populism to the working class. Defence of nationalism, the nation state, “our country”, whether from the right, but particularly from the left, is indefensible from a communist perspective and a trap for the working class. The only way to effectively confront the effects of the decomposition of capitalism is for the workers, as workers, to fight on their own terrain of the class struggle.

B. 7.8.24

Over the last few months the world’s mass media - which is owned, controlled and dictated to by the capitalist class - has been preoccupied by the election carnivals taking place in France, then Britain, throughout the rest of the world such as in Venezuela, Iran and India, and now more and more in the United States.

The overriding theme of the propaganda about the election masquerades has been the defence of the democratic governmental facade of capitalist rule. A facade designed to hide the reality of an irresolvable economic crisis, the carnage of imperialist war, the pauperisation of the working class, the destruction of the environment, the persecution of refugees. It is the democratic fig leaf that obscures the dictatorship of capital whichever of its different parties - right, left, or center, ‘fascist’ or ‘anti-fascist’ - come to political power in the bourgeois state.

The working class is being asked to make the false choice between one or other capitalist government, this or that party or leader, and, more and more today, to opt between those who pretend to abide by the established democratic protocols of the bourgeois state and those who, like the populist right, treat these procedures with an open, rather than the concealed, contempt of the liberal democratic parties.

Come to hear and discuss the political alternative that the Communist Left proposes for the working class and its struggle. 

Time: 2pm, UK time, Saturday 21st September 2024

This is an online meeting. If you want to take part, write to [email protected] [124] and we will send you the links.

The recent report of the inquiry commission about the Grenfell disaster, under the direction of Sir Martin Moore-Bick, is damming and merciless in its condemnation of all parties involved in the refurbishment of the building nearly ten years ago. The report clearly establishes that safety regulations with regard to a possible fire were largely ignored. It denounces the complete lack of responsibility of each of the stakeholders and the total absence of any concern with regard to the residents housed in the tower building.

The 68-metre-high Grenfell Tower with its 24 floors was built in 1974. In 2015-16 it was completely refurbished and fitted with new windows and external cladding, mainly to make Grenfell look more attractive to wealthy neighbours. But the people living in the building were worried because during the refurbishment, safety – an issue with which they had long been concerned – did not appear to have been a priority. In the event of fire the only way out was a single concrete staircase that cut through the core of the building. It was the only escape route for a block housing hundreds of people. Those on the three top floors were looking at 22, 23, 24 flights of stairs. Moreover, many of the fire safety devices were no longer monitored, and even declared unfit. Fire safety instructions for residents were nowhere to be found and, according to residents, no integrated fire alarm system had been installed.

An action committee of tenants repeatedly sounded the alarm over fire safety problems with the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), the agent of the building, together with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) “responsible for the management of fire safety” (the Grenfell Inquiry's final report). The action committee openly accused the KCTMO of criminal negligence. But it turned into a dialogue of the deaf.

When fire broke out at the West London tower block in the early hours of June 14, 2017, instructions were eventually issued, advising people to lock themselves in their flats until instructed otherwise by the fire brigade. "Your new front doors are more than 30 minutes resistant to any fire, giving the fire brigade more than enough time," the KCTMO had told residents in March 2017. In June of the same year it emerged that £300 000 had been saved on the refurbishing works, but at the cost of 72 dead and 77 injured, the worst UK residential fire since World War 2. This is capitalism in the 21st century.

Not enough to blame individuals or companies alone

The recent report of the inquiry commission does not point to the capitalist system, but to the companies, institutions, managements directly or indirectly involved in the refurbishment of the Grenfell building. But it is not enough to blame particular actors, we have to dig deeper. We will then reach the fundamental mechanism of the capitalist economy in open crisis, where competition is pushed to the limit. This is why the article we wrote in 2017 was called Grenfell Tower fire: A crime of capital [178] (ICC Online).

The increasingly fierce competition in the construction sector, as in many other sectors of the capitalist economy, brings with it phenomena such as corruption, indifference, negligence, looking the other way and not treating tenants with any respect. All this together creates a poisonous cocktail where unscrupulous businesses can emerge and “basic neglect of its obligations in relation to fire safety” (as the inquiry’s report puts it) reigns supreme.

At the time of the Grenfell fire the construction sector was characterised by aggressive incentives to investors, the stripping of planning restrictions, low public controls on capital investment, major tax breaks, high financial risks and crucially, when it came to human safety, a ‘look the other way’ system of self-regulation.

This deregulation was one of the cornerstones of the policy of the Cameron government. “The government’s deregulatory agenda, enthusiastically supported by some junior ministers and the Secretary of State, dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded”. The Department for Communities and Local Government under David Cameron was “well aware” of the risks posed by flammable cladding but “failed to act on what it knew”[1].

But we should not remain on the level of pointing at the particular actors. It is essentially “the mode of production which engenders such disasters from its very entrails[2] From this perspective the Grenfell fire was no accident, or an unfortunate coincidence; no, the conditions for such a disaster were knowingly and willingly created. And we should have no illusions, because under capitalism such catastrophes happen over and over again anywhere and everywhere in the world. Capitalism as a global system does not necessarily apply the lessons it draws from such disasters. For instance,

• after the Grenfell fire, 25 hospitals, care homes and sheltered housing complexes in the UK were likely to have been constructed with combustible insulation. Moreover, dozens of schools seem to have used a flammable construction material in the building even after cladding was banned on residential buildings over 18 meters in height;
• after a fire in Valencia of 22 February 2024, which engulfed two 14-story residential blocks, where ten people lost their lives and 15 were injured, the authorities denied that highly flammable cladding had been used in the construction. Nevertheless, deep suspicion had appeared concerning the materials employed, fed in particular by “the rapidity of the fire, which we've never seen before [and that] within minutes, the building became a death trap”, the Alicante fire chief said;
• ­after a fire at Rajkot’s TRP Gaming Zone in Gujarat in India on 25 May 2024, 27 people were killed. A demolition notice had already been issued to the entertainment zone, following a fire incident in 2023. But the gaming zone was still operating, while storing inflammable materials indoors.

In capitalism there will be no end to the series of disasters, caused by the bourgeoisies’ gambling with the conditions in which people live, work and are educated. Only the working class can solve such problems by putting an end to this whole barbaric system. An organisation of the capitalist left like the Socialist Workers’ Party can of course agree that the deaths and injuries caused by the Grenfell fire “stem from a system that put private profit ahead of everything else - including the lives of poor and black people”. But this is only in appearance, because when it comes down to proposing a means of preventing the outbreak of such catastrophes it mainly limits itself to slogans like “keep demanding justice” and the demand that “the bosses and politicians responsible get jail time”. This will not change anything fundamental, because the system will find new corrupt businessmen and politicians to do its dirty work, and will above all keep engendering disaster like the Grenfell fire.

Dennis

Saturday 5 October, 2pm

Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Rd, London WC1X 8JR

The articles, reports, and resolutions that you can find on our website (en.internationalism.org) are produced by a real living, breathing revolutionary organisation. Our work is not limited to online and hard copy publications, we also intervene towards pickets, strikes and demonstrations. Alongside that we hold meetings, sometimes online and sometimes face-to-face in the flesh. Some of these meetings are around subjects that the ICC thinks are important for the working class, with a presentation of our point of view, followed by plenty of time for discussion. We also hold Open Meetings which are open to anyone who is interested in anything to do with our political positions and analysis. Whether on questions from the history of the workers movement, or on the principles established by the groups of the Communist Left, or on aspects of our analysis of the national or international situation, or on the work of revolutionary organisations, or with questions on or disagreements with anything that we have published, you are encouraged to contact us before the next Open Meeting and outline what you would like to discuss with the ICC. These meetings can be really productive in following up on correspondence, in answering questions, in all aspects of the process of political clarification.

If you want to propose topics for discussion, write to us at [email protected] [124]

ICC introduction

The international online public meeting called by the ICC in July in the wake of the elections on Britain and France gave rise to a very animated discussion between comrades from several continents. The discussion showed that it is extremely important for revolutionaries to have a clear grasp of the phenomenon of populism (and the rise of the far right) which has become a major element in the growing political disarray of the ruling class. Inevitably, the debate gave rise to different interpretations of the populist phenomenon and its significance. We are publishing here two contributions from close sympathisers, written after the meeting. In our view, they provide a very clear defence of the ICC’s analysis of the phenomenon.

Contribution by KT

1. The ruling class’s reaction to the accelerated decay of its system, its decomposition, has been to give rise, from within itself, movements and parties which focus on blaming ‘the elites’, the traditional parties and governments, for the degraded state of affairs, experienced and expressed as a ‘national problem’. They arise in the total absence of any bourgeois or any immediate proletarian perspective for society. They arise to answer the question ‘who is to blame?’, ‘whose fault is it?’, because it’s not possible any longer to hide the true state of affairs, to pretend that ‘it’ is not getting worse and worse. In performing their function, these movements further destabilise and become an active factor in the chaos they seek to address.  
2. It is important to note that this populism is an organic, spontaneous evolution within bourgeois society at a certain stage in its development (its decomposition), which the more traditional sectors of the state – the armed forces, the civil service, the ‘secret’ services, the traditional and established parties – have not deliberately conjured up. On the contrary, they are opposed to this new manifestation. Where they try to neutralise it by adopting its political clothing, they have been rent asunder (the Tory Party in Britain) or captured almost completely by the force they seek to control (the Republican Party in the US). This is the background to the destablisation of bourgeois affairs witnessed in Europe, North and South America. In France, Macron’s successful manoeuvre to thwart the RN has resulted in … legislative paralysis: out of the frying pan and into the fire. 
3. There accrues no advantage to the proletariat in this situation. On the contrary:
   - sections of it can be prey to the lies, scapegoating and nationalist rhetoric of the populists;
   - sections of it can be temporarily dragooned into support for ‘democracy’ against the ‘new fascists’ as seen in the new Front Populaire in France or the tactical voting in GB (manoeuvres to thwart the Farage clan or to ensure the downfall of Tory candidates). The electoral terrain in France, the US, GB or anywhere is not a field of expression for the proletariat, unlike its recent struggles in defence of its living standards.   

Contribution by Baboon

During the early part of the discussion on the presentation there were three positions put forward on populism that demand a defence from the ICC’s position on that subject…

Two of the positions seemed to be broadly similar, with one of them saying that populism was an expression of the bourgeoisie which was kept in check by the power of the state, alongside a similar position that populism was controlled by the bourgeoisie. There was also a third position that populism was a diversion manufactured by the bourgeoisie aimed at confronting the class struggle of the proletariat.

On the first two positions: populism, such as it affects many states in the world, including the most powerful ones, is fundamentally an expression of the accelerating decay of all the major aspects of capitalism, i.e., its decomposition. The increasing difficulties in managing the political life of the ruling class is one example, along with others like environmental destruction and the spread of military barbarism, that are superstructural symptoms of a dying economic infrastructure, the representatives of which (the bourgeoisie) are less and less able to control. Rather than the “control” suggested by the positions of these comrades, the situation very clearly expresses a serious loss of control. This was laid out in the 1990 “Theses on Decomposition” where there is “a society devoid of the slightest project or perspective, even in the short term, and however illusory.” The Theses go on to stress that: “Amongst the major characteristics of capitalist society’s decomposition, we should emphasise the bourgeoisie’s growing difficulty in controlling the evolution of the political situation” and further “at the same time the fact that the proletariat does not yet threaten its own survival, creates within the ruling class, and especially within its political apparatus, a growing tendency towards indiscipline and an attitude of ‘every man for himself’” (Points 8 and 9).

Populism is a global and general expression of the decomposition of capitalism which, similar to all the expressions, “responses” and “solutions” of the ruling class, can only incite and invite further crises, loss of control and instability to the national and international arenas. One such expression is the ascension of Trump and all that he stands for to the Presidency of mighty America.  Certainly Trump’s “excesses” were largely kept in check during his term in office but Trump’s “deal-making” approach to international relations is entirely unsuitable for the looming confrontation with China, which also necessitates the bleeding of Russian imperialism. In this respect, Trump’s goading and abuse of US “allies”, tearing up protocols and ignoring diplomatic channels is also counter-productive to the short and longer-term demands of American imperialism. And Trump is threatening much more of the same in his second term. This is not populism controlled or engineered by the state but a loss of control with the potential for further loss of control and chaos in international relations. Trump wasn’t “kept in check” by the US state when he rejected the result of the 2020 election process, openly threatened his political enemies, stoked up divisions as populism does everywhere, whipping up a phoney “unity” based on the fear and hatred of the “other” and unleashed his mob on the Capitol.

In Great Britain, the infection of populism has almost destroyed the Conservative Party, the oldest and most stable political party of the bourgeoisie anywhere in the world. The ruling class referendum for Brexit – the argument for which was largely based on extreme nationalism and racism - showed a total loss of control and indiscipline from this, the most stable and able bourgeoisie on the world stage. This loss of control by the bourgeoisie resulted in a severe self-inflicted wound to the national economy and the standing of Britain throughout the world. More was to follow as the British government was further gangrened by populism with the election of chancer Boris Johnson to Prime Minister, and when he and his clique showed themselves spectacularly inept, the even more spectacularly inept Liz Truss, whose populist economic measures led to an unprecedented economic war within the British state, was elected Prime Minister. Over three days of her short reign of just over a month the British Treasury, under orders from the Truss clique, did battle with the Bank of England, which was backed by a concerned Biden administration. Truss limped off the political stage like a wet lettuce leaving a further unnecessary hit on the British economy (and coming dangerously close to its entire pension funds wiped out) and Britain’s international standing and political class was reduced to a joke across the world.

Thus, in the last few years, the most powerful and the oldest political economies of capitalism have, in the face of crises, shown not “control” of the situation but a complete loss of control, political indiscipline and an opening up to chaos.

The other position that goes along similar lines as the bourgeoisie controlling and directing populism is that it is a deliberate tactic of the ruling class being used as a diversion or counter against the class struggle of the proletariat.

Any serious campaign undertaken by the ruling class to counter the struggle of the proletariat is not of the ilk of populism, a phenomenon which, while it can rake in some workers, is a political expression whose strength lies within the petty bourgeoisie, the citizen, the fear and hatred of the others. It’s a scream of despair from the petty bourgeoisie. A strategy of the bourgeoisie against the class struggle has much more substance than this.

The election of the Labour Party in the UK was not a result of a significant leftward turn of the bourgeoisie to counter the workers’ struggles, but a general ballot box response to the growing inanities of populist conservatism. In this election (as with Trump in the US) some workers would have voted for populist tropes along the lines of race, immigration and “woke” elites, but many more workers voted against such expressions. At any rate it was something of a victory for the bourgeoisie because, as in any election, workers voted alongside the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie as citizens, individuals; populism and anti-populism are just two sides of the same coin as far as rallies, elections and democracy are concerned. It would be odd indeed if the bourgeoisie were to use populism as a diversion against class struggle when its racism, xenophobia and totally irrational economic policies have their far greatest echoes and resonance in the realms of the petty bourgeoisie.

There’s no doubt that the ruling class use the many expressions of decomposition against the workers, hammering their consciousness on a daily basis. But this is different from a deliberate class struggle strategy by the bourgeoisie because populism is such an undisciplined and irrational mish-mash that has no perspective for the national economy or international relations, let alone one that has the strength to “divert” or counter the working class. In the last few years we have seen a clear de-facto rejection of populism by the working class (whose fundamental interests are international) in the greatest and broadest range of workers’ struggle for four decades, and which took place during the upsurge of the populist phenomenon.

The 2022/3 eruption of workers’ struggle did not come out of clear blue sky. The ICC article “After the rupture...” (International Review 171) correctly points to tendencies of struggles breaking out internationally from 2018/19. Significant strikes were breaking out in the US in 2019, during the Trump administration; and in Britain strikes began during Johnson’s reign and further deepened and spread during the Truss debacle and the into the reign of the populist-gangrened Conservative Party. The global development of workers’ struggle developed during the heights of populism (and just before, during and after the Covid pandemic – see After the rupture in the class struggle, the necessity for politicisation [179], International Review 171)

“which clearly demonstrates that if it was a weapon against the working class then it was totally ineffectual. But, by using the same faulty method which sees populism as a diversion against class struggle, one could conclude that populism accelerated the class struggle. Neither was the case, and the obvious synthesis is that populism represents a loss of control by the political class of capitalism.

This is not to deny the persisting power of populism and the use that it has made of democracy in order to pursue its obscure aims. Already in some countries populists in power are having to curb their “excesses” and adjust to the needs of the national interest and global imperialism – similar to the way the Greens had to where they had some electoral clout, on a smaller scale.

The recent wave of international class struggle, the most profound for four decades, is a riposte to the question of populism by a proletariat that is tentatively putting forward its own priorities and its own perspective which are distinct from that of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. It is also a riposte to capitalist decomposition in that while the proletariat can’t stem the tide of decomposition, it can offer a different perspective, a working class perspective, which it has opened up and given a glimpse of a different future.

Baboon, 24.7.24

Workers in Argentina are suffering an acute degradation in their living conditions. President Milei has imposed measures that constantly increase unemployment and reduce wages, driving the broad proletarian masses into poverty, with the official figure rising in a few months from 45% to 57% of the population. The shock measures, agreed with most of the provincial governors, known as the ‘Ley de bases’ (basic laws), imposed severe austerity by eliminating social assistance, particularly in the health and education sectors, and making swingeing cuts in social budgets. These include massive redundancies in the public sector - between 50,000 and 60,000 have been made so far, with plans to cut a further 200,000 jobs - wage and pension freezes, all with the pretext of controlling inflation, and an increase and reinforcement of the state's repressive arsenal. In the first days of the present government, when it launched a new escalation of aggressive measures against workers and worsened the already deteriorating conditions of the exploited, large spontaneous demonstrations were held, but the trade union apparatus and left-wing factions of capital trapped workers' anger and the will to fight, preventing discontent from being transformed into a conscious and organised force.

The manoeuvres used today by the bourgeoisie generally appear whenever workers’ combativity threatens to explode on to the streets, which is why a vital and crucial task for the exploited is to look back at their past struggles, in order to learn from them, by recognising the positive experiences of these struggles, but also by reflecting on the mistakes and negative experiences, because this allows workers to identify and evade the traps set by the bourgeoisie so that they can prepare for future struggles.

The need to reappropriate the Cordobazo experience of 1969...

The tradition of workers' struggle in Argentina was affirmed in the period between the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century, with the rapid industrialisation of the country and the growth of the proletariat; however, the impact of the defeat of the world revolutionary wave of 1917-23 plunged the entire working class worldwide into a long period of counter-revolution. In Argentina, this period of counter-revolution took the particular form of a government ‘democratically’ elected but, in reality, led by the army, strongly marked as elsewhere by the measures and need for state control both over the national economy and over the whole of social life, which are characteristic of the period of the decadence of capitalism. But in Argentina, Peronism[1] has given it a ‘social’ colouring, with its claim to be based on the trade unions and the ‘popular strata’ of the nation. Peronism came into being in the midst of a succession of coups d'état, sometimes instigated by the military, sometimes by civilians, to tighten the bourgeoisie’s hold on the working class.

It was only with the end of a period of 40 years of counter-revolution, at the end of the 1960s, that the wave of international resurgence of workers' struggles, of which the Cordobazo was one of the most significant expressions, that the Argentine proletariat once again showed its strength and fighting spirit [2]. First and foremost, it is necessary to retrieve the experience of this period of struggle, in which the working class affirmed its ability to mobilise on its class terrain and developed its struggle and solidarity in the face of the attacks of the bourgeoisie, following in the footsteps of workers in France during the massive strikes of May 68 and later, during 1969, in the “hot autumn” in Italy. This movement was in complete opposition to the methods of struggle falsely portrayed as socialist or communist by the leftist organisations, notably the ideas glorifying ‘guerrilla warfare’, the ideological weapon of the Eastern bloc at the time, then spread with the approval of the bourgeoisie not only in Latin America, but hyped by Stalinist and leftist groups throughout the world.

The Cordobazo, on the contrary, was a massive workers' mobilisation which, although called by the big trade unions to prevent workers from taking the initiative themselves, was able to show great determination and assert a strong combativity in the struggle, with the tendency to extend the movement, with assemblies in the streets and on the barricades, disregarding trade union instructions to stop the movement. Instead, workers extended the strikes and demonstrations. Despite the traps set by the bourgeoisie and its trade union apparatus, and the illusions it put forward, this movement was a strong and clear encouragement to the international resurgence of the class struggle, allowing the proletariat to regain confidence in its own strength, based on a powerful feeling of class solidarity in the ranks of the workers in struggle. In particular, workers were able to mount a courageous resistance against the ferocious state repression then led by a military government. Overall, workers showed their capacity to go beyond the corporatist framework in which the unions tried to confine the movement. As a result, demonstrations and strikes continued or were maintained in many sectors throughout 1970.

... but also the need to learn from the failures of the past in order to avoid the traps set by the bourgeoisie...

But it is also necessary to look back at the events that took place in the last decade of the 20th century and the first years of the 21st century. In particular, we need to develop a critical reflection on the experiences associated with the ‘piqueteros’ [3]  (known at the time as the ‘new social subjects’) and the ‘comedores populares’ (soup kitchens) [4], because these are not expressions of proletarian struggle, although the bourgeoisie, through its trade union structures and its entire left-wing political apparatus, continues to present them as models that workers should follow in their current struggles.

This is why bourgeois ideologists try to hide the fact that, since the Cordobazo, it is the trade union forces and the left wing of the bourgeoisie which have consistently worked to sabotage and drown workers’ fighting spirit and to divert the tremendous proletarian energy which manifested itself during the Cordobazo and frightened the whole of the bourgeoisie. Among other obstacles, the nationalist poison, contained in the anti-imperialist credo exploited above all by the left of capital and the various defenders of Peronism, constantly diverted workers’ anger towards mobilisations against the seizure of capital by companies of ‘foreign origin’ on national soil. The state's main asset, which prevented the development of workers' consciousness from advancing further, was the barrier erected by both its trade union apparatus and the left. At the level of the trade union leadership, this was above all possible thanks to the creation, in the face of the discrediting of the official CGT which was deeply linked to Peronism, of the CGT-A [5] (which had played an important role in the bourgeoisie's recuperation of the massive Cordobazo strikes). The ruse of Perón's return to Argentina, with the complicity of the left, was the product of negotiation between bourgeois factions to subjugate the workers. It was used both by the Peronist-based Justicialist Liberation Front and by the other political parties to lure the workers into the democratic electoral circus of 1973. This created the illusion that the only way out of poverty for workers was through the ballot box and democracy.

During the 1990s, unemployment grew, as did discontent, but all the growing anger was swallowed up by supposedly more radical sectors of Peronism, in the face of unemployment caused by the austerity policies of Carlos Menem (who also came from of Peronism). Pointless initiatives such as roadblocks were initially promoted and encouraged by sectors of the Peronist Justicialist Party, notably Hilda Duhalde [6]. In order to win their sympathy and guarantee their subsequent affiliation to the Justicialist Party, she offered subsidies to the unemployed and food to their families. Various left-wing organisations reactivated the ‘piqueteros’, particularly during the ‘corralito crisis’ which marked the country's economic and financial collapse at the end of 2001, and succeeded in bringing them together and mobilising them, in order to limit, control and divert discontent, The slogans used were totally unrelated to the interests of the exploited, such as the defence of nationalised companies or the promotion of minority actions, ranging from looting shops to putting factories that were due to close under self-management. Even today, various leftist organisations have come together within the Movement of the Unemployed (MTD) to compete and share control of the ‘piquetero movement’, once again using, as the Peronists did, free food distribution and soup kitchens to lure the unemployed into their nets.

These forms of action, although they seemed to express solidarity and decision-making through assemblies, in reality represented the negation of conscious unification, discussion and collective reflection, and were ultimately the means by which the bourgeoisie controlled the mobilisations of the unemployed. The trap was so effective that the entire left and far left apparatus of capital, in all its components, from Peronist factions to leftist groups and ‘alternative’ or radical trade union organisations like the CTA [7], used it to carry out their work of manipulation. In so doing, they exploited the fighting spirit, the material difficulties and growing poverty of the workers, their real material needs for help, to benefit their petty political tricks, but above all they prevent any initiative by workers to wage the struggle on their own class terrain.

In their work of specific control over the proletariat, the left-wing organs of the political apparatus of the bourgeoisie, like the unions, carry out their ideological manoeuvres by sharing out the work, always trying to divide workers so that they cannot unite their discontent, nor express their solidarity in struggle. In short, the aim is to discourage, prevent or sabotage any attempt or initiative by workers to take their struggle into their own hands, to achieve a form of organisation which breaks down the division imposed by the bourgeoisie and which the unions reproduce by dividing them into corporations, companies or sectors... and this division of labour is founded by the left of capital, which presents itself and the unions as workers’ true representatives.

In Argentina, where the crisis is hitting workers particularly hard, with the national economy on the brink of bankruptcy for years and inflation rates at staggering levels, this is the scenario built around the CGT or CTA unions and the ‘opposition’ parties linked to the left of capital. But in this enterprise, the leftist organisations are also exercising their bourgeois function as touts by pretending to distrust the unions as well as the left-wing parties, or even to fight them, when in reality all they are doing is seeking to undermine their credibility by sowing illusions about the possibility of winning them back to the cause of the proletariat by supposedly ‘putting pressure’ on them. Recently, in the face of escalating attacks by the Milei government, this grotesque choreography has been repeated step by step. The CGT hypocritically feigns indignation and calls for the mobilisation of this or that sector in the face of the measures decreed by the government, and even for massive demonstrations, as on 9 May, to ‘defend the national economy’. The Trotskyists of Izquierda Socialista (IS) and Partido Obrero (PO) called for ‘the CGT to guarantee the success of the strike on 9 May...’. The manoeuvre thus achieved its objective: giving credit back to the CGT, which enables it to divert workers' discontent towards the pure and simple defence of the national economy, by imposing the chauvinist slogan “the fatherland is not for sale”, demonstrating nonetheless clearly that the CGT and the leftist apparatus which promotes it are instruments for the defence of national capital, whose essential function is to sabotage the struggle which was taking place on a class terrain, to weaken the working class in the face of the attacks it is suffering. Another leftist group, the Movimiento de los Trabajadores Socialistas completed the manoeuvre: while claiming to distance the workers from the control of the CGT, it called on them to create and join another trade union structure, which it presented as different by calling it ‘a fighting trade unionism’.

... The need to rediscover our class identity, a decisive issue for the future of struggles

Even during the violent economic and financial crisis of December 2001, when the working class in Argentina was totally trapped by the piqueteros movement, with the unemployed separated from the rest of their class, and with the inter-classist demonstrations, in the days of banging pots and pans, or even on a purely nationalist and bourgeois terrain, the workers nevertheless showed a strong reaction and combativity in the face of the attacks and the brutal deterioration of their living conditions. Just last year, there were major strikes in the docks and port services, in the education sector, among public transport workers and even among doctors. But today, all the work of sabotage and the traps laid by the unions, combined with the strengthening of the government's repressive apparatus (as in the days of the military dictatorship, there are constant references to cases of ‘disappearances’ following arrests during demonstrations), all this has led to a widespread demoralisation in Argentina's working class.

Today, it is fundamental for the development of the struggle in Argentina on its class terrain, and for it to join the struggle which is beginning to develop on an international level, to integrate into the discussions, in the assemblies, the link between the brutal blows dealt to their living conditions by the bourgeoisie in the midst of yet another economic crisis and the whole arsenal of the state which has been put in place to encourage polarisation between support for Milei and opposition to his government. This strategy has worked until now, with workers waiting for the moment when Peronism and the huge union structure, which they still see as being on their side, will respond to the attacks. A fundamental need is to recover their identity as a working class, their autonomy, their confidence in their ability to take the struggle into their own hands. And to do this, as in other countries, they must be wary of the division of labour between the right and the left, where the former openly assumes responsibility for the attacks and the latter pretends to defend the workers in order to prevent them from going their own way. In particular, we need to understand that the left, the trade unions and leftism in all its variants, are not expressions of the workers' struggle but, on the contrary, class enemies and servants of the capitalist state. We must not delude ourselves that they will call for struggle against the bourgeoisie; and, above all, we must be wary when they call for actions because they do so when they know that discontent and combativity are growing in order to derail them into dead ends. Peronism, in particular, remains a bulwark of the bourgeois state because it still enjoys a great deal of sympathy among workers who, for example, complain that they don’t call for enough demos. When they do, it's because they're trying to divert the proletarian struggle towards dead ends.

Workers must take into account the lessons they have learned from past struggles around the world, the traps set by the bourgeoisie to derail their struggles, and the experiences of struggles which must be taken up in the process of politicising the struggle. As in the post-1968 period, but under quite different and more difficult conditions. Today, working-class combativity is forced to find its way in the midst of an irreversible acceleration of the decomposition of bourgeois society on all levels, jeopardising the very future of humanity [8] . It is thus more than ever necessary to make the link with the context of the redevelopment of class struggle at world level. The resumption of struggles in Britain in 2022 marked a break with the period of passivity and resignation which had followed the bourgeoisie's ideological campaigns at the end of the 1980s about the bankruptcy of the communist perspective and the end of the class struggle, and the revival of the proletariat's fighting spirit on an international scale was confirmed by major mobilisations in France and other Western European countries such as the United States and Canada. The slogan ‘Enough is enough’ was taken up everywhere, showing the determination to oppose the same increasingly brutal and intolerable attacks on living and working conditions, as well as the wage cuts and redundancy plans that all the national bourgeoisies are trying to impose. It is by reappropriating its past experiences that the working class in Argentina, as elsewhere, will be able to gradually recover its class identity through a process that is admittedly slow, irregular and discontinuous. Nevertheless, the conditions are gradually ripening that will enable it to regain awareness of its class identity and move towards the politicisation of its struggle, developing an awareness of the ultimate objective of its combat: the overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of exploitation on a world scale.

Milei's madness and arrogance are in fact those of the bourgeoisie as a whole, which mercilessly attacks workers' living conditions. In order to have the strength to repel the attacks of the bourgeoisie and to develop their struggle, their consciousness and their unity, workers must absolutely dispel all illusions about the left parties, the unions and the leftists and reject the traps that they set.

RR/T-W, 23 September 2024

We are publishing a response from a close sympathiser to our call for an appeal by the groups of the Communist Left in response to the massive international democratic campaign of the bourgeoisie. We fully support its approach and conclusions.

*****************************************

I want to fully support the ICC’s appeal to the Communist Left to get behind a resolution aimed against the democratic campaign played by the world’s bourgeoisie in order to submerge the working class and distract it away from the continuation of its struggle.

In the discussion at the July public meeting on this issue the question arose about the probable rejection of this position by the CWO/ICT, but that question is entirely secondary to the necessity for a strict focus on the question of democracy as it affects the manoeuvres of the bourgeoisie and their attacks on the consciousness of the working class. Across the world and leading with the US, Britain and Europe, the democratic campaigns being unleashed and sustained necessitates particular attention from revolutionaries, i.e., the Communist Left, regardless of the possible rejection by this or that group. It is much more important that this basic defence of a revolutionary position (the defence of proletarian internationalism against the capitalist nation state) is put forward for discussion, arguments and/or why it’s rejected.

The campaign of democracy cannot be underestimated: led by the US, whose own electoral process is unfolding on an unprecedented global scale, being followed by Europe and globally, is the considered response by the bourgeoisie to the dangers of workers’ struggles while attempting to rein in the forces of populism, which itself has made good use of the openings provided by the democratic terrain and the electoral circuses. In the last couple of years the Biden administration has demonstrated its strong concern for any development of the class struggle, particularly in the US and Western Europe. But even here, faced with the imperative necessity to find a candidate to face Trump given Biden’s increasing unsuitability, the Democratic Party was riven by in-fighting by cliques and other factors relating to the loss of control by the bourgeoisie. Beyond the US, the democratic campaign of the bourgeoisie is a global phenomenon reflecting the international response of the working shown during recent struggles. This is why the international appeal is an entirely appropriate response to the manoeuvres of the ruling class: it marks an important point that will only develop in the coming period.

On the CWO/ICT: It’s not the responsibility of the ICC to “save” the CWO by bringing it “into line” by signing a resolution; it is the responsibility of the ICC to make an appeal around the question of democracy as far and as wide as it can. Although the CWO has made one written response to the ICC regarding other appeals we can get a flavour of its response looking at the latest editorial on its website: “An ‘age of chaos’ or of deepening capitalist crisis?” Apart from trying to pose “chaos” against “economic crisis” when the two are intimately connected, the CWO quotes the UN Secretary General’s recent remarks about the world’s “dangerous and unpredictable free-for-all” (unlike the relative stability of the Cold War he went on to say). Underhandedly, the CWO is using a surrogate here (not for the first time) to “polemicise” with the ICC. It of course doesn’t mention the prescience of the ICC whose 1990 analysis gave a much more profound explanation of the decomposition of imperialism three decades earlier than the UN Secretary General’s pointed out the obvious.

The editorial continues with the blatant lie that it wants to work with other revolutionary forces and goes on to say that it wants to continue with its fraud of working for the “wider movement” of the NWBCW set-up. Nothing of this is new in the world of the CWO/ICT, but it is becoming increasingly likely that it will be completely unable to continue to secure its place as an effect representative of the working class and its struggle. The path that it has taken, i.e., “building a widespread movement enough to reach the rest of the working class” is littered with pitfalls and traps that it is ill-designed and unequipped to deal with. As the years have rolled by this “widespread movement” is exposed as the widespread fraud it has always been. And alongside this activism – a fraud presented to the working class as its salvation - we see the crass opportunism of the CWO with its dealings with dubious elements and parasitic forces. Activism and opportunism are nothing new to the CWO but have been constant features of the CWO/ICT’s activities, and taken to the stage they have done lately it presents a compounded double threat to it as a revolutionary force that, on past experience, it is incapable of correcting. It is in a hole of its own making and all the indications are that it will be unable to stop digging.

Baboon. 25.9.24

As we wrote in our second article on the “Prague Action Week”[1], various groups have tried to draw a balance sheet of what happened at the Prague event, an attempt to bring together opponents of imperialist war from many different countries. In this article we will examine the contribution of the Communist Workers Organisation[2] (in a subsequent article we will deal with the perspectives after the Prague Action Week).

The CWO article presents their view that the crisis is forcing capitalism towards a new World War aimed at the devaluation of capital. We will not develop here our disagreements with this approach to the current world situation and the current dynamic of imperialist wars. But we do want to respond to the way that the CWO deal with a key experience of the historic workers’ movement – the Zimmerwald Conference of 1915, which was the first major attempt of internationalists from across the warring camps to come together and issue an appeal against the imperialist war. The CWO seem to downplay the significance of this event by insisting it was part of a general failure of the revolutionary left in the Second International to break in time from Social Democracy: “even the example of the Zimmerwald Left who came together well after the war had started”, they say, is not an example to be emulated. Yes, it’s true that the international left waited too long to begin organised fractional work against the growing opportunism of the Second International in the period leading up to the war, and this delay made it difficult to make an international response to the outbreak of the war and the betrayal of the whole opportunist wing of Social Democracy after 1914. But this does not mean that we cannot learn from the experience of the Zimmerwald Left. On the contrary, the attitude of the Bolsheviks and others at Zimmerwald – both of recognising the importance of participating at the Conference and of intransigently opposing the centrist and pacifist errors of the majority of its participants – provide us with a clear example of how to respond to events like the Prague Acton Week. In other words, the necessity to be present at such an event, on the one hand and, on the other, to intervene with a clear critique of all its confusions and inadequacies. This is especially true when we consider that some of the key forces behind the Action Week, in particular the Tridni Valka group, simply reject the whole Zimmerwald experience as nothing but a pacifist carnival[3]. And at the same time, the lesson the CWO draws from Zimmerwald – the need to regroup as soon and as broadly as possible, before the war is upon us - is leading them towards a wholly uncritical approach to the elements it is trying to regroup with. We will come back to this.

A partial explanation for the chaos in Prague

Along with most of the other accounts, the CWO article begins by pointing out that “From an organisational point of view, it was a disaster (our emphasis).  Participants may disagree about who’s to blame but the fact is some events didn’t take place at all, others were poorly attended, people were promised accommodation and weren’t provided any, and ultimately on Friday the congress venue pulled out. In the absence of any communication from the organisers, around 50 participants met up and self-organised their own congress. The discussions carried on for many hours, and though eventually the original organisers found some other venue, the self-organised congress had already made plans for the next day. So on Saturday two separate events took place: the official congress and the self-organised congress (though some participants visited both throughout the day).”[4]

We can only agree that it was a disaster at the organisational level, but the CWO account doesn’t go any deeper into the reasons for the disaster. It’s not a question of blame here, but of investigating the political reasons for the failure. As we aimed to show in our first article on Prague[5], such an investigation cannot avoid a critique of the activist, anti-organisational approach of the majority of the participants - a problem rooted in anarchist conceptions and exacerbated by the various efforts to exclude the communist left from the proceedings. 

The organisational question is a political question in its own right, but the CWO account seems to restrict the “political point of view” to the more general conceptions held by the various participants. Nevertheless, they are quite right when they point out that, at this level, “the real divide that emerged was between the activists who were looking for immediate solutions on how to stop the war, and those with a class struggle orientation who had a more long-term perspective and understood wars, as a product of the capitalist system, can only be ended by the mass struggle of workers”.

This is precisely what we have said in our own articles on Prague. However, again there is something missing in the CWO account. As we pointed out in our first article, in putting forward this general approach “it was noticeable that there was a convergence between the interventions of the ICC and the ICT, who met more than once to compare notes on the evolution of the discussion”.

The CWO article asserts that one positive thing about the Prague event were the many informal contacts and discussions that took place on the margins of the main meetings, and we agree with this. But what they avoid saying is that, within the “self-organised” assembly itself, their delegation was able, for the first time in many years, to work constructively with the ICC, and that this was in no small measure due to the fact that, despite many disagreements, we share the tradition of marxism and the communist left, which enabled both organisations to offer a real alternative to the sterile activism which dominate the majority of this milieu. Thus, in the interventions of both organisations in Prague there was an emphasis on the primacy of serious debate about the world situation over an immediatist fixation on “what can we do today”; an insistence on the central role of the workers’ struggle in the development any real opposition to imperialist war; and an affirmation that only the overthrow of capitalism by the working class can put an end to the deadly spiral of war and destruction built into decadent capitalism.

A long history of opportunism and sectarianism

We don’t think that the CWO is suffering from a simple lapse in memory here. Rather, it is consistent with a practice that has been embraced by the CWO/ICT and its forerunners for a long time: a policy of “anyone but the ICC”. This attitude could already be seen in the approach of the Partito Comunista Internazionalista in 1943-5 – the organisation to which the ICT traces its roots. As we have shown in a number of articles, the PCInt was, from its inception, opportunist in its intervention towards the partisan groups in Italy and towards a number of elements who it let into the Party without demanding any account of their past deviations and even betrayals: such was the case with Vercesi, a former militant of the Italian Fraction who had engaged in anti-fascist frontism during the war, or the elements who had split from the Fraction to fight in the POUM militias in Spain. And this opportunism was accompanied by a sectarian approach to those who criticised the PCInt from the left – namely, the Gauche Communiste de France, with whom it refused all discussion. We saw the same approach by Battaglia Comunista (the ICT’s Italian affiliate) and the CWO in the sabotage of the conferences of the communist left at the end of the 1970s – in the sad aftermath of which Battaglia and the CWO, having effectively got rid of the ICC, held  a “new” conference along with a group of Iranian Stalinists[6]. A clear example of opportunism towards the right, even towards the left wing of capitalism, and sectarianism towards the left of the proletarian camp, the ICC.

Today, this policy is continued in the systematic refusal of joint work between the main groups of the communist left in favour of seeking alliances with all kinds of elements – from anarchists with ambiguous positions on internationalism to what, in our view, are fake left communists who can only play a destructive role towards the authentic proletarian milieu. The most obvious example of the latter is the “International Group of the Communist Left”, a group which is not only a parasitic formation, whose very reason for existence is to slander the ICC, but which has actively engaged in snitching about the ICC’s internal life[7]; and yet this is the group with which the ICT formed its No War But the Class War group in France. The ICT’s choice of rejecting the proposals of the ICC for a joint appeal of the communist left against the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and instead going for a kind of “broad front” via the No War But the Class War groups, is only the latest iteration of this approach[8].

Prior to the Prague meeting, the CWO wrote to the organisers suggesting that the eight criteria proposed by the organisers for participation in the conference and for common internationalist work in the future could easily be merged with the five basic points that define the No War But the Class War committees[9]. It would be useful if the CWO, in their balance sheet of the conference, could have made an assessment of what has become of this proposal.

For our part, we think that what happened in Prague provided a practical refutation of the whole method behind the NWBCW initiative. First, it didn’t persuade the organisers to overcome their refusal to invite the communist left to the “official” conference, as initially argued in a radio interview with the organising committee[10] and fully confirmed in the account of the event written by the Tridni Valka group (which certainly had a key influence on the official organising committee, even if they claim that they themselves were not part of it)[11]. As TV’s  article shows, the hostility towards the communist left in certain parts of the anarchist movement runs very deep. This is not something that can be overcome by forming amorphous fronts with the anarchists. On the contrary, that is a guaranteed means of avoiding a real, searching debate, which will necessarily take the form of a patient and unrelenting political struggle that aims to go to the roots of the divergence between marxism and anarchism. There is no sign that the ICT is engaging in such a confrontation with the groups it has paired up with in the NWBCW committees.

Second, the unfolding of the events in Prague was a real demonstration, on the one hand, that it cannot be the task of the communist left to “organise” the fragmented, politically heterogenous and often chaotic anarchist movement. Yes, we must be present at its gatherings to argue for both political and organisational coherence, but the attempt to encompass such a milieu in permanent groups or committees can only end up sabotaging  the work of the communist left. On the other hand, the modest beginnings of joint work between the ICT and the ICC in Prague confirms the ICC’s view that the best starting point for the communist left to have an impact on a wider but still very confused search for internationalist positions is a united effort based on very clearly agreed principles.

Amos

We learned of the death, of Michel Olivier on Thursday July 3rd. From 1969 he was a militant of the group Révolution Internationale (which became the French section of the ICC in January 1975) and he remained a member of our organisation until he was expelled in 2003. For three decades he was an esteemed and valued comrade, a militant renowned for his dedication and loyalty. His knowledge of the history of the international workers' movement and of the history of France and many other countries provided a stimulus to debate and reflection. Even more striking was his total commitment to defending the organisation, fighting against individualism, and opposing the circle spirit and the existence of clans.

It wasn't until the early 2000s that he would begin to take a completely different course. Olivier took a wrong turn down a blind alley and was unable to find his way back. Along with other militants, and partly driven by them, he waged a campaign against an ICC militant, Louise, who he accused of being "unworthy" and even of being a "cop". A special commission that conducted a very thorough investigation found the charges were totally unfounded and absurd. Refusing to accept this verdict, this comrade's defenders, who had never really accepted the political criticism she had levelled against the positions of some of them, set themselves on a destructive course of action against the ICC. This approach was driven by wounded pride, hatred and the "iron solidarity" of close friends. It firstly consisted of secret meetings[1] aimed at "taking back control of the organisation", then of repeated violations of the statutes and systematic provocations designed to force the ICC to adopt sanctions which were immediately denounced as a "stifling of debate".

Among the activities of this group of militants, which took the name "Internal Fraction of the ICC" (IFICC), we should also mention the malicious slanders against our organisation conveyed to Left Communist groups and then made public, along with the theft of our organisation's material (financial resources, addresses of subscribers, archives)[2]. It should be remembered that these militants, and Olivier in particular, who constantly accused the ICC of gagging them and of "stifling debate", refused to take part in the meetings (extraordinary conference, congress) to which they were invited to present and defend their positions in front of all the members of our organisation.

But if Olivier and his friends were finally expelled from the ICC, it wasn't because of all these organisational failings, but because they behaved like snitches by publishing information on their website that supported the work of the police[3]. In taking this decision, the ICC was simply putting into practice the fundamental, vital principle of the workers' movement: no snitching within the ranks of the working class, no snitching within its revolutionary organisations![4]

How can we explain such a tragic and dishonourable political trajectory on the part of Olivier? How could it be that a dedicated and sincere militant over the decades was able to drift so far off course and end up wallowing in the most crass and undignified behaviour? What happened to Olivier was what happened to many other revolutionaries before him: through affinitarianism and out of loyalty to his friends, he chose to follow their slide rather than remain faithful to proletarian principles. The most famous example of such a trajectory is that of Martov. An esteemed militant of the RSDLP (the Russian revolutionary organisation at the beginning of the last century), he could not bear to see his friends Axelrod, Potressov and Zassoulitch criticised at the 1903 congress for their total lack of involvement in the life of the party newspaper, Iskra (which they had been mandated to work on) and even less so Lenin's proposal to change the composition of the editorial committee accordingly (that is, to drop them from it). "In solidarity” with his "victimised" friends, Martov chose to defend the interests of his circle rather than those of the Party. This fork in the road would see him go much further in slandering Lenin and the Bolsheviks. That said, Martov would never have committed the same acts of snitching as the IFICC!

In 2001, during one of our last discussions with him, when he was still a militant, Olivier was convinced by our arguments showing him the error of his ways (concerning the slander he was helping to spread about our comrade Louise). But when it was time to leave, he concluded by saying: "You're right, but when I go back with the others, I won't be able to resist, I'll follow them, I know I will". The die was cast...

In the last few years, he had at times made half-admissions to certain elements gravitating around him and the ICC, acknowledging his "mistakes", which he considered “go back a long way". But in the end he was unable to maintain these statements in public, perhaps out of pride, perhaps still out of loyalty to his main accomplice, Juan, who today continues this same systematic policy of snitching through the IGCL (International Group of the Communist Left, the name the IFICC came to adopt).

But, more than anything else, what explains how far Olivier was able to drift, and then be unable to turn back, is the lack of firmness in the proletarian political milieu.

Far from denouncing all these actions, the Left Communist groups ignored them. Worse still, some even adopted a most complacent attitude towards them. So there was nothing to hold him back.

The snitches, the parasites and their "tribute" to Olivier

Clearly, on the IGCL (ex-IFICC) site, Juan used Oliver's death to continue his work, his attempt to destroy the ICC, which he had eventually dragged him into. His text repeats once again the lie that Olivier and the whole gang were the victims of "behind the scenes manoeuvres and psychological manipulation [...] by those who, in the shadows, wanted to eliminate the 'old guard' of the ICC". And to play on the heartstrings, to avoid any real reflection on the facts, Juan's article ends with a vibrant tirade: "We were all struck and affected by our exclusions and, above all, by the scandalous conditions under which they were carried out, as well as by our public denunciations by the ICC. Michel, without doubt, more than any other." Here, under Juan's deliberately sentimentalist pen, what becomes scandalous is not the snitching but the denunciation of it![5]. Unsurprisingly, this text was relayed by other groups and elements whose main purpose is to throw mud at the ICC. Juan's text can be found on the Pantopolis blog run by 'doctor' Philippe Bourrinet, whose lies and deception are driven by his obsessive hatred of the ICC[6].

A stab in the back from the ICT

Much more surprising, and much more serious, is the fact that an authentic group of the Communist Left, from our historic current, was also able to take part in this campaign of slander.

The ICT (Internationalist Communist Tendency) has in fact published an article in all its languages in "Memory of our comrade Olivier", which shamelessly dares to state: "At the age of twenty, he discovered the positions of the International Communist Left that was formed in the 1920s, and participated in the foundation of the International Communist Current (ICC).Thanks to his talent and dedication, he played an active and leading role until, in the early 2000s, he and other comrades were expelled or forced to leave, suffering slanderous and unfounded accusations. In reality, as always in such cases, the slander against Olivier and other comrades, was aimed at discrediting those politically troublesome critics who disagreed with and opposed the new direction taken by the organisation they had helped to create. Other comrades would have been so deeply demoralised and disappointed by these attacks that they would have abandoned revolutionary militancy. But Olivier, among a handful of others, conserved his energy. After participating for a short time in the activities of the Internal Fraction of the ICC (IFICC), he joined the Internationalist Communist Tendency". A footnote reinforces the point: "For a more detailed history and other aspects of Olivier's life, we refer readers to the article written by comrade Juan for the IGCL, which shares with him part of his political journey as well as a friendly relationship".

A brief reminder is in order here. As early as 2002, faced with the actions of Juan and Olivier, and the whole gang, we kept asking the IBRP (the forerunner of the ICT) to look into the matter and take a stand, providing it with all the evidence of the real actions of this IFICC. For years, the IBRP (then the ICT) systematically refused our request, arguing: "that's your business, we won't take a position". Then, as the years went by, and faced with an accumulation of clear evidence, the ICT changed its tune to justify seeing nothing, hearing nothing and saying nothing: "It's old history".

When the ICT collaborated with Juan and the IGCL to form a NWBCW (No War But the Class War) "committee" in Paris and we publicly denounced the presence of this snitch in its ranks, the ICT repeated "that's old history".

When the ICT integrated Olivier as a militant and, at one of its public meetings, we publicly called it to account for the presence of these snitches in its ranks, the ICT came up with the same refrain: "that's old history".

And now, at the worst of times, where the sadness and emotion of a death is involved, the ICT (always deaf and blind to evidence) suddenly takes the opportunity to speak up and join the chorus of slander from the IGCL and Juan!

The ICT has a short memory. Its predecessor, the IBRP, behaved in a similar way in 2004, when an individual living in Argentina, Citizen B, created a website to fabricate a story out of nothing with the sole aim of smearing the reputation of the ICC. At the time, the IBRP gave publicity to this shady individual and all his crude lies, not hesitating to republish in several languages the man's wildest and most preposterous accusations. When we had provided irrefutable proof of the deception, the IBRP discreetly removed any trace of his misdeeds from its website, so as not to make itself look ridiculous for too long[7]. But unfortunately, its militants learned nothing from this shameful business. Worse still, the ICT has added another layer to the IGCL's slander. When will the ICT understand that cronyism with elements like Juan, whose reason for living is to spew their hatred against the ICC, is an insult to the principles of the Communist Left, that slander and lies can in no way serve the cause of the communist revolution?[8]

The extreme left of capital joins the campaign

One point in particular should give the ICT pause for thought. Its article and that of the IGCL have both been republished by the extreme left of capital, for example in France on the Matière et revolution, website of the Trotskyist group La Voix des Travailleurs.

Why are leftist organisations relaying the tribute to Olivier and the slander against the ICC by the IGCL and the ICT? Because the defenders of the bourgeoisie are always interested in slandering revolutionary organisations and spreading the lies that smear them. Any denigration of a group of the Communist Left is a gift for them.

The same thing happened during the struggle of the First International (the IWA) against the manoeuvres of Bakunin's Alliance in 1872. All the slanders and insinuations spread by the supporters of the Alliance were immediately picked up by the bourgeois press:

- "Let us note, in passing, that The Times, that Leviathan of the capitalist press, the Progrès (of Lyons), a publication of the liberal bourgeoisie, and the Journal de Genève, an ultra-reactionary paper, have brought the same charges against the Conference and used virtually the same terms as Citizens Malon and Lefrançais." (The Alleged Splits in the International, Marx and Engels, 1872).

"The whole liberal press and that of the police was openly on its [the Alliance's] side; in its personal defamation of the General Council, it was supported by the so-called reformers of all countries." (Appendix to the Report published by order of the International Congress at The Hague, 1872).

The bourgeois press and politicians declared that the struggle against Bakuninism was not a struggle for principles but a sordid struggle for power within the International. Thus Marx was supposed to have eliminated his rival Bakunin through a campaign of lies. Exactly the same words used by the ICT! "As always happens in these cases, the slander against Olivier and other comrades was aimed at discrediting the criticisms of politically inconvenient elements who did not share, and opposed, the new political direction taken by the organisation". No, comrades! The fight that the ICC has waged, is waging and will continue to wage is that of defending the principles of the workers' movement against unworthy behaviour: against theft, against slander, against snitching. As Marx, Engels and the IWA did before us. As did Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacists. All our predecessors!

Let the snitches continue their work, let the parasites join them, let the left of the bourgeoisie profit from it... all that is in the order of things. They are all profiting from Olivier's sad story, a sincere militant who became a player in a disastrous and hateful politics. But that a group like the ICT, a representative of the Communist Left and normally expected to uphold the historic principles of the workers' movement, should sink so low into the gutter is an outrage, a stab in the back for the ICC and the entire Communist Left.

ICC, 21 September 2024

The working class has nothing to chose between Trump and Harris, Republicans or Democrats. Whoever wins, the working class will be subjected to the brutal attacks on its living standards demanded by the economic crisis and the build-up of the war economy. Whoever wins, workers will be faced with the need to defend themselves as a class against these attacks

But this does not mean that we can ignore the election campaign and its consequences. They are revealing that the divisions in the US bourgeoisie, the ruling class of what is still the most powerful country in the world, are growing sharper and more violent. The US has become the epicentre of the decomposition of the world capitalist system, and whoever emerges as President after November 5, the election will serve to exacerbate these divisions even more, with serious consequences both within the US itself and on the global stage.

Revolutionaries thus have the task not only of denouncing the fraud of bourgeois democracy, but of analysing the world-wide implications of the US election, of placing them in a coherent framework that will enable us to understand how the fragmentation of the US ruling class is an active factor in the only perspective that the bourgeoisie can offer humanity: an accelerating dive into destruction and chaos. We invite all those who want to fight for a different future to come to this meeting and discuss with us.

The main language of the meeting will be English, but we will have facilities to translate on the spot into other languages as well. If you want to take part, write to us at [email protected] [169], indicating if you are happy following and contributing in English, or specifying what other language you would need to use.

Date and Time: 16 November 2024, 2pm-5pm UK time

On 16 November, the ICC held an Online Public Meeting on the theme ‘The Global Implications of the US Elections’.

In addition to ICC militants, several dozen people took part in the discussion, from four continents and around fifteen countries. Simultaneous translation into English, Spanish and French enabled everyone to follow the discussions, which lasted just over three hours.

Obviously, in view of the revolution that needs to be achieved by the entire working class worldwide, this small number may seem insignificant. We still have a long way to go before the proletariat develops a profound consciousness and a vast network of self-organisation. This type of international meeting is precisely a means of advancing along that road. For the moment, revolutionary minorities are still very small, a handful in one town, an individual in another. Gathering together from several countries to discuss, work out and compare arguments, and thus gain a better understanding of the world situation, is a precious opportunity to break down the isolation of each individual, forge links and feel the global nature of the proletarian revolutionary struggle. It's about participating in the effort of our class to create an international vanguard. This type of meeting is thus a milestone which foreshadows the necessary organisation of revolutionaries on a world scale. This regroupment of revolutionary forces is a long process, requiring a conscious and constant effort. It is one of the vital conditions for preparing for the future, for organising ourselves for the decisive revolutionary confrontations to come.

A debate that raises a thousand questions about the state of the world...

The large turnout for our meeting also reveals the concern, even anxiety, aroused by the election of Donald Trump as head of the world's leading power.

All the speakers stressed, along with the ICC, that the victory of this President - who is openly racist, macho, full of hate, vengeful, and who advocates an irrational economic and war policy - will accelerate all the crises ravaging the world and exacerbate all the uncertainties and chaos.

From this common position, many questions and nuances, as well as disagreements, emerged in the course of the discussion:

Is Trump's triumph the result of a deliberate and conscious policy on the part of the American bourgeoisie? Is Trump the best card for the interests of the American bourgeoisie? Are his imperialist choices regarding Iran, Ukraine and China a step towards the Third World War? Is his protectionist policy of raising tariffs a piece in the jigsaw towards war? Are his plans to ferociously attack the working class, especially civil servants, linked to the sacrifices needed to prepare the national economy for this war?

Or, on the contrary, as the ICC and other participants argued, does Trump's arrival at the head of the world's leading power testify to a growing difficulty on the part of the national bourgeoisies to prevent its most obscurantist and irrational fractions from taking power? Is the clique war within the bourgeoisie itself, like the fragmentation of society into Americans/immigrants, men/women, legal/illegal, all of which the Trump clan is aggravating, not a sign of the trend towards disorder and chaos in American society? Doesn't the trade war that Trump wants, by returning to the protectionist measures of the 1920s and 30s, which ruined every country at the time, show the irrationality of his policy precisely from the point of view of the interests of American capital? In the same sense, doesn't the growing uncertainty about the imperialist policy of the new American administration reinforce war tensions between all countries, pushing even more towards unstable and changing alliances, towards every man for himself, towards short-sighted politics, towards the outbreak of wars which engender nothing other than a scorched earth?

For the ICC, answering all these questions means taking a deeper look at the historical period we are going through: decomposition, the final phase of capitalist decline. Because, basically, Trump's victory is not something to be taken in isolation, analysed separately and imprisoned in the immediate term. It is the fruit of a whole global situation, of a historical dynamic, one that sees capitalism rotting on its feet. The victory of Donald Trump in the United States or Javier Milei in Argentina, the 'no future' policies of Israel in the Middle East or Russia in Ukraine, the stranglehold of the drug cartels on ever larger swathes of Latin America, of terrorist groups in Africa or warlords in Central Asia, the rise of obscurantism, conspiracy theorists and flat earthers, the outbursts of violence from certain sections of society - all these apparently unrelated phenomena are in fact expressions of the same fundamental dynamic of capitalism  in decomposition.

We'll come back to this subject and all these questions in a later article to develop our response[1].

... and the class struggle

The second part of the discussion, which focused on understanding the current state of the class struggle, followed the same dynamic. Here too, the debate was open, frank and fraternal, and many questions were asked, with nuances and disagreements emerging.

Does Trump's victory mean that the proletariat has been defeated, or at the very least that it too is gangrened by racism and populism? Or, on the other hand, does the rejection of the Democratic Party by the workers lead to an awareness of the real nature of this bourgeois party? Can Trump's appearance as a dictator encourage working-class anger and reaction? Or will the campaign to defend democracy be a death trap for the proletariat? Will the worsening of living and working conditions, carried out in an extremely brutal way by Trump, Musk and their gang, provoke the class struggle? Or will these sacrifices reinforce the search for scapegoats, such as foreigners, illegal immigrants, etc.?

All these contradictory questions are not surprising. The situation is extremely complex, difficult to grasp in its entirety and coherence. And just as in the first part of the discussion, what is lacking is a compass, the compass to consider each question not in isolation, separately from each other, but as a whole and in an international and historical context. It's impossible to think about the world without consciously and systematically referring to the general and profound dynamics of global capitalism: the system is plunging into decay (with all the nauseating stench that emanates from it), but the proletariat is not defeated; indeed, since 2022 and the summer of anger in the United Kingdom, it has been raising its head, finding its way back to the path of struggle and its historic goals.

We can't develop our response any further here; we'll come back to it in our press and at our next meetings[2].

We look forward to the next one!

This debate is just the beginning. We encourage all our readers to come and take part in this effort by our class, in the debates between revolutionaries, in the collective process of clarification. Don't remain isolated! The proletariat needs its minorities to forge links, on an international scale, to organise themselves, to debate, to compare positions, to exchange arguments, to understand as deeply as possible the evolution of the world.

The ICC warmly invites you to come and take part in its various meetings: online and international public meetings, ‘face-to-face’ public meetings in certain towns and cities, and drop-in sessions. All these opportunities to meet and debate are regularly announced here on our website.

In addition to these meetings, we also encourage you to write to us, to react to our articles, ask questions or express your disagreement.

And the columns of our press are open, they belong to the class. We welcome your suggestions for articles.

Debate is an absolute necessity. We are far apart, isolated, often at odds with the ideas developing around us. Gathering together, on an international scale, is vital if we are to prepare for the future. All revolutionary minorities have this responsibility.

ICC

Media across the world have broadcast images and news of dead bodies being swept away by the floods and of people buried under the mud and landslides, as well as of the searches for many other missing persons. Bodies are washing up on the beaches; many villages have no food or drinking water; after one week the water has been stagnating with animal and human corpses, and infections are beginning to spread, with the risk of epidemics. The situation of a stranded population, on the brink of survival, left to fend for themselves, is in some ways reminiscent of Gaza, minus the bombings and the war; and this is all happening in Spain's third largest city, in a European Union country at the heart of capitalism. Whether through war or ecological disaster, capitalism is condemning humanity to its ultimate destruction.

The High Altitude Isolated Depression (known as the DANA in Spain) that swept through the Valencia region on October 30 caused flooding that killed more than 200 people, a figure that will rise sharply once the bodies of some 2,000 missing people have been located. Added to this is the devastation of thousands of homes, roads, railways, telecommunications systems, etc., affecting hundreds of thousands of people, that will take months to repair. This is undoubtedly one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in Spain's history, similar to the floods that took place in the central European countries in 2021; in Bonn, Germany for example where, despite the State's tradition of efficiency and organisation, the population was left stranded; and just like what happened during Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans in the United States in 2005. But contrary to what right-wing commentators say, this is not an unpredictable 'natural' disaster. Nor is it, as the left of capital maintains, the consequence of incompetent "neo-liberal management". This disaster is ultimately the result of a social system that sacrifices the lives of its workers and subjects the entire planet to the demands of capitalist production and accumulation.

With the accumulation of disasters for several decades (climate change, unregulated urban development, irresponsible management of water resources, neglect of infrastructure maintenance, etc[1]), this system has also entered its terminal phase of decomposition, where all this devastation is accelerated and amplified by other manifestations of capitalist decadence such as wars, economic crises, etc. in a vortex[2] that will lead to inevitable catastrophe. Faced with this situation, the attitude of the ruling class is one of increasing irresponsibility in the management of its own system, with the defence of competing factional interests accentuating the disaster still further.

Nature isn't to blame for the disaster, capitalism is

Many of the victims were workers, forced by their bosses and managers to remain in their workplaces. At Ford Motors, the evening and night shifts were not allowed to leave at the time of the floods, with 700 people having to sleep in the factory and not able to communicate with their families. In the Ribarroja industrial estate, more than 1,000 workers were rescued the next day. Another "lock-in" was in the shopping centres (IKEA, Bonaire de Torrent) where opening hours were maintained and where the employees themselves had to help the customers and other users. In the Inditex factories, the workers did not hear the alerts because they were not allowed to have their mobile phones with them and the managers did not say anything... We also know that this alert was issued by the local authorities several hours after the red weather warnings and the first floods upstream. Employee discipline and smooth running of the business would take precedence over any consideration for the lives and health of the workers. This is the true law of capitalism.

The situation, though on a different scale, is reminiscent of the COVID pandemic four years ago. There too, the cause was said to be "natural" and was met with the familiar response of "who could have predicted such a thing?". But even then, we did point out that this was a predictable disaster because of the worsening global warming disaster and that society did have the technology and know-how to prepare for and prevent its ravages but that resources were being diverted into capitalist accumulation and war. It is appalling and scandalous that at a time when armies have the cybernetic means to remotely detonate a mobile phone, and when spy drones are capable of recording pictures with detailed precision, that the telephone lines suddenly collapsed during the floods in Valencia, including for emergency calls, and that those who had to travel that night had to do so practically blind, without any information, regarding roads and railways that were literally at a standstill, or they had to take secondary roads without knowing whether or not they were flooded.

What use is the capitalist state to us, the workers?

The nightmare didn't end when the rains stopped. The next morning, people found themselves searching for survivors, salvaging what they could from the devastated homes, etc., with virtually no help, no food, no drinking water, no electricity, no telephone, with the road infrastructure washed away and without the appropriate rescue resources (helicopters, bulldozers, etc.). That's why the cynicism and crocodile tears of the regional and national governments that were seen on several occasions in front of the television cameras are even more repugnant than the ritual messages of "solidarity" and promises that "they won't leave the victims on their own" (!), when they knew perfectly well that they were abandoning the victims to their fate.

The fact that they have also devoted themselves to blaming and shooting each other in the foot shows that in this age of capitalist decomposition, so-called traditional state policies are giving way to irresponsibility and "every man for himself". The regional government (of the centre right People’s Party) has indeed shown negligence, but also arrogance and provocation (by, for example, trying to expel volunteers or making them clean up the shopping centres as well as sending home people looking for their missing relatives). But the "ultra-progressive" coalition government of Sánchez and Sumar was not to be outdone. It took them days to deploy the necessary resources in terms of personnel, on the pretext that they had not been "officially" requested by the regional government. This means one of two things: either it left the PP to stew in its own juices despite the human cost it represents, or it is hiding behind administrative niceties to mask its own negligence.

Governments such as those in France and the EU have announced their willingness to help but have not done so because the Sánchez government has not made the necessary "request".

The democratic state presents itself as the guarantor of social health and welfare, as the means for the population to "defend itself" against the abuses of capitalist exploitation, when in reality it is its most energetic defender of these abuses[3]. When protests against the enforced stay at work began to emerge on the night of the flood, the pseudo-communist Yolanda Díaz (also Vice-President of the government and Minister of Labour) made clear that the law supposedly allowed workers to leave their jobs when their lives were in danger, but said she was "appealing" to the responsibility of employers (?). To shift the decision on to the workers[4] at a time of job insecurity is insultingly sarcastic; as is the government's call on landlords to show 'understanding' towards their tenants and to help ease the housing crisis.

The floods also prompted a spontaneous and generous outpouring of solidarity, which was broadcast on television around the world. This initial solidarity was interrupted by the authorities, who feared that the situation would get out of control as a result of the outrage of the neighbouring population which came together in a bid to help; it was then manipulated as an expression of "regionalist support for the people of Valencia" alongside the sound of the regional anthem.

Apart from the stand-off and class solidarity, it was condemned to become a popular and interclassist support of the "only the people can save the people" type. But to believe that "salvation" is possible without eradicating capitalism, its disasters, its wars and its impoverishment from the face of the earth, is a fatal illusion. The only way out of this grim future is to channel the indignation and rage produced by all these disasters into the class struggle, the struggle of the exploited of all countries against the exploiters. As and when the proletariat regains its class identity, it will, by staying on the class terrain, then be able to support the defence of the entire non-exploiting population, thus creating a balance of forces against the bourgeois state.

Valerio (November 2, 2024)

Everywhere, the bourgeoisie is raining down redundancies, multiplying drastic budget cuts, squeezing wages under the blows of inflation, and increasing job insecurity and exploitation. And there's no end in sight to the attacks! The crisis of capitalism is intractable and considerably aggravated by the wars and chaos that are spreading everywhere, like the deadly conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. To finance the massacres, the bourgeoisie is constantly increasing its insane military spending and demanding ever greater sacrifices from the exploited. The working class is still incapable of taking a direct stand against these conflicts, but it is not prepared to accept the attacks without reacting.

The working class is fighting a massive battle against austerity

At the end of August, as price rises continue to take their toll, rail freight workers in Canada attempted to go on the offensive. Described as  unpredented in terms of its scale, the abortive action brought together almost 10,000 workers in a country where the right to strike is governed by extremely draconian regulations. The government immediately banned all strikes in the name of safeguarding the national economy, ordering new negotiations between the railway companies and the sector's main union, Teamsters Canada. That was all Teamsters Canada needed to nip the movement in the bud by promising that the government's decision would be challenged... in the courts! In short, the union skilfully reduced the workers to impotence by postponing the fight to an indefinite future. As the union's public relations director so aptly put it: “We want to negotiate. Our members want to work, they like it, operating trains in Canada”’. The bourgeoisie could not have found a better watchdog...

A month later, nearly 50,000 dockworkers in 36 ports in the United States, as well as those in the port of Montreal, launched a strike lasting several days. A strike on this scale has not been seen since 1977. In the midst of an election campaign, the Biden administration rushed to play mediator, hypocritically showing its ‘support’ for the dockworkers. With the complicity of the government, the unions were able to put an end to the strike by pushing through a “wage agreement in principle”’, which will be negotiated... in January 2025.

After a number of partial work stoppages since April, 15,000 workers at 25 major American hotels went on strike on 1 September (Labour Day in the United States), demanding better pay, a reduction in workload and the cancellation of job cuts. The 700 workers at the Hilton San Diego even went on strike for 38 days, the longest hotel strike in San Diego's history.

Car workers are also continuing to fight, particularly in the factories belonging to the Stellantis group. In 2023, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis workers tried to unite their struggles at national level and even beyond, with workers in Canada. Of course, the unions had confined the struggle to the car industry alone. But this phenomenon expressed the desire of workers not to remain alone in their corner, not to shut themselves away in the factory, and resulted in a huge outpouring of sympathy from other parts of the working class. Since then, the unions have succeeded in meticulously dividing up the struggle at factory level, locking the workers in to defend this or that production line threatened with closure.

In Italy too, at the end of October, 20,000 employees of the Stellantis car group demonstrated in Rome against the closure of several Fiat plants. The movement was also described as “a historic strike the like of which has not been seen for over forty years”. But here again, the unions did their utmost to reduce the workers to impotence. At the same time as Stellantis was laying off 2,400 employees at its plants in Detroit (United States), the Italian unions called for a single day's strike with nationalist slogans around the Fiat brand, that “emblem of Italy”.

But it was the strike at Boeing's factories in the US that made the biggest impact. For over a month, 33,000 workers have been demanding pay rises and the restoration of their pension scheme. As in Canada, the striking workers are accused of selfishly mortgaging the future of this ‘flagship’ of American industry and threatening the jobs of subcontractors. The aircraft manufacturer has even cynically threatened to lay off 17,000 employees to wipe out the ‘multi-billion dollar slate’ caused by the strikers. Here again, the unions are trying to confine the struggle to Boeing alone, locking the workers into a tough but highly isolated strike.

While the proletariat in the United States and Canada has shown itself to be particularly combative over the past two years in the face of the considerable deterioration in its living conditions, the unions have had to ‘radicalise’ their discourse and present themselves as the most determined in the struggle. But behind their alleged desire to win wage increases, they are seeking above all to strengthen their overseers’ role in order to better sabotage any mobilisation. Wherever struggles break out, the unions set out to isolate and divide the class, to deprive the workers of their main strength: their unity. They confine workers to their sector of activity, their company, their department. Everywhere, they seek to cut strikers off from the active solidarity of their class brothers and sisters in the struggle. This corporatist division is a real poison, because when we fight each in our corner, we all lose in our corner!

Despite the decomposition of capitalism...

These struggles are taking place in an extremely difficult context for the working class. Capitalism is decomposing, all social structures are rotting, violence and irrationality are exploding at unprecedented levels, fracturing society ever further. All countries, starting with the most fragile, are affected by this process. But of all the developed countries, the United States has been hardest hit by the putrefaction of capitalist society[1]. The country is ravaged, from the poorest ghettos to the highest levels of government, by populism, violence, drug trafficking and the most delirious conspiracy theories. The success of extreme right-wing libertarian theories, which advocate individual resourcefulness, hatred of any collective approach and the most idiotic Malthusianism, is a distressing symptom of this process.

In this context, the development of class struggle can in no way take the form of a homogeneous and linear rise in class consciousness and an understanding of the need for communism. On the contrary, with the acceleration of the phenomena of decomposition, the working class will constantly find itself confronted with obstacles, catastrophic events and the ideological rot of the bourgeoisie. The form that the struggle and the development of class consciousness will take will necessarily be bumpy, difficult and fluctuating. The eruption of Covid in 2020, the war in Ukraine two years later and the massacres in Gaza are sufficient illustrations of this reality. The bourgeoisie will take advantage, as it has always done, of every manifestation of decomposition to turn them immediately against the proletariat.

This is precisely what it is doing with the war in the Middle East, by trying to divert the proletariat from its class terrain, by pushing the workers to defend one imperialist camp against another. With a multitude of pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the creation of ‘solidarity’ networks, it has cynically exploited the disgust provoked by the massacres in Gaza and Lebanon to mobilise thousands of workers on the terrain of nationalism[2]. This is the bourgeoisie's response to the maturation which is beginning to take place in the entrails of the working class. During the strikes of 2023 in the car industry, the feeling of being an international class began to emerge. The same dynamic was seen during the movement against pension reform in France, when workers at Mobilier National mobilised in solidarity with strikers in Britain. Although these expressions of solidarity remained in the embryonic stage, the bourgeoisie is perfectly aware of the danger that such a dynamic represents. The whole bourgeoisie was mobilised to stuff nationalist muck into the skulls of the workers because these reflexes of solidarity contained the seeds of the defence of proletarian internationalism.

With the growing instability of its political apparatus, of which populism is one of the most spectacular symptoms, the bourgeoisie is still trying to drive a wedge into the maturing of class consciousness. The strikes in the United States are taking place in a deafening electoral context. The Democrats are constantly calling for the road to populism to be blocked at the ballot box, and for the institutions of ‘American democracy’ to be revitalised in the face of the danger of ‘fascism’. Striking workers are constantly accused of weakening the Democratic camp and playing into the hands of Trumpism. In Italy, the arrival of the far right in power has also given rise to a whole campaign in favour of bourgeois democracy.

With the deceptive promises of the American and European left on ‘taxing the rich’ or ‘reform of workers’ rights’, and with the ‘progressive’ rhetoric on the ‘rights’ of minorities, the bourgeoisie is everywhere trying to sow illusions about the ability of the bourgeois state to organise a ‘fairer’ society. No, the bourgeoisie will not restore a flourishing economy! No, the bourgeoisie will not protect black or Arab people from its racist cops and bosses! The aim of all this nonsense is nothing more and nothing less than to spoil the workers' thinking and distract them from the struggles that are the only way to offer a real alternative to the historic crisis of capitalism and all the horrors it brings.

... the future belongs to the class struggle!

Despite all these obstacles, the class is fighting on a massive scale. From the point of view of the vulgar materialist, the current strikes are nothing more than corporatist struggles, depoliticised, directed and led to dead ends by the unions. But if we take a step back historically and internationally, despite the corporatist straitjacket imposed by the unions, despite all the very real weaknesses and illusions that weigh on workers, these movements are part of the continuity of the break that we have been observing for nearly three years. Since the ‘summer of anger’ which shook the United Kingdom in 2022 for several months, the working class has tirelessly resisted the attacks of the bourgeoisie. In France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Greece, the United States, Canada, Korea... The world has not seen such a wave of massive and simultaneous struggles in so many countries or over such a long period for three decades.

Over the last thirty years, the working class has lost its sense of itself and its identity, but it is gradually beginning to see itself again as a social force, and to rediscover some of its reflexes of solidarity. Better still, as the ICC has been able to document, workers are beginning to reappropriate the lessons of past struggles, trying to reconnect with the experience of their class: as with the struggle against the CPE or May 68 in France, with the Cordobazo in Argentina, or the miners' struggle in Great Britain in 1984.

Since the 1980s, workers' struggles had all but disappeared from the North American landscape. With the collapse of the USSR, proletarians in the United States were subjected to the same intense ideological bludgeoning as during the Cold War about the ‘victory of capitalism over (alleged) communism’. Workers' struggles were ruthlessly consigned to the dustbin of history. In a country plagued by violence and populism, where even Kamala Harris is suspected of being a ‘communist’ and wanting to ‘do what Lenin did’, the very fact that people dared to strike en masse again, to ask the question of solidarity and to call themselves ‘workers’, testifies to a profound change in the minds of the working class the world over.

The solidarity that has been expressed in all the social movements since 2022 shows that the working class, when it struggles, not only manages to resist social putrefaction, but also initiates the beginnings of an antidote, the promise of another world through proletarian fraternity. Its struggle is the antithesis of war and the each-against-all that marks capitalism’s terminal phase.

EG, 28 October 2024

Trump is back in the White House after a landslide victory in the presidential election. In the eyes of his supporters, he is an invincible American hero, one who has survived every obstacle: the ‘rigged election’, the ‘judicial inquisition’, the hostility of the ‘establishment’ and even... bullets! The image of a miraculous Trump, his ear bleeding and his fist raised after a shot grazed him, will go down in history. But behind the admiration aroused by his reaction, this attack was above all the most spectacular expression of an election campaign that reached new heights of violence, hatred and irrationality. This extraordinary campaign, spewing out money and saturated with obscenities, just like its conclusion, the victory of a megalomaniac and stupid billionaire, reflects the abyss into which bourgeois society is sinking.

Vote against populism? No! We need to overthrow capitalism!

Trump has all the makings of a bad guy: he's an unmitigated vulgarian, a liar and a cynic, as racist and misogynist as he is homophobic. Throughout the campaign, the international press talked endlessly about the dangers that his return to office poses for ‘democratic’ institutions, minorities, the climate and international relations: “The world holds its breath” (Die Zeit), “An American nightmare” (L'Humanité), “How will the world survive Trump?” (Público), “A moral debacle” (El País)...

So should we have preferred Harris, chosen the side of a so-called ‘lesser evil’ to block the road to populism? That's what the bourgeoisie would have us believe. For several months, the new President of the United States found himself at the heart of a worldwide propaganda campaign against populism[1]. “Smiling” Kamala Harris constantly called for the defence of “American democracy”, describing her opponent as a ‘fascist ’. Even Trump’s former chief of staff was quick to describe him as a “would-be dictator”. The billionaire's victory only fuelled this mystifying campaign in favour of bourgeois ‘democracy’.

Many voters went to the polling station thinking: ‘The Democrats have given us a hard time for four years, but it still won't be as bad as Trump in the White House’. This is the idea that the bourgeoisie has always tried to put into the heads of the workers to drive them to the polls. But in decadent capitalism, elections are a masquerade, a false choice that has no other function than to hinder the working class's reflection on its historical goals and the means of achieving them.

The elections in the United States are no exception to this reality. If Trump won so widely, it was first and foremost because the Democrats are hated. Contrary to the image of a ‘Republican wave’, Trump did not attract massive support. The number of his voters has remained relatively stable compared with the previous election in 2020. It was above all Vice President Harris who, as a sign of the Democrats' discredit, suffered a debacle, losing no fewer than 10 million voters in four years. And for good reason! The Biden administration carried out ferocious attacks on the living and working conditions of the working class, starting with inflation, which caused the price of food, petrol and housing to skyrocket. Then there was a huge wave of redundancies and job insecurity, which ended up pushing the workers to fight on a massive scale[2]. On immigration, Biden and Harris, who were elected on the promise of a ‘more humane’ policy, have constantly tightened the conditions for entry into the United States, going so far as to close the border with Mexico and bluntly forbid migrants from even asking for asylum. On the international stage, Biden's unbridled militarism, lavish funding of massacres in Ukraine and scarcely critical support for the Israeli army's abuses also angered voters.

Harris' candidacy could not give rise to any illusions, as we have seen in the past with Obama and, to a lesser extent, with Biden. The proletariat has nothing to expect from the elections or from the bourgeois powers that be: it's not this or that clique in power that's ‘mismanaging business’, it's the capitalist system that's sinking into crisis and historic bankruptcy. Whether Democrat or Republican, all of them will continue to ruthlessly exploit the working class and spread misery as the crisis deepens; all of them will continue to impose the ferocious dictatorship of the bourgeois state and bomb innocent people around the world!

Trumpism, an expression of the decomposition of capitalism

The most responsible fractions of the American state apparatus (most of the media and senior civil servants, the military command, the most moderate faction of the Republican party, etc.) have nevertheless done their utmost to prevent the return of Trump and his clan to the White House. The cascade of lawsuits, the warnings of virtually every expert in every field and even the media's relentless efforts to ridicule the candidate were not enough to stop his race for power. Trump's election is a real slap in the face, a sign that the bourgeoisie is increasingly losing control of its electoral game and is no longer able to prevent an irresponsible troublemaker from acceding to the highest offices of state.

The reality of the rise of populism is nothing new: the vote for Brexit in 2016, followed the same year by Trump's surprise victory, were the first and most spectacular signs of it. But the deepening crisis of capitalism and the growing powerlessness of states to control the situation, whether geo-strategically, economically, environmentally or socially, have only served to reinforce political instability across the world: hung parliaments, populism, tensions between bourgeois cliques, governmental instability... These phenomena bear witness to a process of disintegration that is now operating at the heart of the world's most powerful states. This trend has enabled a madman like Milei to rise to the head of state in Argentina, and populists to come to power in several European countries, where the bourgeoisie is the most experienced in the world.

Trump's victory is part of this process, but also marks a significant additional step. If Trump is rejected by a large part of the state apparatus, it is above all because his programme and methods risk not only damaging the interests of US imperialism in the world, but also further increasing the difficulties of the state in ensuring the semblance of social cohesion necessary for the functioning of national capital. During the campaign, Trump made a series of inflammatory speeches, rekindling as never before the vengeful spirit of his supporters, even threatening the ‘democratic’ institutions that the bourgeoisie so badly needs to ideologically contain the working class. He has constantly fuelled the most retrograde and hateful rhetoric, raising the spectre of riots if he is not elected. And he never gave a thought to the consequences his words could have on the fabric of society. The extreme violence of this campaign, for which the Democrats are also responsible in many respects, will undoubtedly deepen the divisions in the American population and can only further increase the violence in an already highly fragmented society. But Trump, in the scorched earth logic that increasingly characterises the capitalist system, was prepared to do anything to win.

In 2016, as Trump's victory was relatively unexpected, including by himself, the American bourgeoisie was able to prepare the ground by placing in government and in the administration personalities capable of putting the brakes on the billionaire's most delirious decisions. Those whom Trump later described as “traitors” had, for example, been able to prevent the repeal of the social protection system (Obamacare) or the bombing of Iran. When the Covid pandemic broke out, his vice-president, Mike Pence, was also able to manage the crisis despite Trump's belief that injecting disinfectant into the lungs was enough to cure the disease... It was this same Pence who ended up publicly disavowing Trump by ensuring the transition of power to Biden while rioters marched on the Capitol. From now on, even if the army's general staff remains very hostile to Trump and will still do its utmost to delay his worst decisions, the new President's clan has prepared itself by removing the  “traitors” and is preparing to govern alone against everyone, leaving us with the prospect of a mandate even more chaotic than the previous one.

Towards an increasingly chaotic world

During the campaign, Trump presented himself as a man of ‘peace’, claiming that he would put an end to the Ukrainian conflict “in 24 hours”. His taste for peace clearly stops at the borders of Ukraine, since at the same time he has given unconditional support to the massacres perpetrated by the Israeli state and has been very virulent towards Iran. In reality, no one really knows what Trump will do (or be able to do) in Ukraine, the Middle East, Asia, Europe or with NATO, so versatile and capricious has he always been.

On the other hand, his return will mark an unprecedented acceleration of instability and chaos in the world. In the Middle East, Netanyahu already imagines that, with Trump's victory, his hands are freer than at any time since the start of the conflict in Gaza. Israel could seek to achieve its strategic objectives (destruction of Hezbollah, Hamas, war with Iran, etc.) in a much more head-on manner, spreading more barbarism throughout the region.

In Ukraine, after Biden's policy of more or less measured support, the conflict risks taking an even more dramatic turn. Unlike in the Middle East, US policy in Ukraine is part of a carefully devised strategy to weaken Russia and its alliance with China, and to strengthen the ties of the European states around NATO. Trump could call this strategy into question and further weaken American leadership. Whether Trump decides to abandon Kiev or ‘punish’ Putin, the massacres will inevitably escalate and perhaps spread beyond Ukraine.

But it is China that is the main focus of attention for US imperialism. The conflict between the United States and China is at the centre of the world situation, and the new President could multiply his provocations, pushing China to react firmly, for example by putting pressure on the USA’s Japanese and Korean allies, who have already expressed their concerns. And all this against a backdrop of escalating trade wars and protectionism whose disastrous consequences for the global economy are already being denounced by the world's leading financial institutions.

Trump's unpredictability can therefore only considerably reinforce the trend towards every man for himself, pushing all the powers, large and small, to take advantage of the ‘retreat’ of the American policeman to play their own card in a climate of immense confusion and increased chaos. Even America's ‘allies’ are already more openly seeking to distance themselves from Washington by favouring national solutions, both economic and military. The French President, as soon as Trump's victory was confirmed, called on the European Union states to defend their interests in the face of the United States and China...

An additional obstacle for the working class

In a context of economic crisis, at a time when the proletariat is regaining its fighting spirit on an international scale and gradually rediscovering its class identity, Trump's clique is clearly not, in the eyes of the American bourgeoisie, the best suited to managing the class struggle and pushing through the attacks that capital needs. Between his open threats of repression against strikers and his nightmarish partnership with a guy as openly anti-worker as Elon Musk, the billionaire's sweeping statements during the recent strikes in the United States (Boeing, dockers, hotels, cars, etc.) augur the worst and can only worry the bourgeoisie. Trump's promise to take revenge on state employees, whom he considers his enemies, by sacking 400,000 of them, also heralds trouble after the elections.

But it would be a mistake to think that Trump's return to the White House will encourage class struggle. On the contrary, it will come as a real shock. The policy of division between ethnic groups, between urban and rural dwellers, between graduates and non-graduates, all the violence and hatred that the election campaign generated and on which Trump will continue to surf, against blacks, against immigrants, against homosexuals or transgender people, all the irrational ravings of evangelicals and other conspiracy theorists, in short the whole mess of decomposition, will weigh even more heavily on working people, creating deep divisions and even violent political confrontations in favour of populist or anti-populist cliques.

The Trump administration will undoubtedly be able to count on the left-wing factions of the bourgeoisie, starting with the ‘socialists’, to instil the poison of division and ensure the derailing of workers’ struggles. After campaigning for both Clintons, Obama, Biden and Harris, Bernie Sanders unblinkingly accuses the Democrats of having “abandoned the working class”, as if this militaristic, proletarian-murdering party, which has frequently been in power since 19th century, had anything to do with the working class! As soon as she was re-elected to the House of Representatives, the left-wing Democrat Ocasio-Cortez promised to do her utmost to divide the working class into “communities”: ”Our campaign isn't just about winning votes, it's about giving us the means to build stronger communities”.

But the working class has the strength to fight back despite these new obstacles. While the campaign was in full swing, and despite the infamous accusations of playing into the hands of populists, workers continued to fight against austerity and redundancies. Despite the isolation imposed by the unions, despite the huge amount of Democratic propaganda, despite the weight of divisions, they showed that struggle is the only answer to the crisis of capitalism.

Above all, workers in the United States are not alone! These strikes are part of a context of international combativeness and heightened reflection that has been going on since the summer of 2022, when workers in Britain, after decades of resignation, raised a cry of anger, “Enough is enough!”, that resonates and will continue to resonate throughout the working class!

EG, 9 November 2024

With attacks and redundancies multiplying in Europe (VW-Audi in Germany and Belgium, Port Talbot Steel in Britain, Auchan and Michelin in France, Fiat in Italy), the bourgeoisie can count on its left-wing parties to push through this assault on the working class. In Britain, a country where the proletariat has suffered the worst attacks in Western Europe for decades, the Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has promised “an in-depth reform of workers’ rights”. But this “historic turning point” is still two years away, and will undoubtedly be another well-packaged attack on workers' living conditions. In the meantime, there will be austerity for the working class, as Starmer has already announced a “painful”  budget. In addition to the fall in income due to inflation, the left is adding billions in budget cuts. At a time when energy prices have soared in recent years, the Labour government has, for example, decided to end the allowance that enabled some ten million pensioners to keep warm in winter. To sweeten the pill, the NHS, the UK's beleaguered health system, will receive “investment” that is totally ridiculous in relation to needs, and has announced tax increases to “rebuild public services”. Over the last few months, in the UK as in other countries, the bourgeoisie has been clamouring about raining taxes on the super-rich. This is the traditional refrain of the left and far left parties of capital to make the exploited believe that it is possible to make the capitalist system ‘fairer’ with their ballot paper.

In France, this mystification has been taken to the height of ridiculousness: Michel Barnier's right-wing government, in order to push through its huge €60 billion austerity package, has also promised to raise taxes “on the richest”. This is obviously a crude way of justifying the claim that “everyone has to make an effort”... especially the working class! It's all the more hypocritical because the rules on tax optimisation are such that the ‘effort’ of the ‘rich’ and ‘big business’ will be much less than announced.

In Italy too, the far-right government has played the same tune. Giorgia Meloni attacked the ‘citizenship income’ intended for the poorest by promising to introduce a “tax on super-profits”... before watering down her tax measures. In Germany, the government of the ‘socialist’ Olaf Scholz swears with his hand on his heart that he wants to “support the economy, consumers and companies in difficulty”, but is nevertheless preparing to raise taxes on energy and shamelessly attack minimum social benefits!

In reality, contrary to the lies of the left-wing parties, ‘tax rises’ are absolutely not designed to ‘rebuild public services’. On the contrary, they are necessary for the bourgeoisie to cope with the economic crisis and the huge increase in military spending. Germany is preparing for its second consecutive year of recession, while France and Italy are drowning in debt. Against this backdrop, Europe is set to spend €552 billion on ‘defence’ by 2023, an increase of 62% in 10 years! As capitalism plunges into chaos, this spending will continue to explode in the future: France plans to spend €413 billion on armaments by 2030; Germany has doubled its military spending in ten years to reach 2% of its GDP; the UK's colossal military budget will grow by a further €3.5 billion in 2025; Poland's could exceed 5% of GDP...

Raising taxes ‘for greater tax justice’ and ‘better public services’ is nothing more than a despicable fable peddled by the left to make it easier to accept the attacks on the working class, mass redundancies, ever lower wages and job insecurity!

EG, 4 November 2024

On 23 November, the Internationalist Communist tendency (ICT) held a public meeting in Paris on the theme: ‘Faced with the rise of nationalist wars and confrontations, the only perspective is the internationalist class struggle’.

In addition to the ICT, the meeting was attended by militants from the International Communist Party - Le Prolétaire (ICP), the International Communist Current (ICC), a representative of the International Group of the Communist Left (IGCL), and several sympathisers from these different organisations.

The ICT has already published a report on this meeting on its website[1]. We do not claim to be exhaustive, but simply wish to briefly underline the crucial points which, for us, emerged from the discussion.

The emergence of a new generation

The presence of a relatively large audience at this public meeting, characterised in part by its youth, is a very significant fact about the current dynamics of our class. The ‘summer of anger’ in 2022 in the United Kingdom, the series of strikes which affected almost every sector for several months, was a sign that the proletariat was returning to the path of struggle after more than twenty years of passivity. Faced with the blows of the economic crisis and the relentless attacks by capital and its governments, workers are once again ready to strike, demonstrate and fight.

This dynamic is also marked by a near-invisible global process: the considerable effort of reflection that our class is in the process of producing. Faced with the impasse in the system, a whole range of questions is germinating in the minds of the workers. This is why minorities are appearing in the four corners of the globe, seeking out revolutionary positions and coming into contact with groups in the proletarian camp, those who defend the autonomy of the class and internationalism. Apart from the greater participation in meetings of the organisations of the Communist Left, there are many other signs, such as the emergence of conferences on internationalism (in Arezzo, Prague, Brussels, etc.). But the most significant is surely the attitude of the bourgeoisie itself. Its extreme left is becoming increasingly radical in its language, no longer hesitating to emphasise the need for revolution, and its trade unions are increasingly militant and united in advocating ‘class trade unionism’. For the left wing of capital, it's a question of playing its part in attracting the growing numbers of young people who want to fight.

The historical responsibility of the groups of the Communist Left

The Communist Left has a historical responsibility to pass on to the new generation that is slowly emerging the positions, methods and principles that it inherited from the workers' movement. These lessons, acquired through long struggles over two centuries, are absolutely vital for the future; there can be no victorious international proletarian revolution if they are forgotten.

The ICT meeting held in Paris must be evaluated in the light of this requirement, which is binding on all groups of the Communist Left.

1. Debate with the aim of clarification

The presentation made by the ICT to launch the discussion clearly set out the following points:

• In the 19th century, certain national liberation struggles could be supported by revolutionaries, when they made it possible to sweep away the last feudal fetters and thus accelerate the development of capitalism. But since the beginning of the 20th century, in this system in decline, it is no longer the formation of capitalist nations that is on the order of the day, but international proletarian revolution.
• The current development of war and chaos in Ukraine, Gaza and elsewhere is the product of the capitalist system.

• Faced with this situation, only the working class is in a position to oppose the system which is generating this increasingly barbaric situation: capitalism.

• Against the nationalist campaigns in which the bourgeoisie tries to mobilise the working class in defence of one side against another, revolutionaries must defend proletarian internationalism within the class.

The ICC intervened from the outset to support the broad lines of the presentation. In particular, we underlined the effort made to adopt a historical approach in order to understand these different questions, which are so crucial for the development of class consciousness and the future of the proletarian struggle. This is why we felt it necessary to stress the profound changes brought about by the entry of capitalism into its phase of decadence. As the Communist International proclaimed at its foundation in March 1919: the experience of the carnage of the 1914 war and the international revolutionary wave that followed proved that the world had entered ‘the era of wars and revolutions’: capitalism, now decadent, had nothing more to offer humanity, and the only alternative was its destruction by world proletarian revolution. From then on, war became capitalism's way of life; every nation, every bourgeoisie, big or small, was imperialist and contributed to the war and nationalist fever. In this new configuration, national liberation struggles and the call for self-determination, supported by revolutionaries in certain circumstances during the ascendant period, became obsolete and reactionary orientations and watchwords.

The ICP, for its part, defended an entirely different approach: faithful to its theory of invariance, the idea that the communist programme had been established once and for all in 1848 and that nothing could be added or modified since then, it maintained that national liberation struggles were still possible today. Consistent with this approach, the ICP and its sympathiser therefore defended the legitimacy of the Palestinian people's struggle against Israeli oppression (without, of course, at any time supporting Hamas or any local bourgeois faction). The ICP supporter even said that for him not to support the Palestinian people when they were being massacred, tortured and subjected to the most appalling barbarity was a form of indifferentism towards all this suffering.

In response, several speakers tried to show that national liberation struggles are a trap that chains part of the working class to the domination of its own bourgeoisie. In the face of this, we must brandish the slogan already contained in the Manifesto: Proletarians have no country!

If, during this first part of the debate, the ICT and the ICC together defended the same general political position, two nuances also emerged:

• Unlike the ICC, ICT militants never uttered the words ‘ascendance’ and ‘decadence’ to define the two great phases in the life of capitalism. In our view, these terms reflect the most accurate and precise vision of the profound and historical evolution of the system.
• The ICT said that it recognises the existence of oppressed nations and oppressing nations, which for the ICC is a mistake because it maintains an ambiguity when it comes to firmly insisting that all nations, large or small, well or poorly armed, are imperialist.

The second part of the discussion was devoted to the historical issues at stake today: war and class struggle.

In many of the interventions, in particular those of the ICT and the ICP, the vision defended was that of a course towards the Third World War (or towards the ‘generalisation of war’, we confess that we did not necessarily understand whether there was a difference between these two terms). There is in this position a pessimistic assessment of the state of the working class and its struggles.

The ICC then developed another assessment of the situation: capitalism is not heading for a third world war in the foreseeable future, but is in the process of decomposition. In concrete terms, this means a proliferation of warlike conflicts (as in Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, etc.), a disintegration of the social fabric (atomisation, a rise in violence, racism and identitarian isolationism, the gangrene of drugs and trafficking, etc.), an erosion of coherent and rational thought... This is no less a danger than the possibility of a third world war, both of which lead to the disappearance of human civilisation. On the other hand, this latter approach makes it possible to understand the reality unfolding before our eyes in all its complexity and chaos, to link together phenomena that may appear independent of one another, or even contradictory[2].

As for the class struggle, for the ICC, the proletariat is not defeated today. It is this strength of the proletariat, particularly in Europe and North America, which for 40 years prevented the Cold War from turning into the Third World War. Today, the proletariat has even begun to take up the struggle again and is trying to develop its reflection, its consciousness. As we said in the introduction, since 2022 and the series of strikes known as the ‘Summer of Anger’ in the UK, the ICC has been highlighting the return of workers' combativity[3].

All these disagreements within the meeting were expressed in a very warm and open atmosphere, where everyone was keen to understand and respond to each other's positions in an argued manner.

This positive moment must serve as a benchmark: the groups of the Communist Left must develop the debate between them much more - the confrontation of their political positions, the participation in the public meetings of each other. Our newspapers and magazines must also participate in this process of clarification; there are far too few public polemics between our groups. While the ICP and the ICC write articles in response to each other, an effort that we must pursue and amplify together, the ICT almost systematically refuses this public debate, and our letters and articles remain dead letters.

2. Uniting around the fundamental positions of the proletarian camp

There was one moment at the ICT meeting which should particularly attract our attention: although all the interventions all clearly underlined the points of disagreement, some young participants intervened to say that they did not really understand what distinguished the positions of the different organisations present.

These remarks reveal an essential point: the organisations of the Communist Left, however important their differences may be, have in common a history, a heritage and fundamental positions.

The title of the meeting itself summed up this unity: ‘Faced with the rise of nationalist wars and confrontations, the only perspective is the internationalist class struggle’. All the speakers at this debate were keen to stand up against imperialist wars, to defend proletarian internationalism and to reflect on the development of workers' struggle and consciousness.

The dynamic of this meeting is further concrete proof that the different groups of the Communist Left have a twofold responsibility: to confront their differences in a collective process of clarification and to come together to defend, with a stronger voice, what they have essentially in common.

This is why, in each of its interventions, the ICC has systematically issued a joint appeal insisting that we should be able to defend with one voice the internationalist position of the Communist Left in the face of the military conflicts that are developing across the planet. We also pointed out that this joint appeal could enable new generations to draw on this experience, just as we ourselves can draw on the Zimmerwald experience. It would be a milestone for the future.

And once again, both the ICT and the ICP have rejected this joint appeal.

The new generation will therefore have an important role to play here, to push the groups of the Communist Left both to polemicise amongst themselves and to unite on the cardinal points they have in common, to push the groups of the Communist Left to live up to their historical responsibility.

3. Defending the principles of the workers' movement and proletarian solidarity

Attentive readers will have noticed that we mentioned in our introduction the participation in this meeting of a representative of the IGCL, the individual Juan, without ever saying anything about his role in the debates.

Certainly, in the eyes of the participants, Juan appeared to have a fraternal attitude throughout the meeting; he took part in the debate in a clear and dynamic way, and he made some very good interventions that enabled the collective reflection to move forward.

It's true that Juan was eloquent, that his speeches were even brilliant, and that he always wore a smile and a sense of humour.

In the first part of the debate, he defended the same positions as the ICC on the trap of national liberation struggles in the period of decadence, and therefore against the invariance of the ICP. In the second part, he took up the ICP's position that the Third World War was approaching. Above all, he insisted on his agreement with the struggle being waged by the ICC to get the groups of the Communist Left to produce a joint appeal in defence of internationalism, saying that he was ready to sign it. But appearances are often deceptive.

We must therefore recall a few facts here to unmask the level of hypocrisy and manoeuvring of this individual.

Juan hit one of our comrades in the street, forcing him to go to hospital with a swelling on his face. One of his acolytes, in Juan's presence, threatened to slit the throat of another ICC militant – with our comrade quite aware that this gentleman always has a knife in his pocket. At a Lutte Ouvrière meeting where we were speaking, Juan started laughing at a comrade because he knew that the latter had just nearly died of a heart attack, rejoicing in his misfortune. So much for the reality of fraternity when there are no witnesses!

Obviously, the support shown at this meeting for the ICC's positions suffers from the same duplicity. You only have to read the IGCL’s articles to see that the backbone of this group is its hatred for our organisation. In its founding text, the IGCL states that “the International Communist Current is disintegrating before our very eyes, both theoretically, politically and organisationally, liquidating its regular press, abandoning its public meetings, having abandoned most of its principles...”. Its newsletters are peppered with gossip against the ICC. For example, under its former name of the “Internal fraction of the ICC”, it said back in 2014 in an article headlined “A new (final?) internal crisis in the ICC!, it wrote “‘The ICC is once again - according to recent internal documents - experiencing a new internal crisis (...). The militant energies wasted on psychological introspection and self-criticism cover dozens of pages of bulletins at the same time as the sections of this organisation are reducing the frequency of their publications - if not stopping them altogether - or deciding not to hold any more public meetings or to intervene in the street and in struggles. If this were not a deliberate attempt to destroy an organisation which has become a veritable sect and which is attacking the Communist Left from every angle, (...) we would not have intervened publicly on this matter, which has not yet been revealed by the organisation in crisis. But this is a matter of urgency! (...) For us, it is clear that there is a will and a conscious undertaking to destroy the militants of the ICC, their communist conviction and their communist commitment, which has been underway - it's true - for a good twenty years now. This crisis is undoubtedly the latest stage in this process”.

We are now at the end of 2024, 10 years after this somewhat premature funeral oration[4]. But let's linger for a moment over certain words: “according to recent internal documents”; “we would not have intervened publicly on this matter not yet revealed by the organisation in crisis”.

Here we come to the very essence of the IGCL, Juan's true nature, when the mask is off: snitching! Since its inception, this group (whether it calls itself IFICC or IGCL) has never ceased to publish on the internet information that affects the internal life and security of the ICC and its militants: quotes from internal bulletins, revealing militants' real initials, revealing who writes this or that article[5], dates of our internal meetings[6]... everything is covered[7].

As for Juan's statement that he agrees with a number of the ICC’s political positions, this is a deception designed to fool the participants in the ICT's public meeting, as evidenced by the numerous texts he has written distorting our positions so as to be able to slander them[8].

At the ICT meeting, we very briefly reminded everyone who Juan really is, saying: “We don't debate with snitches”. Juan's reaction was to mock our accusation, adding: ‘Yes, I'm the informer, the cop’, to which the audience laughed.

The weapon of mockery is effective and clever, it diverts and distracts, but it is also an admission that Juan cannot contradict our accusation, because he knows that all the evidence is accessible, all his acts of snitching are on the Internet.

To all those who believe that proletarian behaviour is a crucial issue, that revolutionaries cannot accept theft, blackmail, lies and manipulation, death threats and snitching, we advise them not to be fooled by Juan's derision, nor by his sycophancy towards the ICC at this meeting. The reality of his policies, his actions, his anti-ICC hatred, his snitching, you'll find it spelled out in column after column on his own website. Revolutionaries have always been extremely serious and uncompromising in their defence of principles and revolutionary organisations, starting with Marx’s struggle against Bakunin and Vogt[9].

This is why we regret that the other organisations remained silent on this question when Juan ridiculed it, just as we regret that the ICT continues to accept in its meetings an individual who is the bearer of such destructive behaviour. This tolerance turns its back on the whole tradition of the workers' movement and sullies the Communist Left. It is also a breach of the most elementary solidarity that revolutionaries owe each other.

The ICT public meeting: a positive moment, but marked by profound weaknesses that must be overcome!

This acceptance of snitching is a terrible weakness, but it must not overshadow the positive aspect of this meeting held by the ICT: the confirmation of the emergence of a new generation in search of revolutionary positions and a necessary confrontation of the positions of three organisations of the Communist Left!

It remains for our organisations to live up to their responsibilities, to around the issue of proletarian principles.

We will end this assessment in the same way as we ended the ICT meeting: by saluting the TCI and all the participants for holding this debate, and by inviting the ICT, the ICP and all those present to come and take part in our next public meetings[10].

Pawel (09/12/2024)

We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that all the information about these meetings is available on our website, in the agenda section. You can also email us at [email protected] [212]

  We publish here a letter from a close sympathiser, which we think is a very lucid denunciation of the current campaign about the 'good news' coming from Syria with the fall of the Assad regime - a denunciation based on the ICC's position on the decomposition of capitalism and the slide into military chaos.

***************************************************************************

….Peace and goodwill on earth may have to wait a little longer.

In Syria, the lying talk of a ‘peaceful transition’ following the abrupt downfall of the Assad regime is just desert dust thrown up to confuse and disorient.

Similarly, the pleas to ‘maintain the territorial integrity’ of the Syrian nation state which has seen 12 million of its citizens forcibly displaced since 2011, are belied by the frenzy of competing imperialist sharks and their proxies attempting to feed off the decaying corpse of the country or salvaging what they can of their prior possessions there.

Every man for himself!

Chaos, war, famine, disease, mass movements of refugees destabilising the status quo across the Middle East, Africa, Europe and beyond. This is how the first quarter of the 21st century ends as it began … only much worse!

The partial takeover of Syria by the forces of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – the Sunni ‘rebel alliance’ who were yesterday’s outlawed Jihadist Terrorists rebranded and resurrected as today’s saviours of Syria and role model for Islamists and moderates of all stripes – has brought no relief for the population inside Syria or anywhere else.

Before the vapour trails of the plane carrying the fleeing rat Assad from Damascus to his nest in Moscow had melted in the sky and while some began to celebrate the ‘liberation’ of the country:

• “The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) said on Sunday [December 8] that it had struck more than 75 targets, including ISIL (ISIS) leaders, operatives and camps, to ensure that the armed group does not take advantage of the end of al-Assad’s rule.” (Aljazeera website). This ‘action’, this rain of fire and steel from the sky, claimed “no civilian casualties”, the US military said.
• “The Israeli military on Tuesday [December 10] said it had carried out about 480 strikes across the country over the past two days, hitting most of Syria’s strategic weapon stockpiles, while Defence Minister Israel Katz said the Israeli navy had destroyed the Syrian fleet (my emphasis) overnight... Of the 480 strikes carried out by the Israeli Air Force, about 350 were manned aircraft strikes targeting airfields, anti-aircraft batteries, missiles, drones, fighter jets, tanks and weapon production sites in Damascus, Homs, Tartus, Latakia and Palmyra, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said. The rest of the strikes were in support of ground operations that targeted weapons depots, military structures, launchers and firing positions.” (CNN website, December 11). The ‘ground operations’ mentioned here include an extension of the so-called buffer zone between Israel and Syria and a further Israeli incursion into Syria to create a “security zone free of heavy strategic weapons and terrorist infrastructures” in southern Syria, “beyond the buffer zone.” A land-grab, in other words. Some reports (unverified at the time of writing) claimed Israeli tanks were within 15.5 miles of Damascus.
• “Fighters with the Syrian National Army (SNA), a rebel group supported by Turkey, crossed the Euphrates in the direction of Kobane under the protection of Turkish jets. Turkey’s military intelligence agency also said it had destroyed 12 military trucks, two tanks and ammunition stores after they fell into the hands of the YPG, a Kurdish militia. Under president Recep Tayyip Erdogan [217], Turkey has sought to dismantle Kurdish footholds in Syria. Mr Erdogan views Rojava, the autonomous region carved out of the Assad regime’s control in 2012, as a safe haven for anti-Turkish terrorists. [218]” (Daily Telegraph, December 10). These ‘Kurdish footholds’ are supported by the US, Israel and the UK and police thousands of captured ISIS (Islamic State) fighters and their families in virtual concentration camps. Thus, Turkey’s action pits it against its NATO allies. In October, Turkey launched airstrikes against suspected Kurdish militant targets in Syria and Iraq after blaming the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK) for a deadly attack on the headquarters of the Turkish national aerospace company that killed five people. In fact, “Turkey carried out more than 100 attacks between October 2019 and January 2024 on oil fields, gas facilities and power stations in the Kurdish-held Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES)”, according to data collated by the BBC World Service. These Turkish air strikes in drought-struck north-east Syria “have cut off access to electricity and water for more than a million people, in what experts say may be a violation of international law… The attacks have added to the humanitarian crisis in a region reeling from a years-long civil war and four years of extreme drought exacerbated by climate change.” (BBC News website, 19 November 2024).

Everyone participates in the picking of the decomposing corpse. None planned it. No one will benefit from it. The working class will pay for it.

If Iran (whose now-weakened Hezbollah forces in Lebanon had supported Assad) and Russia (without whose arms and air strikes Assad would have fallen after his brutal suppression of the ‘Arab Spring’ uprising in 2011 and the subsequent civil war) are the obvious losers in recent events (Russia fears for the security of its naval base at Tartus on the Mediterranean coast - it anchored its fleet offshore following Assad’s fall and flight - and its Khmeimim Air Base near the port city of Latakia; Iran will find it harder to filter supplies through Syria to the Hezbollah rump in Lebanon), no one nation state can claim ‘victory’.

Just as the US didn’t want to see – yet failed to prevent – the escalation and spread of war in the Mideast after October 7, 2023, the fall of Assad and the rise of the ‘Terrorist’, ex-Al Qaeda, HTS provides little solace, threatening further instability. Israel was relatively content with a weakened Assad in place, and while it has taken the opportunity to destroy weaponry and bases of use to present and future adversaries, it too will not regard the either the HTS’s extension (The Taliban was the first to congratulate it, followed by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas) nor Turkey’s attacks on the Kurds, with any kind of glee. And for Turkey, its actions have as we’ve seen, brought it into conflict with those of its erstwhile allies, including the US, which has issued dark ‘warnings’ to Ankara…

It's another fine mess. A gangsters’ paradise. A free-for-all, not a bloc-building exercise regrouping allies and foes for a titanic third world war clash – the final countdown - as so much of the proletarian milieu appears to think (as far as it thinks).

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s speech in Brussels on Thursday December 12 highlighted the “critical need” to ramp up defence spending and defence production in ‘an increasingly turbulent security environment’, calling on NATO members and allies to “shift to a wartime mindset and turbo charge our defence production and defence spending.” In GB, ex-military chiefs have raised the spectre of conscription. But there’s no guarantee that this weaponry, these armies, won’t in future be turned against each other or their proxies, as in northern Syria today. And the arrival of the Trump administration threatens only to add to the chaos of what passes for international relations and solidarity.

No: today Syria demonstrates in sad spades, in bodies and broken dreams, a further step in the decomposition of the capitalist social order under the irreparable pressure of the global economic crisis, of human-enabled climate catastrophe, both expressed through the irrational and unbridled growth of militarism. Capitalism is war!

While the media toured Assad’s notorious torture prisons, feeding off grief and the hunt for the thousands of ‘disappeared’, on the sidelines of a closed-door UN security council meeting on Monday, Syria’s UN ambassador, Koussay Aldahhak, said: “Syria now is witnessing a new era of change, a new historical phase of its history and Syrians are looking forward for establishing a state of freedom, equality, rule of law, democracy.” (The Guardian, Tuesday December 10). More desert dust and pious hopes. “The security council appeared united on the need to preserve Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and will work on a joint statement in the coming days, US and Russian diplomats said after the meeting,” the report continued. But here’s the nub of the situation: “‘No one expected the Syrian forces to fall like a house of cards, and it took a lot of people by surprise,’ US ambassador to the UN Robert Wood said. ‘It’s a very fluid situation’”. For ‘fluid’ read chaotic, uncontrollable, unpredictable… Only more conflict is certain.

Conflict as in Gaza, on the West Bank, in Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, Nigeria, Libya, Ukraine: all this war, all these arms, all this production of the means of destruction; everywhere increases in military budgets as the infrastructure in nation after nation falls into disrepair, and production is interrupted by flood and fire; as millions are forced at the point of a gun or starvation to uproot in search of sustenance... of life.

And the global producer class, the proletariat, the exploited class of capitalism whose collective labour provides the surplus value on which the whole system feeds, also remains the only true “revolutionary” sector in this society, the real “rebels” in this mix, the only historic force with a past of struggle and a vision and programme for the future. One way or another, the modern, international proletariat still holds humanity’s future in its collective hands. It’s struggles against this decaying social order haven’t been extinguished.

So, season’s greetings, comrades: as products of and active factors in the proletarian struggle, your clarity and determination to uphold the principles of the Communist Left are more necessary than ever.

Fraternally, KT
December 12, 2024

Today's media are lavishing images of the horrors of Bashar al Assad's regime (such as those of the sinister Saydnaya prison), while rejoicing at the population's celebrations for the ‘end of the nightmare’. But the relief at the end of this regime of terror is nothing but a vain illusion. The truth is that the population (both in Syria and in the rest of the world) is the victim of a new and criminal deception, a new demonstration of the fraudulent hypocrisy of the ruling class: to make people believe that the terror, war and misery were the sole responsibility of Assad, a ‘madman’ who had to be stopped in order to restore peace and stability.

In reality, all the imperialists, from the smallest powers in the region to the major world powers, have been shamelessly involved in the regime's atrocities: Let's not forget how Obama, the ‘Nobel Peace Prize winner’, looked the other way in 2013 when Bashar Al Assad was bombing or using poison gas against his population; or how many of the ‘democratic’ powers, who are now congratulating themselves on the ‘fall of the tyrant’, have accommodated themselves to the Assad family for decades, or even been their patented accomplices, in order to defend their sordid interests in the region. These same major ‘democracies’ are once again shamelessly lying when they seek to whitewash the country's new leaders, who were described as ‘terrorists’ just a few years ago: these ‘moderates’, who are capable of finding a ‘peaceful’ way out, are nothing more than a collection of Islamists and cutthroats from the ranks of Al Qaeda or Daesh!

The inexorable chaos that awaits us

A year ago, when the conflict broke out in Gaza, we distributed a leaflet in which we denounced the extension of the barbarity that these massacres were already preparing:

“The Hamas attack and Israel's response have one thing in common: the scorched earth policy. Yesterday's terrorist massacre and today's carpet bombing can lead to no real and lasting victory. This war is plunging the Middle East into an era of destabilisation and confrontation. If Israel continues to raze Gaza to the ground and bury its inhabitants under the rubble, there is a risk that the West Bank will also catch fire, that Hezbollah will drag Lebanon into the war, and that Iran will end up getting involved….While the economic and warlike competition between China and the United States is increasingly brutal and oppressive, the other nations are not bowing to the orders of one or other of these two behemoths; they are playing their own game, in disorder, unpredictability and cacophony. Russia attacked Ukraine against Chinese advice. Israel is crushing Gaza against American advice. These two conflicts epitomise the danger that threatens all humanity with death: the multiplication of wars whose sole aim is to destabilise or destroy the adversary; an endless chain of irrational and nihilistic exactions; every man for himself, synonymous with uncontrollable chaos”[1].

The jihadists' lightning offensive took advantage of the growing chaos in the region: Assad and his corrupt regime were hanging on by a thread since the Russian army, bogged down in Ukraine, was no longer in a position to support him, and Hezbollah, embroiled in its war with Israel, had abandoned its positions in Syria. In the chaos of the ongoing barbarism in Syria, this coalition of disparate militias was able to rush into Damascus without encountering much resistance. What we are witnessing today in Syria, as yesterday in Lebanon and Ukraine, is the spread and amplification of these scorched-earth wars in which none of the adversaries gains a solid position, lasting influence or a stable alliance, but instead fuels an inexorable headlong rush into chaos.

Who can claim to have won a solid victory? The new Syrian regime is already facing a situation of fragmentation and dislocation reminiscent of post-Gaddafi Libya. The fall of the Assad regime is also a major setback for Iran, which is losing a precious ally at a time when Hamas and Hezbollah are drained. Meanwhile Russia could see its precious military bases in the Mediterranean disappear at the same time as its credibility in defending its allies... Even those who, like Israel or the United States, might be delighted to see the arrival of new, more conciliatory masters in Damascus, have no more than a relative confidence in them, as shown by the Israeli bombardments to destroy the arsenals and prevent them from falling into the hands of the new regime. Turkey, which appears to be the main beneficiary of the fall of Assad, also knows that it will have to contend with increased US support for the Kurds and an even more chaotic situation on its borders. The ‘fall of the tyrant’ promises nothing but more war and chaos!

Capitalist decomposition is leading humanity towards barbarism and destruction.

If the chaos, terror and massacres are indeed the work of the rulers of this world, of the bourgeoisie, both authoritarian and democratic, they are above all the result of the logic of decadent capitalism. Capitalism is all-out competition, plunder and war. The fact that this war is now spreading to more and more parts of the world, causing senseless devastation and mass slaughter, is an expression of the historical impasse in which the capitalist system finds itself. On the occasion of the war in Gaza we wrote: ”Whatever action is taken, the dynamic towards destabilisation is inescapable. Basically, then, this is a significant new stage in the acceleration of global chaos. This conflict shows the extent to which each state is increasingly applying a "scorched earth" policy to defend its interests, seeking not to gain influence or conquer interests, but to sow chaos and destruction among its rivals. This tendency towards strategic irrationality, short-sightedness, unstable alliances and "every man for himself" is not an arbitrary policy of this or that state, nor the product of the sheer stupidity of this or that bourgeois faction in power. It is the consequence of the historical conditions, those of the decomposition of capitalism, in which all states confront each other. With the outbreak of war in Ukraine, this historical tendency and the weight of militarism on society have been profoundly aggravated. The war in Gaza confirms the extent to which imperialist war is now the main destabilising factor in capitalist society. The product of the contradictions of capitalism, the breath of war in turn feeds the fire of these same contradictions, increasing, through the weight of militarism, the economic crisis, the environmental disaster and the dismemberment of society”[2]. This dynamic tends to rot every part of society, to weaken every nation, starting with the foremost among them: the United States.

As a consequence of this decomposition of capitalist society, we have seen the emergence of phenomena such as massive exoduses of refugees, like the one triggered by the war in Syria in 2015, with almost 15 million displaced people (7 million in Syria itself, 3 million in Turkey, and around 1 million between Germany and Sweden). At the time, we denounced the hypocritical ‘refugees are welcome’ of the bourgeoisie[3], which did not mean that the exploiters were now advocates of solidarity, but rather was an attempt to contain the explosion of chaos by taking advantage of cheap labour. These same benefactors are now pushing refugees to return to the hell that is Syria, because ‘the oppressive regime no longer exists’ and ‘the country is moving towards the restoration of democratic normality’. This is the disgusting cynicism of these ‘democracies’, which are putting into practice the policies advocated by the populist parties and the far right from which they claim to distance themselves. The alternative to the destruction of humanity that the survival of capitalism implies is international class solidarity, a solidarity of struggle against global capitalism.

Valerio, 13 December

Modified 24.12.24. thanks to Internationalist Voice for suggesting some more precise formuations. 

The toll of ongoing wars is terrible. In Ukraine, the number of dead and wounded already exceeds one million, with territories and towns completely razed to the ground, as in the town of Mariopol, which has been wiped off the map! In the Middle East, the headlong rush into Gaza has been leading to a veritable genocide. Here too, everything has been razed to the ground, and the devastated territories will lie fallow for decades to come. Then there are the related confrontations, with their deadly consequences, as in Lebanon, the Red Sea, Yemen and, more recently, Syria. And other more serious threats are accumulating and threatening to erupt, notably between China and Taiwan.

A real escalation of diplomatic and warlike tensions

Since last summer, we have witnessed a real escalation of military conflicts, with fighting and massacres intensifying everywhere. Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine and almost three years of extremely violent warfare, the Ukrainian army has finally made an incursion onto Russian soil, in the Kursk region. In eastern Ukraine, the Russian army still seems to be making progress, at the cost of very heavy losses. Children are being slaughtered shamelessly. With the support of North Korean soldiers, but also Sri Lankan, Houthi, etc., the conflict is taking on another, more perilous dimension, dragging in its wake more states or military groups, even if the reinforcements reflect the difficulties and shortages from which Russia is suffering.

In the Middle East, after two years of war, the conflict has also intensified, with more than 44,000 people already killed in Gaza, the majority of them civilians; 1,700 Israelis, along with a few foreign nationals and hostages, and the opening of a new front that has spread brutally to Lebanon, where the centre of Beirut quickly came under fire (more than 3,000 civilian deaths). To this macabre toll must be added a host of wounded and displaced people.

Even more recently, in Syria, Islamist groups, taking advantage of the powerlessness of Russia (allied to Bashar al-Assad) and Israel's regular bombing of the country, launched an offensive on the city of Aleppo. This new outbreak of violence, opportunely taking advantage of the disorder in the Middle East, not only represents a further expansion of the chaos but could in turn have even more deadly consequences.

These conflicts have therefore escalated even further, particularly since the American elections, when Biden was, embarrassingly, forced to support Netanyahu's unbridled extremism; he was also recently pressured to authorise Ukraine's use of longer-range missiles, capable of reaching targets within a 300-kilometre radius on Russian soil. Since then, the first Ukrainian firings of American ATACMS missiles have rapidly been followed by more intense use of drones and cluster missiles by Russia (resulting in numerous civilian casualties), as well as numerous bombardments aimed at depriving the country of electricity for the winter. Above all, the symbolic sending of an intermediate-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads demonstrates the Kremlin's growing desire to provoke and intimidate the Western powers. Putin, the sorcerer's apprentice, has just amended the Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, paradoxically, the Middle East has just opened up to negotiations following a ceasefire agreed by Netanyahu over Lebanon. And while the situation in Ukraine has not reached that point at the time of writing, and Putin “does not seem ready to negotiate”’, there are voices pointing out that it may now be “possible to envisage a just peace”[1]’.

‘Peace’ in capitalism is a delusion and a lie

Have the great imperialist powers and the belligerents become ‘reasonable’, more inclined to ‘restore peace’? Absolutely not! Marxism has always maintained, particularly since the First World War, that capitalism is war. A time of ‘peace’ is simply a time of preparation for imperialist war, the product of a political and military balance of power. As Lenin pointed out, ‘”the more the capitalists talk about peace, the more they prepare for war”’. If Netanyahu has today signed a fragile ceasefire in the north, it is above all in the hope of gaining Trump's support in order to capitalise politically on his atrocities in Palestinian territory and better position himself in the face of Iran's regional claims.

The appointment of former veteran Pete Hegseth to the post of US Secretary of Defence is also in line with Netanyahu's hopes. A star presenter on the conservative Fox News television channel, Hegseth, a hard-line evangelical conservative, presents himself as a ‘defender of Israel’, a supporter of Zionism who loudly applauded the decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem as the capital of the Hebrew state. This future minister naturally supports Netanyahu in the face of pressure from international justice, all the more so as he had already pleaded in favour of American soldiers accused of war crimes! He was also the spokesman for those who wanted to bomb Iran on the pretext of its ‘arms caches ’...

In Ukraine, each side is also trying to anticipate Washington's reaction and is doing its utmost to score points on the ground, so as to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. On the one hand, there is the desperate pressure exerted by the Kremlin through indiscriminate bombing and the nuclear threat; on the other, in Ukraine, there is the determination to use the fragile conquest of the Russian region of Kursk as a ‘bargaining chip’. One thing is certain: whatever policy Trump decides to pursue, it is bound to fuel the same appetites for revenge.

The same applies to the European powers, caught up in the dynamic of every man for himself and confronted by the initiatives of increasingly audacious partners, such as the meeting between Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Vladimir Putin, but also by the revival of Franco-British discourse on the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine ‘to keep the peace’, whereas Germany is not in favour of this at the moment. A whole range of issues are poisoning relations in the EU, both over Russia and the war in Ukraine (Hungary, for example, is overtly pro-Russian) and in the Middle East (the question of the Palestinian state), as well as relations with NATO, the role of European defence, the development of the war economy, etc. The uncertainty of the results of the American elections, followed by the victory of Trump, who had pledged to “resolve the Ukrainian conflict in 24 hours”’, could only lead to further embers of war. Between now and 20 January, the date of Donald Trump's inauguration, no one knows what the new American President is likely to do, given his capricious, volatile and unpredictable nature.

The growing tensions will therefore continue, perhaps also in the form of ‘peace’ speeches. This dynamic of imperialist chaos, marked by major tensions between all the world's powers, first and foremost China and the United States, can only grow and spread, even if it is possible that a truce will momentarily mark the tempo. But war will not go away: “capitalism has no other way out in its attempt to hold together its different compo­nents, than to impose the iron strait-jacket of military force. In this sense, the methods it uses to try to contain an increasingly bloody state of chaos are themselves a factor in the aggravation of military barbarism into which capitalism is plunging”.[2] In order to defend its strategic interests, each imperialist state now increasingly applies a scorched earth policy, sowing chaos and destruction, even in the areas of influence of its closest ‘allies’ and, a fortiori, of its rivals. Left to its own devices, the capitalist system threatens the very survival of humanity.

Only the proletariat can offer an alternative to capitalist barbarity.

Acknowledging the obsolescence of capitalism does not mean giving in to fatalism. On the contrary! Within bourgeois society, there is an antagonistic force capable of bringing down this system: the massive international struggle of the proletariat. Even if the proletariat is still weakened and unable to take direct action against the war, its potential remains intact. Even if it is only gradually beginning to express itself through a slow process of awareness, fragile and uneven, still molecular and subterranean, it represents, for the future, a social force of radical transformation. Revolutionaries owe need to highlight the future potential contained in the class struggle: “The working class has no side to choose in all these wars, whether current or in the making, and must staunchly defend the banner of proletarian internationalism everywhere. For a whole period, the working class will not be able to stand up directly against war. On the other hand, the class struggle against exploitation will take on greater importance because it pushes the proletariat to politicise its struggle, with a view to overthrowing capitalism.”[3]

WH, 30 November 2024.

On 16 November, the ICC held an online public meeting on the theme "The global implications of the US elections", in which several dozen people from across four continents and fifteen countries took part in addition to ICC militants. There was a simultaneous translation into English, Spanish and French so everyone could follow the discussions, which took place in just over three hours. We have published an initial report on the meeting on our website: An international debate to understand the global situation and prepare for the future [221]

Since then, we've received a large number of letters, some to welcome the meeting, others to continue the debate or to ask new questions, an indication of the momentum generated by this energising meeting.

One of these letters, signed by Blake, gave a more negative assessment of this international meeting and suggested that we should do things differently, that we should hold other types of meeting. This criticism is both fraternal and well-argued and we publish this letter and our response below.

Letter from a reader

Hello, a few comments on the public meeting last Saturday.

I don't have too much to say on the actual content, I agree with the position put forward by the organisation, essentially that the Trump election is a sign and an aggravating factor in the continuation of decomposition.

I want to mainly comment on the organisation of the meeting. It's very difficult to deal with a huge number of people on line. All the meetings I have participated in online with large numbers are not designed for discussion. Generally they are for giving information, discussion happens in much smaller forums/groups. 

First of all, there are constant technical issues (the threat of the pad being deleted(!), people not turning off microphones, connectivity issues etc)

Also, in relation to the discussion, I feel there's very little actual 'discussion' when you have so many people. Mostly comrades intervene once, to give a statement of their views, and so there's little dialogue and development of a depth (that was my feeling, and why I didn't intervene in the meeting). A few comrades posed questions (e.g. JC about 'rationality') but there's no discussion from others, and instead you have the 'response of the organisation' (which is obviously important to have, but it then feels like a student-teacher relationship).

Another negative (for me) was having comrades speaking other languages. If you can't speak/understand then what happens is you tend to switch off and wait until that person has stopped speaking, this breaks concentration. It was a good idea to translate those non-English interventions and quickly put them back into the pad, but: 

(a) some of the translations were poor (unsurprisingly, Google translate hasn't caught up with our somewhat specialised vocabulary) and 

(b) as I was reading the last intervention the next intervention was going ahead, so again it's difficult to follow and keep up. 

Despite the advantages of having different voices, and giving a sense of internationalism, I think it does not really work for a public meeting online (which is very different from, say, a public meeting face to face where you can have live translation…

A proposed idea how to organise the meeting: 

- 1 presentation to everyone (20 mins),

- Then the meeting is split into the language groups, who can then discuss freely (say 1 hour),

- A break - during which the discussions / questions / main themes etc are collated (10 mins)

- Followed by a plenum with a whole group discussion - (1 hour).

There are several advantages to this; 

1. Smaller groups generally = easier management. 
2. You still have an international meeting (in the Presentation and plenum discussion), but reduce some of the limitations of meeting online.
3. Some comrades are intimidated by larger numbers/language ability (e.g. Japanese comrades) and thus may be more encouraged to speak. (On a related side note; do you think constantly saying that you want 'new comrades/attendees' to speak actually does the job you want it to do? Constantly 'haranguing' people to speak (just how it came across to me), generally does not produce much response, personally I have not noticed any more people participating. You have a greater array of communicative means online, so you should consider using them. For example, why not ask attendees, if they don't want to speak, to write a short paragraph of what they think into the chat box, which can then be read out..? I can virtually guarantee you will get more responses that way..) 
4. Smaller groups, generally can mean a little longer for each person to contribute (You can emphasise the '5 min limit' during the main plenum). 
5. Finally, you can get out much of the repetition and basic ideas in the smaller group and therefore should be able to have a 'higher' level discussion in the whole group session.....If you wanted to discuss this further, please get in contact.

regards

Blake

Our response

Firstly, we warmly welcome this letter. Through his criticisms and proposals, the comrade is contributing to our collective reflection with the aim of improving the organisation of debates, promoting the confrontation of positions and aiding the process of clarification.

Also, Blake is correct in regard to the number and we did make it clear in the report of this international meeting published on our website that there really were a lot of people there “several dozen people from across four continents and some fifteen countries took part”.  Given the large number of participants, not everyone was able to take part in the debates and it was not possible for the same person to speak several times. As Blake says, these constraints partly prevented the questions raised from being deepened and it restricted the time for contributors to respond to each other.

And Blake is also right when he points to the technical difficulties involved in holding an online international meeting in several languages which requires live translations to be recorded on different computer pads, and for comrades to adhere to the necessity of switching off their microphones when it's not their turn to speak, and so on.

These are the reasons why the ICC also organises other types of meetings:  online meetings in a set language with fewer numbers, public meetings in towns and cities where people can be together ‘physically’, and meetings where there is no set subject announced in advance and where the participants are able to propose topics for discussion (current affairs, history, theory, etc.). There's no denying that these meetings give rise to lively exchanges of views, allowing arguments and counter-arguments to develop and positions to evolve, and we announce all these planned discussions in advance on our website in the ‘ agenda [222] ’ section.

In this spectrum, the international online meetings have a special, indeed crucial, role to play. Let's start with the most obvious. Comrades are isolated, sometimes alone, and they joining a meeting where comrades from different countries, speaking in different languages, share the same passion for revolution and a desire to deepen their understanding of the evolving world events and the need to participate in the development of working class consciousness, an exhilarating and uplifting experience.

This international dimension is not only good for morale, it is also, and above all, good for reflection. In this phase of capitalist decomposition, with the tendency to withdraw, the fear of the outsider and thoughts being fixated on immediate and local events, it is absolutely vital for the world's searching minorities to break this isolation, to link up, to join and work together in all languages, to develop the broadest and clearest vision.

At the meeting on 16 November, in which we came together to understand better “The Global Implications of the American Elections”, the various contributions made by participants from the four corners of the globe enabled us to cross-reference information and analyses and to draw on different sensibilities and experiences. Blake may have noticed himself that the speeches by French-speaking comrades bore a more assertive confidence in the proletariat and its future struggles which is probably partly linked to the fighting spirit and experience of the working class in France.

It's true that not all participants were able to speak but is having one's own say really the most important thing? On the contrary we believe that understanding how to listen and learn from the thoughts of others is also a crucial element in the dynamics of a debate and the process of collective clarification. During this three-hour meeting, the militants of the ICC spoke only three times, in order to leave the maximum of time to all the other comrades but also to listen and better understand the different positions, the nuances and the disagreements at stake[1]

Underlying this is something even more profound: the feeling we share that 'proletarians have no country!' The struggle of our class is on a global scale, the communist revolution is international and this internationalism is not just a feeling or an impulse, it is also a concrete, real and significant social and political force.

As regards the practical organisation of this international meeting, the comrade refers to the problems with the microphones and the pads and the difficulty in keeping concentration when the debate is taking place in several languages... All this is true, and it means we are still learning. We've received a lot of letters from participants asking us how they can better master their computer on this or that technical aspect for the next time. Here again, this small concrete example reveals something much deeper: this meeting in several languages like future ones is where we can learn and get used to meeting together in large numbers, so we can organise the management of our debates and strengthen our ties internationally. The focus of these meetings is on the future!

Because how will the future of capitalism look if we are to overthrow capitalism through a world revolution? With the development of combativity, consciousness and its revolutionary minorities, our meetings will have to bring together more and more people, from more and more countries. Today, bringing together several dozen participants, in three languages, is just a foretaste of what we will have to manage in the future. Both technically and in the organisation of debates, all participants must gain experience so that the revolutionary minorities from across the globe can carry out their responsibilities in the class and for the class.

We should be enthusiastic about being part of such militant activity! So, we look forward to seeing you at the next meeting!

ICC, 8 December