Baggage handlers at Heathrow walk out in support of sacked catering workers.

New York transit workers and a million and a half UK local government workers strike for pension benefits for present and future generations. Belfast postal workers on wildcat strike march through Catholic and Protestant areas in an open rejection of sectarian divisions. German car workers reject attempts by the government to set one plant against another and come out in a common struggle against redundancies.

Working class solidarity can no longer be dismissed as a quaint, old fashioned idea. It is a central theme in a growing worldwide revival of workers’ struggles, new evidence for which appears almost every day: the struggle of 40,000 textile workers in Vietnam, the wave of strikes that swept through Argentina last summer, the violent revolt by workers in the vast construction sites of Dubai.  

The movement of the students in France against the CPE is fully part of this worldwide class upsurge. It has nothing in common with most of the previous cross-class movements of student youth. In the face of a despicable attack on the young generations of workers, an attack which institutionalises job insecurity in the name of fighting against it, the students understood right away that theirs was a class struggle. And here again, the issue of solidarity has been at the very heart of the movement.

 

The solidarity of the student movement

 

While some people wanted to throw in specifically student demands into the central demand for the withdrawal of the CPE, the student assemblies decide to stick to demands which concern the whole working class.  

The strength of the movement has been precisely the fact that it has placed itself resolutely on the terrain of the struggle of the exploited against the exploiters. And it has done this by adopting the methods and principles of struggle which belong to the working class. The first of these principles is solidarity. Breaking with the idea of ‘every man for himself’, the idea that ‘if I am a good little student and keep my head down for three years, I’ll get through unscathed’, the students adopted the only attitude possible for the working class against the attacks of capital: united struggle. And this solidarity was not only expressed among students. Right from the start they addressed the wage workers, not only to win their support, but also because they had understood very well that the whole working class was under attack. Through their dynamism, their militancy and their appeals for solidarity, they managed in many faculties to win over the staff – teachers and administrative workers – in particular by proposing the holding of joint general assemblies.

Another clearly proletarian feature of the movement was the will to develop the consciousness of those taking part in it. The university strike began with ‘blocages’ – massive pickets. But the pickets were not seen as a means whereby a minority imposed their will on the majority, as claimed by the media and the small groups of ‘anti-bloqueurs’. The pickets were a means for the more conscious and militant students to show their determination and above all to draw a maximum of their comrades towards the general assemblies, where a considerable proportion of those who had not understand the significance of the government’s attacks or the necessity to fight them were convinced by the debate. 

And these general assemblies, which organised themselves on a growing scale, which formed strike committees and other commissions that were responsible to them, which constituted the real lungs of the movement – these are the classic weapons of the workers’ struggle. In particular, the assemblies were open to the outside, and not closed in on themselves like most union meetings where only ‘people from the workplace’ or at most ‘trade unionists’ and officials from elsewhere are allowed entry. Very quickly we saw delegations of students from other universities taking part in the assemblies, which strengthened the feelings of solidarity between the different general assemblies and allowed those which were lagging behind to draw inspiration from those at the forefront. This is also an important characteristic of the dynamic of workers’ assemblies when they have reached a certain level of consciousness and organisation. And the opening up of the assemblies was not just limited to students from other universities but was also extended to people who aren’t students. In particular, workers and pensioners, parents or grandparents of students and high school pupils usually received a very warm and attentive welcome by the assemblies as long as they intervened in favour of the strengthening and extension of the movement, especially towards the wage workers.

Faced with this exemplary mobilisation of the students on a class basis, we saw the formation of a holy alliance between the various pillars of capitalist order: the government, the forces of repression, the media and the trade unions. 

The strategy of undermining the movement through violence

The government first tried various tactics for getting its brutal new law passed. In particular, it used ‘colossal finesse’ by trying to get it adopted by parliament during the university holidays. The trick failed: instead of demoralising and demobilising the student youth, it succeeded in provoking its anger and getting it to mobilise even more. Next, it tried to use its forces of repression to prevent the Sorbonne from serving as a focus for the gathering and the regroupment and of the students in struggle, as other universities had. Its aim was to polarise the fighting spirit of the Paris region around this symbol. At the beginning, a certain number of students fell into this trap. But very quickly the majority of the students showed their maturity and the movement refused to fall for the daily provocation represented by the presence of heavily armed CRS in the streets of the Latin Quarter. After this, the government, with the complicity of the trade unions, with whom it negotiated the routes of the demonstrations, set a real trap for the demonstrators in Paris on 16 March, who found themselves hemmed in by the police at the end of the march. The students didn’t fall for this new provocation, but it did permit the youths from the suburbs to launch the violent actions which were so widely filmed by the TV networks. The violence mainly took place close to the Sorbonne and it was obvious that the decision to end the march here was not the product of chance. The aim was to instil fear in those who had decided to go to the big demo due to be held two days later. Once again the manoeuvre failed: the participation on the 18th March was quite exceptional. Finally, on 23rd March, with police blessing, the ‘casseurs’ (literally ‘wreckers)  from the suburbs attacked the demonstrators themselves, to rob them or to beat them up for no reason. Many students were demoralised by these violent assaults: “When it’s the CRS coshing us, that just makes us more determined, but when its kids from the suburbs, for whom we’re also fighting, that undermines our morale”. However, the anger was mainly directed against the authorities as soon as it became clear that the police had been complicit in these assaults. This is why Sarkozy promised that from now on the police would not allow such aggression against the demonstrators to take place. In reality, it is clear that the government was trying to play the card of ‘rotting away’ the movement by relying on the despair and blind violence of some of the young people from the suburbs, who are fundamentally victims of a system which treats them with extreme violence. Here again the response of many of the students was very dignified and responsible: rather than trying to organise violent actions against the young ‘wreckers’, they decided, for example at the Censier faculty, to form a ‘suburbs commission’ which had the job of going to discuss with the youths of the poorest neighbourhoods, to explain to them that the struggle of the students and high school pupils was also for these young people who are sunk in the despair of mass unemployment and social exclusion.

The media serve Sarkozy

The various attempts by the government to demoralise the fighting students and to drag them into endless confrontations with the forces of repression was met by the students with a good deal of wisdom and dignity. This is something we don’t see on the part of the media, who have been surpassing themselves in their role as prostitutes of capitalist propaganda. On the TV, the violent scenes at the end of certain demonstrations were given star billing, while there was nothing at all about the general assemblies, about the remarkable organisation and maturity of the movement. But since the attempt to make an amalgam between the students in struggle and the ‘wreckers’ didn’t work, even Sarkozy began to declare repeatedly that he made a difference between the nice students and the ‘thugs’. This didn’t stop the media from splashing the images of violence on the TV screens and the papers, and from mixing them up with other scenes of violence, such as the Israeli army’s attack on the prison in Jericho or a bloody suicide bombing in Iraq. After the failure of the more blatant ideological tricks, it was the turn of the more subtle specialists of psychological manipulation. The aim is to spread fear, disgust, an unconscious assimilation of the message that demonstrations equal violence, even when the official message states the opposite.

The role of the trade unions

The students and workers saw through the majority of these manipulations. This is why it was necessary for the fifth column of the bourgeois state, the unions, to take charge. By underestimating the reserves of consciousness and militancy in these young battalions of the working class, the government had driven itself into a dead-end. It is clear that it cannot give in. Raffarin already made the point in 2003: “the street doesn’t govern”. A government that goes onto the back foot loses its authority and opens the door to even more dangerous movements, especially in the present situation where there is a huge build-up of discontent within the working class as a result of the rise in unemployment, of job insecurity and of the succession of attacks on its living standards. Since the end of January, the unions have been organising ‘days of action’ against the CPE. And since the students have come into the struggle, calling on the wage workers to join the movement, the unions have presented themselves, with a unanimity we haven’t seen for a long time, as the best allies of the movement. But let’s not be fooled: behind their apparent intransigence towards the government, they have done nothing to really mobilise the whole of the working class.

On French TV everyday you hear warlike declarations from union leaders like Thibault and Mailly. In the workplaces, there’s silence. Very often, the union leaflets calling for strikes or demonstrations, when there are any, arrive on the very day the action is supposed to take place. A few rare general assemblies have been organised by the unions in workplaces like the EDF and GDF (electricity and gas), but these are places where they are particularly strong and have no fear of losing control. And these assemblies are nothing like the ones we have seen in the faculties in recent months: the workers are invited to listen quietly to the soporific speeches of the union officials who spend most of their time preaching about coming elections to the enterprise commissions. When Bernard Thibault, invited to a big TV ‘Jury’ on 26 March insisted that the wage workers have their own methods of struggle different from those of the students, and that he didn’t want either group giving lessons to the other, he wasn’t talking off the top of his head: it is indeed out of the question that the methods of the students be taken up by the wage workers because that would mean that the unions wouldn’t control the situation and would no longer be able to fulfil their role as social firemen! Because that is their main function in capitalist society. Even when they are speaking radically like they are today, the aim is to win the confidence of the workers and thus be in a position to sabotage their struggles when the government and the bosses are in trouble.

This is a lesson which not only the students, but all workers must keep in mind for future struggles.

At the time of writing, it is not possible to see exactly how the situation will pan out. However, even if the holy alliance between all the defenders of capitalist order gets the better of the exemplary struggle of the students, the latter, like other sectors of the working class, must not get demoralised. They have already won two very important victories. On the one hand, the bourgeoisie will for a while be forced to limit its attacks or risk being once again plunged into the kind of problems its facing today. On the other hand, and above all, this struggle represents an invaluable experience for a whole new generation of working class fighters.

As the Communist Manifesto said over 150 years ago, “sometimes the workers are victorious, but the victory is short-lived. The real result of their struggles is less the immediate success than the growing unity of the workers”. The solidarity and dynamism of the struggle, its collective organisation through general assemblies, these are the gains of the current struggle of the students who are showing the way forward for the future battles of the entire working class.   ICC 28.3.06  

The strike by council workers against attacks on pensions is taking place on the same day as the general strike in France against an attack on the job security of young workers. Thus, two of the oldest and most experienced parts of the international working class are making it clear to the ruling class that they are not willing to accept their attacks. They reject the logic of the capitalists who say that workers have to sacrifice their working and living conditions for the good of the capitalist system; that retired, employed or unemployed workers have to work harder and longer in order to shore up this decrepit system.

The council workers’ strike is probably one of the biggest struggles in Britain in many years. The determination of the workers; be they young, old or retired, full time or part time is an expression of one of the most powerful weapons of the working class: its solidarity.

Rather than allow themselves to be divided against each other, they have joined together in a common struggle.

Such solidarity is the only answer to the attacks of the ruling class. Council workers, like all workers, are being told that they have to accept the loss of pension benefits, that they can retire only after 40  years of exploitation! Why? Supposedly, because too many workers are living too long, and have become a burden on the younger generation! The council workers have rejected this logic. Old and young are uniting together in the struggle, because they understand that it is the responsibility of the present generation to defend the interests of the coming generations.

In doing this they are placing themselves within an international movement which has seen workers in France, Austria and the US refusing to accept attacks on their pensions and those of their children. In 2003 public sector workers in France held massive demonstrations against attacks on their pensions, as did workers in Austria, where we saw the biggest demonstrations since World War Two. This Xmas in New York, the transit workers struck in order to defend pensions and they made it clear they were doing this for the future generations to come too.

It’s not only pensions that workers have been struggling for. In 2005 car workers and other workers in Germany joined demonstrations against lay-offs at Daimler-Chrysler, whilst in Spain SEAT workers in Barcelona staged wildcat strikes against the laying off of 600 comrades. And since March students in France have been struggling against the imposition of the ‘CPE’, a law which means that those under 26 can be sacked at anytime during the first two years on the job. The students have gone to factories asking workers to support them, whilst hundreds of thousands of workers have joined demonstrations.

The media have only talked about 'riots' in relation to France, and some elements - encouraged by the state - have been drawn into dead-end acts of violence, but the majority have held general assemblies (AGs) where they have discussed what to do in a conscious and unified way. The most advanced AGs have invited workers to join their discussions and have gone to discuss with employed and unemployed workers.

In Britain the media and politicians have presented the council workers as being 'privileged' and 'cushioned', compared to those in the private sector. This is a disgusting lie aimed at dividing up the working class. The reality is that all workers are seeing their pensions attacked. In the private sector workers, such as those at Rentokil have had their final salary pensions stopped, whilst 80,000 have lost their pensions totally through the collapse of firms. The same is happening in the public sector. If the bosses can impose the present attacks, they will be back for more: removing final pensions completely, reducing pensions, raising the retirement age. The Turner Report recommends that we should go on till we’re 68, and that’s just a start!

Workers in the private sector have also fought against these attacks. Last autumn British Gas fitters struck to maintain final salary pensions for all new workers. The attempts to divide up the working class have to be rejected.

Trade unions divide us

This division is not only carried out by the media and politicians, but also by the unions. This time last year there was talk of a public sector strike against the attacks on pensions. What happened? Nothing. Well actually, the unions did a lot. The civil service union agreed to help impose an attack on pensions that will deny all new workers final salary pensions. In the NHS Unison and others carefully buried the whole question through the device of holding further discussions with management over pensions. In the councils the unions held out the prospect of future struggles amid dark talk about other public sector workers receiving better deals. Thus, from a situation where there was great discontent through the public sector, the unions have now carved up the workforce into three groups: civil servants, health workers and council workers and are now trying to pit the council workers against the others.

The present one-day strike is part of this strategy. The unions know that council workers are furious about the attack and that they have to make a display of defending their 'members' interests. However, whilst the one day strike certainly shows that the council workers are willing to struggle, it also allows the unions to contain the workers’ anger. They are also using it to divide up the council workers themselves. Not all the unions are involved in the strike; those not in the striking unions will be faced with either joining the strike illegally and facing disciplinary action, or crossing picket lines. There are many council workers who are not in a union and are thus faced with a similar choice.

This deliberate dispersal of the workers highlights the need to get together in mass meetings across union divisions, to go directly to other workplaces and sectors to discuss how to fight the attacks together. No-one will do this for us; the future is in our hands!

International Communist Current, 25/3/06.

Loans for peerages is the latest in a series of scandals to hit the Blair government. Having focused on particular ministers such as Blunkett and Jowell (the Berlusconi Connection), or on Blair’s wife Cherie and her speaking tours, it has finally settled on the issue of loans for peerages. This is an issue of Labour government hypocrisy, certainly, since it had changed the rules to make political parties announce all large donations, but left itself a loophole for loans. The Labour government is described as having the same stench of sleaze as the Major government shortly before it was ousted by a landslide.

But there is something very odd about this campaign about Labour sleaze. Peerages have been for sale to the great, the good and the extremely rich for at least 150 years. Former PM Lloyd George was particularly famous for it, and the bourgeoisie think none the worse of him for that. The campaign has not hit the Labour government specifically. The media has allowed much of the Labour Party, including the treasurer, Jack Dromey, to maintain some sort of plausible deniability. And in addition the Tories are also well known to receive large loans, and their peers are equally likely to have put in large sums of money prior to being elevated.

The main point of this whole sorry saga is resolved into one key question – is it time for Blair to go? The media have been full of it. Even the Australian media took it up in an interview with the PM when he was over there. And it is followed up by discussion of what sort of prime minister Gordon Brown will make, and whether David Cameron would do any better. The issue of the reform of the House of Lords only comes up as an afterthought.

The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

The British bourgeoisie is unusual among the great powers in having an unelected and largely appointed second chamber that provides the opportunity for politicians to sell honours that include a seat in parliament. But neither the corruption of politicians, nor the role of sections of the bourgeoisie in formulating policy, are in any way unusual. On the contrary, they are both a natural part of bourgeois democracy.

From top to bottom politicians use their ‘public service’ to enrich themselves. Senior ministers take seats on boards of directors, local councillors are hand in glove with local businesses for the purposes of getting planning permission and offering contracts. In Italy twenty years ago there was the huge scandal around the P2 Masonic lodge. This should not surprise us in any way as it expresses normal capitalist behaviour – the search to make as much profit as possible.

The fact that elections are held every 4 or 5 years or so does not call in question the nature of the state, and certainly doesn’t make the Commons less capitalist than the Lords: “even the most democratic bourgeois republic is nothing by the instrument by which the bourgeoisie oppress the working class, by which a handful of capitalists keeps the working masses under” (‘Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and Proletarian Dictatorship’, First Congress of the Communist International, 1919).

From time to time and for various reasons corruption becomes a media campaign because it suits the ruling class. In the 1990s the British bourgeoisie knowingly used a campaign about sleaze to signal the need for a change of governing team. A change in the governing team, but not in the basic policy direction of the state. Fundamentally New Labour was elected to impose austerity measures on the working class, in continuity with the previous government, which in turn only continued the attacks begun by the Callaghan government of the late 1970s. As we said in 1997 “The difference between New Labour and Old Labour is that the former is telling us in advance that it is going to ruthlessly attack our living standards. On virtually every aspect of the economy, Blair’s policies are identical to those of the Tories” (WR 204). A new government was needed because after 18 years of the Tories in power people were beginning to get disillusioned with democracy; and so it would be easier for New Labour to impose attacks on the working class. These attacks are now being called Blair’s “reform agenda”. In addition the Labour government was better able to defend Britain’s imperialist interests at a time when the Tory divisions on Europe masked a fundamental difficulty in adjusting to the new situation after the collapse of the USSR, in particular to the need to take a more independent line in relation to the USA.

The nine years of New Labour government have certainly not disappointed the capitalist class. Right from the off benefits were attacked: job seekers allowance no longer payable to those under 18, single parents having to attend interviews and look for jobs or lose benefit. And this is continuing with attacks on pensions, with the announcement of 2,000 jobs in the NHS in the week before the budget, and attacks on incapacity benefit claimants. Repression has been increased with Terrorism legislation – before as well as after 7/7 – for instance increasing the time suspects can be held without trial first to 14 days and then to 28 days. Immigrants and refugees have been treated to both more repressive legislation and campaigns of vilification about “bogus” asylum seekers. And British imperialist interests have been defended, militarily, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. No wonder the Labour government was the chosen team for British capitalism at last year’s election.

Blair or Brown, the attacks will continue

In this sleaze campaign the bourgeoisie’s main concern is the ‘reform agenda’ of attacks against the working class. Tony Blair has of course been totally identified with this agenda, to the point where it is seen as his personal contribution to history. Unfortunately Blair’s other historic contributions, in particular his growing loss of credibility resulting from the failure of the Iraq adventure, are now getting in the way: “It seems to me that Tony Blair has lost the capacity to carry out the reforms to which he is committed. There clearly need to be significant reforms in education, health and pensions… He now has far less authority than he had [in 1997] and faces far more opposition to reform. There is therefore nothing effective that he can do… He should go now” (William Rees-Mogg in The Times 25.3.06); “he is no longer the best vehicle for his own project” (David Aaronovitch).

 Whatever the bourgeoisie decide about the occupant of no. 10, the policy of attacks on the working class, and the underlying strategy for the defence of British imperialist interests, will continue. “Gordon Brown would be an ideal replacement for Blair as he represents continuity in economic policy, his ‘Old Labour’ image would help in the imposition of attacks on the working class,” (WR 285). He has also been kept very carefully out of the scandals. Every budget since 1997 has been an occasion to introduce more attacks on benefits behind rhetoric such as ‘a hand up, not a hand out’ or a ‘new deal’ for the unemployed. The latest was a chance for Brown to set out his stall as a future PM. While he made vague ‘Old Labour’ noises about raising spending on state school pupils, the reality is there will be no change, just more attacks.  Alex 1.4.06

This article, written by a close sympathiser, examines the origins of the political current represented by the ‘Worker-Communist Party of Iran’ (WCPI) and its sister party in Iraq, and looks more closely at the political positions it defends, in order to determine its class nature.

This question is important to understand because this grouping is widely advertised as somehow representing a proletarian alternative in Iraq and Iran. For example, Trotskyists like the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL) support the WCPI as representing a so-called ‘third camp’ position: that is, opposed to the US-UK occupation but also to the Baathists, Sunni-sectarians and jihadis who make up the so-called ‘resistance’ in Iraq; and supporting independent working-class politics and struggle, for example by putting forward demands for ‘free trade unions’, the right to assembly, freedom of the press, etc. (see, for example, www.workersliberty.org/node/view/902 [4] 5 May 2003).

For the Trotskyists, this is part of their support for the state capitalist programme of bourgeois democracy and pro-western factions of the bourgeoisie in Iraq. But it is not only reactionary Trotskyists and leftists like the Alliance for Workers Liberty or Workers Weekly who spread illusions in this current. Many libertarians also are tempted to see something progressive in the WCPI (see, for example, the discussion in the Libcom discussion forum about the Iraqi resistance, articles in the Anarchist Federation’s Organise, and links to the WCPI from other sites which are clearly looking for communist positions, e.g. Riffraff in Sweden).

It is understandable that those genuinely interested in communist politics should search for some sign of real proletarian resistance in the midst of the hellish inter-imperialist conflict in Iraq today, and if the WCPI really is a proletarian organisation it clearly needs to be supported; but if it’s a group of the left of capital, it needs to be exposed as an obstacle to the development of proletarian positions in the Middle East. To understand this question more deeply we need to go back to the WCPI’s origins.

The origins of the WCPI – the unholy alliance of Iranian Stalinism and Kurdish nationalism

The origins of the WCPI lie in a group called the Unity of Communist Militants (UCM), which was formed in Iran in 1979 at a time when a huge proletarian movement was shaking the country. As a reminder to today’s readers, this ferment included massive strikes and demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of workers in key sectors of the economy against austerity, the war economy and state repression. Workers in the in oil refineries, for example, formed their own independent committees, inspiring class solidarity and attempts to fraternise with soldiers sent in to crush the movement (see WR 23 for an analysis of Iran at this time). The subsequent ‘Islamic revolution’ and the regime of Khomeini which replaced the Shah were in no way an expression of this movement; on the contrary, this was capital’s principle means for overcoming it.

Some of the elements who helped form the UCM may have been an expression of this movement. But whether or not some proletarian elements were involved at the beginning, the programme defended by the group and its actual practice were entirely reactionary even at this time.

Due to its radical-sounding denunciations of the Islamic state, and its agitation among militant workers with ‘democratic’ demands, e.g. for the freedom to organise and the separation of religion and state, the UCM won some support within the working class. Essentially, faced with a militant proletariat, the radical Stalinist language of the UCM, under its founder Mansoor Hekmat, was an adjunct to the efforts of part of the Iranian bourgeoisie to deflect the class struggle into demands for democracy. But in the face of the ensuing repression by the Islamic state in the cities, the group lost its potential political base, and in the context of a deepening reflux in the class struggle the group sought influence with the left-wing of the Kurdish nationalist movement, entering into an alliance with Komala (the ‘Toilers Revolutionary Organisation of Iranian Kurdistan’) in 1981.

Komala was actively engaged in mobilising workers and peasants for a local imperialist war. Its goal was to carve out a slice of the existing state in return for policing their own workers and peasants. In other words it wanted a bourgeois proto-state similar to the Palestinian nationalist factions. It was also, to this end, involved in a front with the Stalinist Kurdish Democratic Party – a party even the UCM admitted was bourgeois (see WR 57). The alliance with Komala in the ‘liberated’ areas of Kurdistan offered a political base for the growth of the UCM after the massive repression launched in June 1981.

Significantly, it was precisely in this period of defeat for the Iranian proletariat, with part of the population in Kurdistan fleeing the cities for the mountains, that in 1983 the UCM / Komala absurdly pronounced the formation of a party – the ‘Communist Party of Iran’. Under Hekmat’s leadership, the new CPI oriented itself towards organising the nationalist forces (‘peshmergas’ or fighters) as part of the inter-imperialist struggle in Kurdistan. Essentially the working class and any continuing struggles in the cities were used as an adjunct to the nationalist struggle of Komala, and the peshmerga force was seen by the CPI as ‘the military wing of the working class movement in Kurdistan’.

The unholy alliance between the Kurdish nationalist tendency and more ‘workerist’ faction proved an uneasy one, and flared into an open faction fight within the CPI, which ended in 1989 with the departure of the workerists around Hekmat to form the Worker-Communist Party of Iran in 1991. This in no way represented a break with the reactionary political positions previously defended by the UCM and CPI, but essentially a change of political strategy and tactics. The counterpart of the WCPI in Iraq was formed two years later.

The confusions of the proletarian milieu

There is a precedent for the present confusion about the bourgeois nature of the WCPI; in the 80s, there were real confusions in the proletarian camp about the UCM/Communist Party of Iran.

The fact that the UCM defended some positive-sounding positions such as attacking the myth of the so-called progressive national bourgeoisie, insisting that the working class was the only revolutionary class and calling for workers’ councils, led WR to cautiously greet the appearance of ‘communists in Iran’ and to publish its manifesto, but it later recognised that this was premature and, based on discussions with the UCM’s supporters and a reading of the group’s texts, the ICC drew the clear conclusion that the UCM was a radical bourgeois group. We were able to show that this current had not broken with leftism, essentially on the grounds of its links to Kurdish nationalism and its advocacy of a popular front policy disguised as the demand for a ‘democratic revolution’ in Iran.

Unfortunately other groups of the revolutionary milieu failed to see the dangers of this radical bourgeois group. In Britain the CWO engaged with the ‘Student Supporters of the UCM’ (SUCM) in a fraternal debate about the ‘democratic revolution’, which managed to avoid any mention of the UCM/Komala’s direct involvement in the military struggle in Kurdistan. The CWO invited the SUCM (with the ICC) to attend its congress, where it shouted down ICC comrades who attempted to raise the issue of the presence of Iranian Stalinists at a proletarian congress (see WR 60).

The groups that went on to form the IBRP even held a fourth conference of groups of the communist left with the SUCM. At this conference, the interventions of the SUCM repeated the bluff that the formation of the CPI was a “determining factor” in the situation in Iran: in the historic conditions of 1982, a political current with such an influence could only be bourgeois, despite its declarations in favour of the communist left. But the CWO and its sister organization in Italy, Battaglia Comunista, did not want to take heed of our warnings…

In fact the bourgeois nature of this political current is amply clear from its position at the conference on the question of the “democratic revolution”, which is presented as a ‘necessary stage’ “to remove the obstacles to the free development of the class struggle of the proletariat for socialism.” In reality this is a justification for supporting factions of the bourgeoisie and calling on the proletariat to divert its own class struggle into support for state capitalism under a ‘democratic’ cover (see the article on the farce of the 4 [5]th [5] Conference in International Review 124 [5]).

The bourgeois politics and practice of the WCPI today

The radical appearance of the WCPI of today is undoubtedly enhanced by the alleged reason for the 1989 split - the predominance of Kurdish nationalism - and its ability to appeal to any elements critical of nationalism and of the Islamic Republic, and to the working class. Hekmat also evolved a ‘theory’ of ‘worker communism’, which even made reference to revolutionary figures like Rosa Luxemburg and proclaimed a more ‘humanist’ and ‘libertarian’ vision of Marxism. The term ‘worker communism’ is also confusingly reminiscent of left communism, as in the Communist Workers’ Party of Germany, the KAPD (but significantly the WCPI has explicitly rejected left communism, using rambling pseudo-philosophical language for squaring the circle between its “principled rejection” of bourgeois nationalism and its support for the so-called “right to self-determination”).

If the WCP in Iraq today appears radical it is because it presents itself as a ‘third front’ against the ‘terrorists of both sides’, denouncing both the US/UK occupation forces and the Islamic militias. In fact it criticises the US-led occupation for not being hard enough against ‘political Islam’:

“From the very beginning, after the US forces entered Iraq, we stressed the importance of freedom, human rights, and secularism for Iraqi society and the importance of restraining political Islam’s movements and prevent them from setting up reactionary emirates where they implement their reactionary policies and rule. However, the occupation forces appeased religious reaction, hoping that they can be subdued…” (WCPI statement on the current crisis in Iraq, 3 April, 2004)

In other words, for the WCPI in Iraq the problem is that the US is not interested in establishing a ‘genuinely secular’ bourgeois regime. Using the same justification, the WCPI has also hailed the French bourgeoisie for banning the hijab in schools, in the name of defending secularism and pushing back ‘political Islam’, even criticizing the legislation for not going far enough. The WCPIraq is more bourgeois than the bourgeoisie…

For its own part, the WCPI calls for the immediate withdrawal of the US-led troops in Iraq, the disarming of the militia forces and the establishment of “an alternative government which stems from an inclusive conference for the representatives of all political organizations and mass organizations” (Workers’ Liberty, 12.9.04). Given the state of disintegration in Iraq this is likely to remain a political fantasy, but even if it came true, such a regime would be nothing but a bourgeois popular front. It is a replay of the CPI’s bluff in the 1980s that it was a ‘determining factor’ in the situation in Iran: the only ‘mass organizations’ in existence in the historic conditions of Iraq today are bourgeois, including the western-backed trade unions and the Iraqi Stalinist party – the left of capital’s political apparatus. Meanwhile, the WCPI’s proposed alternative to US troops - a multinational UN force to provide ‘security and stability’ - would simply replace US-British imperialism with no less predatory French, German or Russian imperialist powers, who would not hesitate to crush genuine proletarian struggles.

Recognising that its immediate seizure of political power is a fantasy, the WCPIraq is attempting to build up a power base by creating front organizations of unemployed workers and unions to agitate for ‘democratic’ demands. Far from representing something progressive in the situation, the WCPI’s activities act as a potential block on the development of any genuine proletarian struggle by channelling it into support for a popular front government. Given the support of the official Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions and its backer the Iraqi Communist Party, for the occupation regime, and the outbreak of strikes and protests by workers in Iraq against repression and appalling conditions (e.g. in the electricity, textile and oil sectors in Nassiriya, Basra, Kerkuk, Baghdad and Kut in 2004), it is understandable if these activities have some echo.

If there have been further splits in the WCPI, far from representing the emergence in any way of proletarian expressions, these have essentially been about strategy and tactics towards the existing regimes in Iran and Iraq, usually with a ‘right wing’ more openly advocating frontist work with the ‘bourgeois’ parties, and a ‘left’ more directly offering itself as a ‘revolutionary’ organ capable of taking charge of society. In Iran, with the Islamic regime showing signs of weakening, the various factions of the bourgeois opposition there are certainly jockeying for position. After the 2004 split, the minority tendency, which left the WCPI and took the name ‘WCPI – Hekmatist’, rejected any participation in a provisional government and called for the creation of a workers’ state founded on the power of the workers’ councils, criticising the majority as ‘right-wing’ and talking about leading the socialist revolution in Iran.

But neither of these factions have ever challenged the bourgeois – and essentially Stalinist - origins of the UCM/CPI current: the obsession with Iran and Iraq, the absurd personality cult around Hekmat, the open support for bourgeois positions such as national self-determination, trade unionism (spiced up with a pretence of setting up workers’ councils), and the setting up of all kinds of fronts that appeal to human rights and democratic values. Basically, the WCPI sees itself as an organ that can set up a new secular state when the present regimes in Iran and Iraq collapse – as a state in waiting.

It is a dangerous illusion to think that this current can directly give rise to proletarian organisations, or to support it with the claim that ‘there’s nothing better’, as some of the anarchists seem to do. Proletarian currents in Iran and Iraq can only emerge by breaking with this nationalist tradition and linking up with the international traditions of the revolutionary movement.   MH 1/4/6

Not everyone has accepted the mainstream media coverage of recent events in France. Many people have found that there’s a lot more going on than attacks by riot police and violence at the end of demonstrations. Those who’ve looked further, on the internet, at meetings held by groups like the ICC, or on our website, have been inspired by the students’ level of organisation, by the efforts to extend the struggle to the waged workers and the unemployed, by the discussions in general assemblies, by the will to create an effective movement against attacks on the working class.

Predictably the right-wing press see just another example of Gallic excitedness. Meanwhile leftists reduce the struggle to just another part of the “wider movement against neo-liberalism” (a member of the French Trotskyist group, the LCR, in Socialist Worker, 18/3/6).

SWP, LCR: the diversion of the struggle

A different member of the LCR wrote that “The self-organisation of the struggle in the universities is impressive” (ibid). This enthusiasm is contradicted by the leftists’ constant promotion of unions and left parties, institutions which stand against the whole process of self-organisation.

For example, despite the evidence of self-organisation, Socialist Worker (25/3/6) says that “Now it’s up to the students and rank and file workers, and their ability to draw in wider forces to push the union leaderships to call on the action needed to win”. In this convoluted sentence, those who have shown their capacity to fight are asked to put pressure on the unions that have proved themselves a fundamental obstacle to the struggles currently underway.

Leftists affirm that “This movement is now in direct confrontation with the state” (ibid), yet the movement in which they want to submerge workers and student is based on appealing to the state, trying to change governments’ policies and participating in state institutions. According to the LCR/SWP this ‘movement’ includes the campaign for a ‘no’ vote in the referendum on the EU constitution. So, students and workers struggle against the state’s attacks on their futures, but the left wants them diverted into electoral circuses and Europolitics.

Similarly, there should be no confusion about what the leftists mean when they say that “Driving the protests is a desire to stand firm against market values in both education and in the workplace” (SW 18/3). The whole neo-liberal/market value spiel is a very thin cover for a left versus right world view. The SWP says that past protests have got rid of the governments of Balladur and Raffarin, and that Villepin is the next potential victim. They even throw in May 1968 as “causing the crisis that paved the way for the demise of president Charles de Gaulle”. In each case the working class has been dragged into disputes between factions of the ruling class, and away from the defence of its own interests. De Gaulle was followed by Pompidou, Balladur by Juppé, Raffarin by Villepin, and who knows who’s going to replace Villepin? The capitalist state is kept intact while the procession of bourgeois governments continues. Daniel Bensaïd of the LCR (SW 25/3) criticises the Socialist Party for hoping that a change of government will be seen as a “lesser evil”, while at the same time saying it’s “crucial” to identify with the “themes of the campaign for a left ‘no’” in the EU referendum. Isn’t that the classic electoral ‘lesser evil’?

WSWS: just a touch more critical

The World Socialist Web Site has a Trotskyist content that’s a shade more sophisticated than its rivals. For example, they say that “The Socialist Party and the Communist Party are participating in the movement against the CPE in order to conceal their record of defending the interests of French capitalism” (WSWS statement of 6/2/6). They criticise those who participated in the EU ‘no’ campaign who had “said they were fighting ‘neo-liberalism’ or ‘the Anglo-Saxon model’ - a cut-throat confrontational import. They claimed that it is possible to have another kind of capitalism, the French or European model based on social partnership and class collaboration”

Yet, while they say that capitalist governments can’t be “pressured into defending workers’ rights, living standards and social services” (ibid), and criticise the whole left for not boycotting the last presidential election and supporting Chirac against Le Pen, they still see the possibility for reforms within capitalism with “the placing of the major financial, industrial and commercial enterprises under democratic and public ownership” (WSWS statement of 18/3). They live in a world where unions are criticised for their shortcomings and their role “in containing and eventually dissipating the mass opposition”, but not as organisations that can now only ever serve the ruling class. They criticise the existing Socialist Party but insist that “Youth and workers must build their own socialist party” to struggle for reforms within capitalism.

The struggles in France have been an inspiration to everyone who’s found out what’s been happening. The leftists, whatever the details of their positions, have shown how, whenever they see creativity, they want to crush it in electoralism, unionism, reformism and the divisions between the left and right wings of the bourgeoisie.   Car 29/3/6

In March the ICC held a public meeting in London to discuss the recent student revolts in France. We started with a translation of a text entitled “Greetings to the new generation of workers!” This is now available on our website in English with other texts on the French events which we haven’t got the space to put in the pages of WR.

The initial part of the discussion revolved around why the ICC think this movement is of significance, what are its defining characteristics. One young participant asked about the relationship between France and South America, where there have also been struggles recently. The present movement in France is indeed part of a wider resurgence of struggle internationally. One central theme in the struggles has been the search for solidarity within the working class as a whole. There has been a development of political questioning, shown in the appearance of new groups, circles and individuals asking questions about capitalism and the future.

Sharp contrasts were made with the position which sees the building of barricades and violent confrontations with the police as positive in themselves – the position held by some anarchists – and our position, which sees these ritual confrontations as a trap. The real needs of the struggle at this time revolve around the holding of open and fraternal discussion and its extension by the sending of delegates to workers in their workplaces and elsewhere. Those glorifying the burning of cars etc, have generally (so far) made little or no reference to the development of the assemblies. For example on the Spanish language web discussion forum https://www.alasbarricadas.org/ [7] the ICC were the first to post about what was really happening in France. In Britain the ICC intervenes in the web forum libcom.org [8] where we have tried to move the focus away from running battles with the police etc, something which has little perspective, to try and draw out the political lessons.

We drew some contrasts between May ’68 and today. In ’68 the French bourgeoisie was taken by surprise at the explosion. There were divisions within the ruling class, with some leading figures wanting to send in the tanks against the striking workers. At the time students and workers had illusions in capitalism as it was only at the beginning of the period of open crisis. There was also a youthful hostility and lack of trust in older workers. Finally, political organisations such as the ICC were only just beginning emerge.

Today, in contrast, while the bourgeoisie is prepared for some explosions of unrest, the open economic crisis has been going on for nearly 40 years unabated and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the bourgeoisie to peddle illusions in a peaceful and prosperous future. Today the ICC has been able to intervene effectively within the assemblies, to use its collective experience and theoretical understanding to see the wider political significance of these events. Finally, the students are actively searching out workers to fraternise and discuss with.

This last point can’t be stressed enough. The importance of fraternisation and discussion to the process of passing on the lessons of struggle – for instance, that the unions sabotage the movement – shouldn’t be underestimated.

The discussion then moved on to the forthcoming local government strike and the role of the unions today. One participant, who works for a union as a shop steward, defended the role of the unions as organs for workers struggle and raised the question ‘yes, I agree the unions don’t always defend the workers, but what alternative is there?’

First, it must be reiterated that the unions were first created by the working class in the nineteenth century as defensive organs. This has a particular resonance and depth in Britain as they developed first here alongside the development of capitalism. Today they are no longer working class organs, but are the first line of defence for the state, derailing workers’ struggle. They have played this role for capital ever since unions recruited workers for the imperialist slaughter of the First World War

The unions are part of the state, helping to implement new work regimes, new attacks, redundancies etc but still present themselves as the sole protection for workers, .

It’s not a matter of distinguishing between unions that ‘fight against’ austerity and those that don’t, but of understanding the period we’re living in, the decadence of capitalism, a period in which any lasting gains or reforms are impossible. From the slogans which they have put forward, the students in France have understood this at some level.

A final point to note was that one participant said she was an anarchist, along with several of her friends. Anarchism has many different strands, some of which are outright leftist currents indistinguishable from Trotskyism. However, there are other anarchist currents which, despite rejecting aspects of marxism, defend internationalist positions. She said that most of her friends thought the ICC was a ‘sect’ and told her not to bother with our meeting. However, she thought, having sat through a 3 hour meeting, that we were open to fraternal discussion.   Graham 31/03/06

 We are publishing here an exchange of letters from a developing correspondence with a comrade from the north of England.

…. Before I respond to a few of your points I would like to say how much I enjoy reading World Revolution and International Review... I am certain that I will continue reading your publications and arguing with work colleagues for some of the ICC positions especially when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Firstly I would like to take issue with you around the position you take on the role of left wing groups that defend national liberation movements. You say in relation to these groups “Trotskyist, Maoist and ‘official’ anarchist groups that defend national liberation movements are in fact the left wing of the bourgeoisie. They do not sow ‘petit bourgeois illusions’ but defend bourgeois positions”. While I agree with your summary of the counter revolutionary consequences to workers of successful ‘national liberation’ movements, it also seems to me that the ideology and aspirations of national liberation are essentially petty bourgeois in the sense that these movements profess to offer a solution to the poverty and inequalities of capitalist societies. These solutions are always based on the premise that there is either a peaceful road to socialism in which the majority of the bourgeoisie can be won over, or alternatively the poverty and inequalities of capitalist societies can either be minimised or even abolished. While these are essentially bourgeois arguments they are the class viewpoint of the petty bourgeoisie who are continually caught between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

It also seems to me that in your reply you do not recognise the divisions that exist within the bourgeoisie between the militant elements who readily use fascist terror on the working class and the more liberal elements who are willing to use persuasion backed up where necessary by the power of the capitalist state. As Marx once said that the only thing which unites the warring band of brothers who are the bourgeoisie is their hate and fear of the working class.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the ICC position on the decadence of capitalism and that without a proletarian revolution then there is no hope of the further development of the mode of production. In many ways the present situation is akin to the position that the aristocracy found itself in during the eighteenth century. A decadent and obsolete class which was holding back the further development of humanity. This decadence is not a moral issue, it is a scientific issue based on the contradiction between the social conditions of production and the private means of appropriating surplus value. I agree that the beginning of the end for the bourgeoisie was the first world war and continues to this day with all of the suffering that this entails. I would agree 100% on point three of your platform and say that without a successful global proletarian revolution then the future for humanity is bleak. Not only wars but an increasing splintering of society with all of the suffering this entails.

Yours comradely...

Our reply

Dear Comrade,

… With regards to the main point of your letter regarding the class nature of ‘leftists’ you say that, “... it also seems to me that the ideology and aspirations of national liberation are essentially petty bourgeois in the sense that these movements profess to offer a solution to the poverty and inequalities of capitalist societies. … While these are essentially bourgeois arguments, they are the class viewpoint of the petty bourgeoisie who are continually caught between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat”. To take up your first point, if we look at the history of the period of the bourgeois revolutions from the 16th to the 19th century, of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, it was precisely the bourgeoisie who led the struggles for national liberation - for unification of the national capital and freedom from domination by feudal regimes, either local or foreign. In this epoch of capitalism’s ascendancy, marxists have recognised that these struggles were historically progressive, in that they broke the chains of feudal social relations, leading to the development of the productive forces and the appearance of the proletariat. Thus, in this sense the development of capitalism was historically an advance for humanity.

What was the class viewpoint of the petty bourgeoisie at this time? First, you are correct to point out that this class is caught between the two ‘historic’ classes, and is therefore unstable. The petty bourgeoisie can’t have a stable class viewpoint because it’s a conglomeration of strata caught between the two main classes in society, and as such is constantly threatened with extinction ... It thus tends to oppose big capital with an impossible ‘ideal’ capitalism where everything is fair, or a return to a golden age that never existed. Elements from this strata were the shock troops of the bourgeois national revolutions: the yeomanry (small farmers) in the English Revolution; the sans culottes (artisans) in the French Revolution. However, they afterwards found themselves excluded from real economic and political power, or were ruined altogether by big capital. The petty bourgeoisie thus tends to oppose an ideal national liberation to the sordid reality of capitalist development. In decadence this tendency is completely integrated into the various needs of imperialist war.

Anarchism is only one political expression of petty bourgeois ideology, of radicalised elements who are about to be thrown into the working class. The early anarchists in the 1800s, such as Proudhon and his followers, who while making a positive contribution to the early stages of the workers’ movement, were against the development of industrial capitalism. For the artisans the development of mass industry was a complete disaster, and Proudhon was also hostile to the later development of the workers’ movement towards the class struggle and marxism.

In the current epoch, that of the decadence of capitalism, the defence of national liberation has become a reactionary position, because the great powers have carved up the planet amongst themselves – at the level of the economy, where any ‘new’ nations can’t compete, and at the level of imperialism, where ‘new’ nations had to fall under the tutelage of one of the major imperialist blocs. This was the case with the struggles for national liberation after WWII, which were essentially struggles between rival fractions of the bourgeoisie over which imperialist bloc to align to. While most of the membership of the leftist organisations is supplied by such petty bourgeois elements and their illusions (e.g. students), leftism itself as a political force is integrated into imperialism as a result of the adhering to the mistakes, degeneration and betrayal of the CPs, and of the capitulation of the Trotskyist opposition to the latter and to Social Democracy.

This takes us on to the second point you raised, which is interesting. You said that, “It also seems to me that in your reply you do not recognise the divisions that exist within the bourgeoisie between the militant elements who readily use fascist terror on the working class and the more liberal elements who are willing to use persuasion backed up where necessary by the power of the capitalist state.” We would like to correct any confusion you may have about this. It is clear that the bourgeoisie is not a homogenous class: it is the class of competition par excellence! But far from not recognising the different faces of the bourgeoisie we constantly point out that the most dangerous face of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat is not the ‘militant, fascist’ one, but the ‘friendly, liberal, democratic’ face.

We think you don’t yet fully appreciate that the leftists are an important part of the political apparatus of the bourgeoisie. The Social Democratic parties have tended to replace the role of the Liberal parties in the line-up of the central countries of capitalism since the First World War. This was obviously the case in the German Revolution where the SDP played the pivotal counter-revolutionary role, not the Liberals. In the UK, the Labour Party began to replace the Liberal Party after 1918. It is necessary to see that the different factions of the bourgeoisie (far-left, left, centre, right, far-right) all have a division of labour against the working class, and which one is in the frontline against the working class depends on the direction to which the­ historic course is pointing. The far-left is the most dangerous in a period of rising class confrontations. If we look at the history of the defeat of the German Revolution 1918-21, it was precisely the ‘democrats’ who saw to it that the soviets didn’t take power, thus halting the spread of the Russian revolution into Europe. And as you quite rightly say, it was the ‘liberals’ in the SPD who made use of the power of the capitalist state to assassinate Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, crushing the workers’ resistance and paving the way for the rise of fascism.

To sum up, the defence of national liberation is still a reactionary slogan, irrespective of whether or not it mobilises sections of the petty bourgeoisie. And in general, we think that while you say you agree with our position on the decadence of capitalism, you have not fully made the connection between decadence and the central class positions that we defend. You mentioned at the start of your letter that you only argue, “... for some of the ICC positions especially when it comes to the war in Iraq” [our emphasis]. We see the aim of this correspondence is to clarify where we stand on a whole range of questions, and we think it’s just as important to say where you don’t agree with us, and not just on the question of national liberation. It’s through this process of confrontation and clarification that we can move forward. So, what do you think of our positions on the unions, the role of the revolutionary organisation, anti-fascism, state capitalism? …

The daily reality of life in Iraq gives the lie to all the claims by the US and British governments that Iraq is not in a state of civil war and that the situation there is gradually getting better. Since the attack on the Shia mosque in Samarra, there has been an acceleration of suicide bombings and mass ‘executions’, aimed less at the occupying forces or the Iraqi police and army than at civilians, slaughtered simply because of their religious affiliation. On Tuesday 28 February, over 30 were killed by a suicide bomber while queuing for domestic fuel. On 14 March the newspaper Courrier International reported that “the bodies of 15 young Iraqis, their hands tied and showing signs of having been hung up, were discovered in the west of Baghdad. 29 other bodies, their hands tied, were discovered in the east of the city. These bodies were buried recently and a military spokesman said there could be others”. 45 brick workers were shot dead at their factory on 25 February. Since the mosque was blown up on 22 February, at least 400 such ‘revenge’ killings have taken place. The simple act of going to the shops means dicing with death. In addition to those bombed at markets and fuel queues, 8 people were lined up against a wall and shot at a shopping mall during this period. Fear and insecurity are getting worse, not better, for the majority of the Iraqi population. 

The country is becoming ungovernable. Officially the leaders of the parliamentary parties are negotiating the formation of a new government, and president Talibani has announced a parliamentary commission to manage this process. In reality the different factions come to the negotiating tables with guns at the ready and are unable to reach any real agreement. Thus the Kurdish and Sunni groups have rejected a call to re-elect the outgoing Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaa Fari, who is supported by conservative Shia groups. On other issues, the Kurds line up with the Shiites against the Sunnis. This is a free-for-all in which each gang struggles to obtain the maximum of military and economic benefits for its constituencies.

America throws oil on the flames

Three years after the invasion and after Bush’s brag of ‘Mission Accomplished’, the US is still required to resort to massive military force to try to halt the erosion of its authority as the world’s leading power. This is all the more true as the militarist policies of the Bush administration become increasingly unpopular at home. Officially there have been 2291 deaths among the US troops and open opposition to the war is spreading among war veterans and soldiers’ families. According to the Democratic politician John Murtha, US officers have told him that the army in Iraq is itself at breaking point. Recruitment figures are plummeting. Today the American army is obliged to look for recruits among 17 year olds while at the same time raising the signing on age from 35 to 42 and making the physical selection criteria less rigorous. The administration is talking about bringing 38,000 troops home by the end of the year, but this does not signify a less aggressive military policy on the ground. On the contrary the US has been escalating military action in Iraq, launching the biggest air raids against Sunni ‘terrorist bases’ since the invasion began. This increasingly aggressive stance has also resulted in violent clashes between US and Iraqi troops and the Shia militias controlled by Moqtada al Sadr.

At the same time the US is continuing its belligerent approach towards Iran. Bush announced on 17 March that “Iran is perhaps the biggest challenge that any country offers to us”. On the face of it this “challenge” is posed by Iran’s nuclear programme, but it is also connected to the USA’s loss of control in Iraq and Iran’s growing involvement via the Shiite movement in the south of the country. But the US/Iran conflict also stretches to Lebanon, where Iran backs the Hezbollah, which is also pro-Syrian and committed to out and out war with Israel. Once again, the wider the challenge to US power, the greater the need for a display of force; but as in Iraq, the brutal assertion of US military might in turn stirs up an even wider challenge…

Iraq conflict threatens to spread across Middle East

During a recent visit to France, the Jordanian king Abdullah II expressed his concern about the danger of an extension of the Shia/Sunni conflict in Iraq to the whole of the Middle East: “In speaking of the Shiite crescent, I expressed the fear of seeing the political game, under the cover of religion, spilling over into a conflict between Sunnis and Shiite, the premises of which we are seeing in Iraq. There is the risk of an inter-religious conflict. That would be disastrous for all of us”, (Le Monde Diplomatique, March 2006). The massive presence of Shiites in Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia and above all in Iran makes this danger all the more real.

Meanwhile there is every sign that the other major conflict in the region – in Israel/ Palestine – is becoming more and more intractable. The recent elections for the Israeli parliament and for the Palestine Authority have left Israel with a government committed to unilateral action that will draw up an Israeli border around the ‘Security Wall’, and a Palestinian territory carved up into a series of politically and economically unviable cantons; and they have left ‘Palestine’ with an authority controlled by Hamas, which declares that its minimum demand is for the return of Israel to its 1967 borders and the right of return of all Palestinian refugees. The ‘peace programmes’ of the two sides are totally irreconcilable and they are at present unwilling to begin talks of any kind. Meanwhile, suicide bombings have resumed in Israel, although at present Hamas says that it is not directly perpetrating them. For its part, the US has lost all credence as an honest broker between the two sides: it refuses to recognise Hamas while inviting the newly elected Israeli PM Olmert to Washington.

Class struggle is the only answer to capitalist barbarism

The barbarity of capitalism is accelerating and the Middle East is one of its main breeding grounds. The spectre of ‘civil war’ between Sunni and Shiite, of endless conflict between Arab and Jew, hangs over the region, bringing with it a spiral of hatred and violence which can only obstruct the efforts of the exploited and oppressed to defend their real, material interests. Faced with the threat of generalised ethnic or religious massacres, the great ‘civilised’ powers are not the solution; they are part of the problem, because their imperialist interests oblige them to stir up the conflicts even more and use them as pawns in the game against their rivals.

But there is one source of hope that is real: the revival of the class struggle in the USA, France, Britain, Germany and elsewhere. The rediscovery of class solidarity in these struggles is a beacon for humanity against the darkness of fratricide and self-destruction. The new generations of the working class, fighting to defend their living standards against the attacks launched by the capitalist state, can and must bring back to life the traditions of 1917-18, when the proletarian revolution in Russia and Germany brought four years of imperialist butchery to an end and opened the gates to a worldwide human community. This is the perspective they must offer to their class brothers and sisters in the Middle East: against all national and religious divisions; for a common struggle of the exploited against their exploiters, and against exploitation itself.  AT 1/4/6