The historical significance of the divorce between the USA and Europe

 

An introduction by the ICC set out the political framework for understanding the significance and implications of the transatlantic divorce between the United States and Europe, which have since been widely amplified and confirmed. The global dynamic that has been at work since 1989, culminating today in the election of Trump and the shattering of the alliances sealed at the end of the Second World War, has implications at different levels of the life of society. In particular on the imperialist level and with the class struggle.  

On the basis of our presentation, participants were asked to intervene more specifically on the following themes and issues:

- Behind Trump's promises of peace, can we expect anything other than more militarism and escalating war? Has the dynamic at work since 1989 now reached a new historic level?

- Does the capitalist class have any other choice, in order to finance vast arms programmes, than to attack workers everywhere and in the most ruthless way?

 

The comrades who spoke after the presentation expressed general support for the positions defended by the ICC on the question of war tensions, although there were some nuances, and even a different vision on the part of one comrade concerning the way in which the world is sinking into war and barbarism. In his view, we are witnessing a strengthening of three rival imperialist blocs.

But for the purposes of this meeting, we thought it preferable to leave this very important question to one side in order to focus on the analysis of the historical change brought about by the divorce between the United States and Europe.

Many of the interventions went in the direction of confirming the reality of the development of each against all, particularly within the EU, highlighting a phenomenon aggravated by American pressure and Trump's erratic policies as an expression of decomposing capitalism.  

A number of comrades focused on the points that we consider essential, in particular trying to grasp the significance of what we describe as a ‘divorce’ between the USA and the EU, sealing the break-up of their alliance: “it is difficult to predict a definitive break-up between the USA and the EU, but it is clear that the EU will have an urgent need to increase its military spending and strengthen its independence [...]. Beyond Trump, US policy towards China tends to divide the EU. There are many factors that divide countries: a close alliance that has been fragile over the last thirty years, but which will not happen again”. Another comrade underlined the importance of the phenomenon and its seriousness: “We are seeing a split between the United States and Europe. This confirms what has been happening for some time. It's shock and awe in the face of Trump [...]. Even the bourgeoisie is saying that the world has become more dangerous [...]. Trump's election is a new qualitative step for capitalism towards barbarism”.  

Many of the interventions also referred to the weight of populism and its reality. One comrade sought to highlight “a profound acceleration in the crisis of all the bourgeoisies”, pointing out that “the American bourgeoisie still has the upper hand over Russia, with the aim of creating havoc in Europe in an attempt to retain world leadership and outflank China. We're in a kind of mad race to nowhere and the bourgeoisie has no choice: whatever it does will backfire [...]. The United States] has to disorganise Europe and do everything it can to thwart European competition”.

The comrades who spoke underlined the difficulties involved in grasping a changing and complex situation. The ICC tried to contribute to the debate with the aim of providing a framework that placed greater emphasis on the historical depth of the changes taking place at an international level. To understand the situation, and in particular the question of the divorce between the former allies of the Western bloc, we believe it is necessary to start from the balance of alliances in the traditional imperialist relations established since 1945. After the Second World War, there was always a strong alliance and a certain dependence between the United States and Western Europe. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, despite the threat of the disappearance of the Western bloc and its gradual disintegration, the former allies remained partly united because of their ‘victory’, but also because of their concern and caution in the face of the collapse of the Eastern bloc, which was reshuffling the cards on the imperialist front. Advocating the ‘victory of the free world’ and ‘democracy’, then the ‘death of communism’, there were still political links within the former allies, links that were subsequently weakened by the growing contestation of American authority without, however, disappearing altogether.

Contrary to groups in the proletarian political milieu who believe that we are heading towards military blocs and a Third World War, the stubborn facts show that this is not the case. Even historic allies like the United States, Great Britain and Canada no longer march together as they did in the past. This does not mean, however, that militarism and war are no longer a threat - quite the contrary!

In this period of deepening decomposition, there is growing chaos in the political workings of the bourgeoisie, fuelling militarism. The rise of populism, which does not correspond to a considered, rational policy of the bourgeoisie, leads to chaotic and aberrant political orientations. We have mentioned examples, including the spectacular one in Britain with Brexit, unwanted by the most enlightened part of the bourgeoisie. One of the most experienced bourgeoisies in the world thus lost control of its political apparatus!

Today, we see that the world's leading power is in turn giving itself a team of irresponsible adventurers as rulers. Never before in bourgeois diplomacy has such behaviour been observed, even during the worst moments of the Cold War, when rogue behaviour gradually became the rule. Numerous examples were also given of the irrationality and stupidity of populist tendencies, such as the systematic attack on science, which deprives the ruling class of certain tools, proving the extent to which the rise to power of the Trump team is a complete aberration in the face of the need for the various bourgeois fractions in power to defend the interests of the American bourgeoisie and its state.

 

 

The second point dealt with during the meeting concerned the prospects for the class struggle. Unfortunately, although it was very lively and interesting, this second part of the discussion lacked time, in particular to explore the question of the dynamics of the workers' struggle.

Overall, the contributions emphasised that, in the face of brutal attacks, the proletariat will have to fight: “All the imperialist powers are increasing their military budgets and developing a war economy. It is the world's working class that will bear the brunt of this war economy and austerity policies, suffering a fall in its standard of living. The working class will be forced to respond with class struggle”. Similarly, this insistence: “Clearly, it is impossible to avoid attacks on the working class, and this is true everywhere, because of the crisis. In Europe in particular, as I mentioned earlier, the necessary increase in military spending, a doubling, is at the expense of the working class. The situation is only getting worse”.

Many interventions were based on the analysis that “the proletariat is not about to be mobilised for war”, which is indeed very important and verified in those parts of the world where the proletariat has the strongest historical experience.

Some of the speakers also insisted lucidly on the obstacles facing the working class, particularly on the ideological level. The working class: “must resist the dangers posed by certain leftists or democrats (i.e. the false dichotomy between democracy and fascism) and remain committed to its independent struggle. The only progressive path is the class struggle”. Another intervention went in the same direction, drawing on the experience of the history of the communist left: “the defence of democracy against fascism or populist irrationality is an essential aspect of the ideological attacks of the bourgeoisie against the working class [...]. At the same time, other factions of the bourgeoisie are talking about resistance and defending democracy against the autocratic dangers of Trump. The communist left has always been aware of the danger of this kind of ideology. Bordiga said that the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism”.

A more difficult question, however, was whether the proletariat would be able to fully recover its class identity, its consciousness of constituting a historic class with interests opposed to those of the bourgeoisie, and whether it would be able to strengthen its struggle to overthrow capitalism. This is a very important question, which is key to the process of developing the consciousness of the working class. For the ICC, this process has begun and is being expressed both underground and more visibly, as at the time of the struggles in the United Kingdom in the summer of 2022, which constituted a break in the global dynamic of the class struggle.

Until then, the working class had been a prisoner of the bourgeoisie's ideological campaigns on the supposed ‘end of the class struggle’ and the ‘non-existence of the working class’. This propaganda was based on the collapse of the Eastern bloc, which was presented as ‘proof’ of the ‘death of communism’. In reality, the recovery of class identity and consciousness will be a long process, further hampered by the many ideological traps set by the bourgeoisie to try and divert it, as various speakers have pointed out.  

To understand the meaning of the rupture in the depths of workers' consciousness, we need to take a step back historically and proceed methodically. For the ICC, while we cannot equate the strikes in Britain with those of the late 1960s, we can look at things by analogy. The 1968 strikes were historically far more important. However, the strikes in Britain in the summer of 2022 bore witness to the reality of a new qualitative dynamic of class struggle. As one comrade recalled, “this struggle broke out at the same time as the war raging in Ukraine, with a vast media campaign on the war and a political crisis within the bourgeoisie around Johnson, just after the pandemic. Despite this, the working class put its interests before those of capitalism. So it wasn't a Pavlovian response to the attacks, but the fruit of reflection”.  

In this process, we must also understand the importance of the British proletariat, the oldest in the world. In the 1970s, it was in the vanguard of the struggle of the world proletariat. Compared with countries like Italy, Great Britain, particularly in 1979, was the scene of many more strike days. The proletariat was extremely combative during this period, culminating in the miners' strikes in 1985. But this was a trap set by the bourgeoisie, which isolated and defeated the proletariat. A defeat that led to great passivity for decades. There was then a slowdown and an ebb in workers' struggles almost everywhere in the world. The fall of the USSR worsened the situation in Britain.  

However, after a period of passivity lasting several decades, the UK was the scene of the great strike movement of the summer of 2022. From that moment on, we saw a change in the mood of the working class, in the balance of power between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in various places. A change that continued with struggles in France, the United States and Belgium, the likes of which we haven't seen since the 70s and 80s. This change in the atmosphere of workers' combativity does not therefore involve Britain alone, but is the sign of a profound change taking place within the international proletariat.

Of course, we should not mechanically expect a rapid development of proletarian struggle and consciousness. There is a long way to go. The working class will need time to develop its class identity and its strength, and it will have to face up to the obstacles, as various interventions clearly illustrated. This is a necessary step for the working class, before it can develop its historical consciousness and give a political perspective to the struggle.

Emphasis was placed on the fact that these attacks will also provoke resistance from the working class. The working class will therefore be attacked as brutally as in the 1930s. Faced with this situation, it must fight more than ever on its own class terrain, namely the defence of its economic interests. Although the working class is facing great difficulties, it is not defeated and has begun to raise its head.

Faced with these prospects of class struggle, we reaffirmed that revolutionaries must be ready to intervene in order to support the resistance of our class, to defend self-organisation, the unification of struggles and above all to participate in the slow and difficult process of politicising the struggle.

 

The ICC (23 April 2025)