Cajo Brendel died at the age of 91 years on the 25th of June, 2007. He was the last of the Dutch "council communists". Cajo was a dear friend and a companion in struggle, who defended his positions fiercely but who was at the same time jovial, warm and cordial in companionship. On the occasion of his 90th birthday we published last year an article in Wereldrevolutie, nr. 107. Here we want to enter at some more length into his life and our ties with him.

Cajo looked upon the ICC as a current referring to "backward positions", such those of the KAPD (Communist Workers' Party of Germany) from the beginning of the 1920's, which, according to him, were surpassed by the Groep van Internationale Communisten (Group of Internationalist Communists, GIC), and he qualified our position on the decadence of capitalism in 1981 in a debate in Amsterdam as "humbug". But Cajo was first of all a consistent and convinced internationalist: that is what we had in common with him and which has always compelled our admiration and respect. We had divergences, among other things, on the unions, which according to Cajo would have been "capitalist" from the outset, and on the national question: according to him "bourgeois revolutions" would still take place, and he classified both the civil war in Spain in 1936 and the changes in China under Mao Tse-tung as such - just like, for that matter, the proletarian October revolution in Russia in 1917-1923.

Whereas for his friend Jaap Meulenkamp political activity was a "socially motivated hobby", for Cajo it was just a little bit more: a conviction for life to which he dedicated himself indefatigably and which he tried to transfer to others with the force of arguments. When with Otto Ruhle he held that "the revolution is not a party affair", this did not stop him from making propaganda for the positions of the Communist Left, nor to make these positions known on several continents. At numerous occasions we have often heartily debated and polemicised with him, to begin with in May 1968 in Paris, and it must be said that emotions could get hot-tempered. But while other members of Daad en Gedachte (Act and Thought), like Jaap, refused ‘out of principle' to debate with organisations or groups which considered themselves to be ‘political vanguards' of the proletariat, Cajo participated in 1973 in several conferences in Dendermonde and Langdorp in Belgium, where the Communistenbond Spartacus (Communist Leage Spartacus) was also represented, as were the groups which would form the section in Belgium of the ICC a year later and of which the repercussions can be found in Daad en Gedachte of 1973-1975.

Cajo was born in The Hague on 2 October 1915. Originating from, in his own words, a "petty bourgeois family" which got into serious financial problems after the bourse crash of 1929, he began to be absorbed in social questions. Initially sympathising with Trotskyism, in 1934, after a debate with David Wijnkoop who had turned Stalinist, he got into contact with two workers in The Hague, Arie and Gees, and then with Stientje. They turned out to be former members of the Kommunistische Arbeiderspartij van Nederland (Communist Workers' Party of the Netherlands) and formed the Hague section of Groep van Internationale Communisten. In 1933 they publish the paper De Radencommunist (The Council Communist). For months Cajo debated every evening with them until he, 19 years old, gave in in September. Much later he told that it was "as if he went from nursery garden straight to university". Through them he comes into contact with the Amsterdam section of the Groep van Internationale Communisten, in which Henk Canne Meijer and Jan Appel played such an important role, and with whom Anton Pannekoek kept in contact. He was also strongly influenced by Paul Mattick and Karl Korsch. Young and with no money Cajo, in the crisis period in The Hague, led, as it is called, a colourful existence. In 1935, after the groups in Leiden, The Hague and Groningen split from the GIC, considering them to be too "theoretical", he published with the group in The Hague first the review Proletariër and then in 1937-1938 Proletarische Beschouwingen (Proletarian Considerations). In 1938-1939 he writes weekly articles for the anarchist review De Vrije Socialist (The Free Socialist) of Gerhard Rijnders, who apparently had no problems with Cajo's Marxism. Mobilised in 1940, Cajo distributes an internationalist leaflet among the soldiers, but without finding any response. After having been transported to Berlin as a prisoner of war, at his return to the Netherlands he got into hiding at a newspaper. After the war he works as a journalist in Utrecht; on the personal level calmer and happier days dawned.

In 1952 Cajo joins the Communistenbond Spartacus, where he is part of the editorial board. In that year he also gets to know Anton Pannekoek. In the twelve following years he writes a great number of articles, and also pamphlets like De opstand der arbeiders in Oost-Duitsland (The Uprising of the Workers in East Germany) and Lessen uit de Parijse Commune (Lessons from the Paris Commune), both in 1953. During the crisis in 1964 when a number of members were excluded from the Communistenbond, particularly Theo Maassen who previously was also excluded from the GIC, Cajo initially takes a conciliating attitude, but finally he rejoins the group that from January 1965 would start the publication of Daad en Gedachte, "dedicated to the problems of autonomous workers' struggle".

But Cajo became really important with the publication of Anton Pannekoek, theoreticus van het socialisme in 1970, a book which in the Netherlands had a great influence on a whole generation of people looking for Marxist positions, and which was also published in German in 2001 as Pannekoek, Denker der Revolution. In 1970 there is internationally a renewed interest in the Communist Left. In 1974, the year when Theo Maassen dies, his Stellingen over de Chinese revolutie (Theses on the Chinese Revolution) is published and in the same year also the German language pamphlet Autonome Klassenkämpfe in England 1945-1972 (Autonomous Class Struggle in England 1945-1970), of which also a French translation has been published, and for the writing of which in 1971 he spent a considerable time among the miners in Wales. Of great importance is also his substantial book Revolutie en contrarevolutie in Spanje of 1977, which unfortunately remained untranslated. Cajo knew his languages, and although most of his writings were published in Dutch, he also published in German, English and French; his writings were translated into even more languages. His influence therefore also grew internationally, also because of his contributions to the magazine Echanges et Mouvement, published in English and French, and his regular participation in international conferences, like in Paris in 1978.

When in 1981 in Amsterdam a conference of internationalist groups is organised, Daad en Gedachte chooses not to participate, but one member of the group is present in a personal capacity and both Cajo and Jaap send in important contributions to the discussion thus assuring the presence of their positions. Also in 1981, during the mass strike in Poland, Cajo, in a well filled hall in Amsterdam, defends that the dividing line "was not between on the one hand the Polish state, and the workers and Solidarnosc on the other, but between on the one hand the Polish state and the union Solidarnosc, and the workers on the other", something we could wholeheartedly agree with. At the presentation in 1983 in Antwerps of the book Blaffende bonden bijten niet (Barking Unions Don't Bite), full of citations from the press of the ICC, Cajo defends in front of a hostile audience of leftists with fervour that the reproach that this book "plays into the cards of the political right wing" is completely unjustified: the right wing employers' parties were conscious as none other of the importance the unions had for them; as much as possible we supported him.

That Cajo was first of all a convinced internationalist emerged again in 1987 when, more or less by mistake, the ICC and a number of its members and sympathisers were invited to participate in a conference of the group Daad en Gedachte. Some of us were actually present, and on our insistence proletarian internationalism was tabled. To our great surprise we stood there together with Cajo and Jaap facing just about all of the ‘younger' of the group who were rather ‘anti-fascist' and inclined to take the defence of bourgeois democracy. We reported on it in our press. It became clear that when this most important of all political point was accorded a second-rate place, the group was drifting away in journalistic academism and couldn't last much longer. Cajo and Jaap were internationalists who all their lives equally denounced without distinction the fascist, Stalinist and democratic camps; but they turned out not to have been capable, at least within their own group, to pass that over to the next generation. The younger elements began to leave the group, which accelerated with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc when everything looking like Marxism began to have a bad odour.

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the group in 1990 a "retrospect" is published in which the background and positions of Daad en Gedachte are reviewed. But contrary to the intention it doesn't attract any new readers anymore, and even less new collaborators. What we saw happening within the Communistenbond Spartacus in 1981, that is to say that the ‘young' pulled out while the elderly wanted to continue, repeats itself ten years later within the group Daad en Gedachte. In 1991, after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, we visited Cajo to discuss with him the Manifesto of the 9th Congress of the ICC [1] on the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and Stalinism. We also tried to move him to make a presentation on the subject for a public meeting of the ICC. He was very touched and excited: "I disagree completely with you, but I find it terribly important that such a document is distributed internationally." He took the same attitude in 1992 when he made efforts to have our book on the Dutch Left published in Dutch, "the only study which deals with the subject in its entirety", and for which he himself had provided much information and many documents, despite disagreeing in many respects with the book, which proved to be far less than anticipated. The publication of the magazine Daad en Gedachte would continue until 1997, but with ever less collaborators. The organisational structure of the group, one of an informal circle of friends, made it ever harder to maintain coherence. After the illness and death of Jaap in that year Cajo was almost alone to do the work. An appeal from us in our press not to give up the publication of the magazine because it would represent an incredible impoverishment in the distribution of the internationalist positions of the Dutch Left remained without consequences. We wrote: "Whatever the positions and analyses might be which separate us, we consider this political current as a fundamental branch of the historical heritage of the workers' movement and it has also contributed considerably to its theoretical and practical progress" (Wereldrevolutie, no 85, December 1998).

In November 1998 Cajo, 83 years old, holds a series of lectures in Germany, where we were present, and about which we reported extensively in our press (for instance Weltrevolution, no 92, Wereldrevolutie, no 92, Internationalisme, no 255, World Revolution, no 228 [2] ). It attracted halls of a hundred listeners and participants in the debate. Our comrades in Germany were impressed by Cajo's sharp analyses and his great human qualities. His whole life he has been giving lectures, always with debate and not just a question time, not only in the Netherlands but in a whole series of European countries like Germany, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries, but even in the United States, Russia and Australia. In the year 2000 we invited Cajo to a public meeting in Amsterdam, where the subject consisted of the question "Council communism, a bridge between Marxism and anarchism?" Cajo did not come, but confronted with attempts to incorporate the Dutch Left into anarchism, he wrote to us, and we saluted it in our press that, "I am by no means an anarchist", and, "Of the method of Marx which he applies in his analyses, of any dialectics or real understanding of what Marxism is all about, the anarchists haven't the least clue." (Wereldrevolutie, no 91).

We visited Cajo for the last time in 2005, once in his house, a couple of months later in the nursing home where in the mean time he was admitted. He didn't recognise us any more, but at the first visit the still talked a lot about his activities, although names and places had slipped from his mind. Contrary to the reports in the anarchist press, he did not live in "distressed circumstances"; in the nursing home he was cared for very well and his children saw to it. Nevertheless, he did not receive many visits from comrades any longer.

Cajo's archive, a goldmine almost six metres long, rests in the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam. But it is in particular the more than seventy years in which Cajo with his many gifts and forces - generally "against the current" - upheld proletarian internationalism that made him so exceptional in the history of the Dutch Left, of which he was the last representative.

ICC, 29th July 2007.

A short collection of articles relating to Council Communism can be found here:

https://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/80 [3]

We are publishing below an article by the Internasyonalismo group, against both the government "anti-terrorist" campaigns, and against the terror exercised against the population in the name of "Islam" and "national liberation".

Factional wars of the ruling class

Another war in Mindanao has begun against the terrorists who beheaded the 14 Marine soldiers who tried to rescue the kidnapped Italian priest Fr. Giancarlo Bossi[1] last month.

This happened almost simultaneously with the implementation of the "anti-terrorist" law of the Arroyo regime, the Human Security Act of 2007.

Terrorism is the enemy not only of the working class but also of humanity. The objective of terrorism is to terrorize and sow fear to paralyze the masses not to struggle and instead, "voluntarily" submit themselves to the authority of the powerful forces - the terrorists. 

The Abu Sayyaf[2] bandits and its likes are terrorist groups. But its not only them who sow terror and fear among the people. The state itself, most of all, the powerful protector of the dying capitalist order is terrorizing the population. Currently the state implements political killings against the local leaders of the legal organizations of the left of capital - the CPP-NPA.[3]

No doubt, the Philippine government implemented "anti-terrorist" measures through the dictates of its master, US imperialism. But it is not doing this for mere puppetry to America but the former itself has imperialist character also. In fact, behind the decades war in Mindanao is the interests of the ruling class in Manila to suppressed any rivals (secession of the Moro bourgeoisie) in exploiting the labor-power of the Moro workers and its natural resources. On the other hand, the interests behind the "war for self-determination" are not to give freedom to the Moro workers and people but to change only the faction that would rule and exploit them, from the bourgeoisie in Manila to the capitalists in Mindanao. 

Furthermore, if we're going to examine the history of the terrorist groups in Mindanao, we can see that they were formed through the help of AFP[4] and the Philippine state. Particular example is the Abu Sayyaf[5] bandits. This is no different from the groups of Bin Laden and the former regime of Sadam Hussien which got the whole support of US imperialism before. Today, the anti-US imperialists are ones supporting this groups..

It means, the wars today, despite its different objectives, all are instrument and part of the imperialist war. The workers and the people are divided and are made as cannon fodders in these wars. 

The wars raging in the Philippines, like the wars happening in any parts of the world are not "wars of the people against its enemies" like what the different factions of the ruling class want us to believe. "Anti-terrorism" campaign of the state has no other objective than to intensify its own terrorism and strengthened its control of the whole of society. This is also the objective of the terrorist groups "fighting" the government. Terrorism strengthens the capitalist state.

Class struggles: True solution against terrorism 

All terrorist groups as well as all the capitalist governments in the world who are the main forces that sow terror and fear are enemies of the international working class. WE MUST NOT TAKE SIDE IN ANY OF THE WARRING FACTIONS OF THE RULING CLASS.

Imperialism is war. Terrorism is the result of decadent capitalism in its stage of decomposition. it will not disappear, instead terrorism and war will spread and intensify until the rotten capitalist system is not overthrown worldwide. The anti-terrorist campaign of the state will result in more widespread and more destructive terrorism like what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Terrorism and anti-terrorism would both result in bloodbath of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people and the destruction of their livelihoods and environment. The main victims of these are the workers and poor.

The Leftists call as well as the pacifists to "Stop the war in Mindanao" is one-sided because it only targeted the one faction of the ruling class -- the state particularly of the Arroyo regime. But they are silent in condemning the other factions. Behind this silence is the opportunist tactics of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This kind of tactics is also implemented by the Left in the war in the Middle East where they support Hamas and Hizbollah and even the "Iraqi resistance" (despite their own history of terrorism) because the latter "fights" against US imperialism. 

The Left's demand to the state and terrorist groups to "Stop the war in Mindanao" under capitalism is no different in demanding that "tigers must be vegetarian".

To fight terrorism, the working class should start its independent struggles against capitalism; they must unite not only in the Philippines but in the whole world against all the attacks of capital.. It means, in Basilan, Sulu, Mindanao, Visayas or Luzon, workers must initiate struggles against exploitation and oppression of the Moro, Filipino or foreign capitalists. 

The workers must cast away the illusions perpetrated by any factions of the ruling class to support the latter's "crusade" in "defending the nation", "defend the right to self-determination" and other calls that would divide the class and sacrifice their lives in an imperialist war. The ultimate solution against terrorism is to overthrow capitalism and the bourgeois state.

The correct calls are: Moro workers must overthrow the Moro capitalists (whether pro-Gloria,[6] anti-Gloria, Abu Sayyaf, MNLF,[7] or MILF[8]). Filipino workers must defeat the Filipino capitalists (whether pro-GMA[9] or anti-GMA). The workers of the world must bring down the international bourgeoisie (whether of the Left or Right). 

In the current permanent crisis of capitalism, in the intensification of wars and terrorism in the different parts of the world in which not only humanity sacrifice their bloods and destroyed their livelihoods but the planet itself is in danger to be ruined, there is no other way out but to destroy capitalism and institute socialism in a world scale; not struggle for reforms but revolutionary struggles. And the only class that can do this is the united and conscious working class, not any form of alliance between the proletariat and a faction of the bourgeoisie. The only alliance that the Filipino and Moro workers must entered into is the alliance of all workers in all countries.

Internasyonalismo

August 2007

[1] Fr. Bossi was kidnapped in the Western part of Mindanao and after a few weeks was released allegedly by the combined forces of Abu Sayyaf and MILF.

[2] Abu Sayyaf is an islamic fundamentalist group in the Philippines engaged in bombings, kidnapping and extortion to finance its cause for an independent islamic state in Mindanao.

[3] CPP - Communist Party of the Philippines, a left of capital adhering to maoism.

   NPA - New People's Army, arm wing of CPP engaged  in guerilla war against the state for almost 40 years.

[4] AFP - Armed Forces of the Philippines

[5] It is well-known that the Abu Sayyaf group was formed by the intelligence agencies of AFP with the help of CIA at the time of imperialist Russia's invasion in Afghanistan. Its founder and later killed, Abdujarak Janjalani, together with tens of Filipino "holy warriors" were sent to Afghanistan  to fight the Russians.

[6] Gloria - Philippine President Gloria Arroyo

[7] MNLF - Moro National Liberation Front, an armed group in Mindanao that capitulated to the Philippine government but its warlords still directly control a section of the Moro population. The MNLF is the officially recognized organization of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) representing the "whole Moro people" in the Philippines.

[8] MILF - Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a split from MNLF in late 70s. It is now the biggest moro armed group in Southern Philippines with its own "state structures". It currently engaged in peace talks with the Philippine state for "genuine autonomy" of the Moro people.

[9] GMA - Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the current president of the Philippine Republic.

Since its independence in 1956, the population of Sudan has known only war and poverty. But from 2003 on, the stench of blood and death has been hanging over Darfur as never before. This province of Sudan, almost as big as France, has only 200 kilometres of asphalt roads and virtually no infrastructure. But it does have oil! This whole region has been an immense killing ground, a theatre of atrocities: "the story of this man who fled the village of Kurma, 65 kilometres from El-Fasher, sums up everything about life in Darfur! In February 2004, the Janjaweed, these armed riders, descended on this village of farmers, burned the houses and raped the women" (Courier International, 24 June). The bourgeois press provides us with eye-witness accounts of massacres ad nauseam. No one with any human feeling could remain indifferent to such horrors. In four years, there have been 200,000 deaths and two million people have been displaced. More than 230,000 of them have fled to the other side of the border with Chad, living in camps devoid of any resources and subjected to daily violence from ruthless armed gangs.

And as usual, all the imperialist vultures are playing their part in this. The most repulsive thing about these ‘great democratic powers' is their endless humanitarian speeches, the indignant tone they use to cover up their barbaric policies. Humanitarianism is always the perfect alibi for war.

Darfur, battleground for imperialist rivalries

Even if the population is suffering on a local level, the Darfur conflict is not just a local or regional event. This is a drama being determined by imperialist interests on a planetary level.

For more than 50 years, Chad, Eritrea, Uganda, France, Israel and the US have all been hovering around the conflicts that have ravaged Sudan. This is a country which is close to the Arabian Peninsula; it's on the edge of the Red Sea and has a border with Egypt. Its position gives it a geo-strategic importance which has always attracted the interest of the imperialist powers. And today what has lit a new military conflagration is undoubtedly the arrival of a new power in the region, China. Taking advantage of the weakening of the US due to the fiasco in Iraq, China is pushing forward its pawns wherever it can. China cannot yet match the major powers and try to get a place in the Middle East. It thus has to get what it can from regions of secondary importance, notably in Africa. And here Sudan is a primordial strategic stake for the new imperialist giant. Sudan possesses the biggest unexploited resources of oil in the whole of Africa. The exploitation of black gold began there in 1960, but it wasn't until 1993 that production really got going. Today nearly 750,000 barrels a day are being produced. All the world's great powers need oil to make their economies function. But above all, today more than ever, oil is a strategic weapon.

For each one of the great powers, controlling the zones which supply oil means directly depriving your main rivals, undermining their imperialist, military potential. For France or the US, what can't be controlled must simply be destroyed. These are the hidden reasons behind the genocide in Darfur.

More precisely, China is today shamelessly protecting the Sudanese regime of Omar El-Bechir and the Janjaweed militia which were set up in 1989. This is why, since 1997 and the embargo decreed by the US against Sudan under the pretext of the struggle against terrorism, China has been opposing any measures aimed at Sudan. It is notorious that China is supplying weapons to the Khartoum regime. On 10 May last year Beijing was still promising to send 275 military engineers to Sudan. Meanwhile the USA is trying to undermine the Sudanese regime, which it can't control, by giving military support to all the armed movements which oppose the El-Bechir regime. As for France, it is already massively implanted in the vicinity of Sudan with 1200 troops in Chad and hundred of heavily armed men in the Central African Republic and Gabon. It is now trying to directly reinforce its role and presence in Darfur, while trying to prevent the chaos there from spreading to its surrounding zones of influence.

The hypocrisy of French and American imperialism

Humanitarian causes have always been the favourite choice by the imperialist powers for justifying their military interventions and covering up the massacres that follow.

To this end, the bourgeoisie has learned how to make the best use of all kinds of media ‘celebrities'.

Whether they are conscious of this or not, whether they are innocent dupes or cynical go-getters, actors, singers and others have been invading the TV screens to lament the fate of the most wretched populations and call for an international response. Let's recall the 1980s when American artists made a big show for Africa ("USA for Africa") and France reacted by doing the same thing for Ethiopia a few months later. Twenty years later we can measure the success of these campaigns against poverty - the continent is ravaged by it more than ever.

Today France and the US find themselves together for the moment, locked in a struggle with China in their efforts to get the ‘international community' to officially recognise that a genocide is going on in Darfur; such a recognition would pave the way for these scavengers to deploy their forces in the region and play their part in the general butchery.

In this battle, we've seen the likes of Julien Clerc, Samuel Bilian and Brad Pitt crying "Save Darfur". Even more directly, the actress Angelina Jolie, ambassador for the UN's High Commission on Refugees, when visiting Chad, was given the mandate of "alerting public opinion", quickly followed by George Clooney with his documentary Darfur Emergency. The Hollywood actor is very persuasive in this film: "make no mistake, this is the first genocide of the 21st century and if we allow it to continue, it won't be the last". Hence the necessity to send in the troops. In an even more official context, the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, a great specialist in humanitarianism, has made a tour of Mali and Chad, finishing up in Khartoum, in order to officially present what has been called the "French initiative". Under the cover of setting up humanitarian corridors in Darfur, he proposes to send, as part of an international force, a contingent of French troops, which will of course ensure a strong presence of French imperialism in this Sudanese province.

The last act to date in this revolting comedy was the international meeting in Paris on 25 June. Everyone there made a great show of their intention to provide the people of Darfur with all the necessary aid, but behind the diplomatic language lurked the real motive: defending their own imperialist interests tooth and nail. Thus, while Kouchner gave us the benefit of his usual humanitarian speeches after the conference, expressing great satisfaction with the results of the meeting, in reality it was clear that no common position and no peace agreement had come out of it. On the contrary, this summit only served to further exacerbate the tensions, with France in particular making clear its intention to get involved at the military level.

It is very obvious that no one is in a position to control Sudan today. The period of undisputed domination of the country by external powers is definitely over. In this region of Africa, as in the rest of the continent, there is an inexorable tendency towards instability and chaos. Ethiopia, Somalia, Zaire, the region of the Great Lakes, the list of massacres is becoming permanent and it is getting longer. For all the imperialist powers, including China, France and the US, the only durable policy in Africa is the policy of scorched earth - the policy of burning oil wells, of destruction and barbarism.

Tino 26.6.07.

In the last five months, many troubling events occurred in Turkey. Following the assassination of Hrant Dink in January, there have been extremely brutal attacks on foreigners, there have been several massive nationalist demonstrations, there have been bombs in major cities and of course the bloody war between armed Kurdish nationalists and the Turkish army kept going on. The situation seems to be getting worse and worse. The last bomb of the bourgeoisie exploded in Ankara several days ago, killing about six people and wounding more than a hundred. The prime minister, in turn, called for national unity against terrorism, and even the most left wing organizations of the bourgeoisie soon joined the calls of the prime minister.

Turkey has been drawn into an artificial polarization between the secularist bureaucratic opposition and the supporters of the liberal Islamist government recently, especially in major cities. The press organs of the secularist bureaucratic opposition, taking themselves too seriously, started claiming that ‘the regime was in danger' and started organizing mass demonstrations against their political opponents. Although the secularist-nationalist bourgeois media claimed that this was a ‘grassroots' movement, it was obvious that those who went to demonstrations went there comfortably, as they had the support of a strong faction of the bourgeoisie behind them. Perhaps the most significant aspect of these demonstrations was, however, the left-nationalist slogans raised. What those slogans showed was the misery of the ossified state bourgeoisie caused by the decomposition of the old Kemalist state ideology. The problems of the ideology are not limited to such slogans: tiny fascist sects, founded by retired generals, swear to kill and die in order to save the country, old leftist groups which seem to have turned to the extreme right write slogans in the walls, calling for the invasion of Northern Iraq and middle, and sometimes even high ranking cadres of the army are calling for the ‘liberation' of Iraqi Turkmens. The army bureaucracy is still one of the strongest powers in Turkey. However not everything is as it used to be; the propaganda against the current government is a proof of this. Never before has this faction of the bourgeois had to make such a massive propaganda to make it appear as if they gained massive support. Despite the fact that they managed to get hundreds of thousands marching in the streets, this is a sign of desperation. The more desperate the bourgeoisie is, the more vicious it will be.

As for the other wing of the bourgeoisie, they seem to be experiencing problems as well. When Tayyip Erdoğan's government was elected with the support of the major faction of the capitalist class, the plan was to succeed with the old dream of being the bridge between oil coming from Baku to Europe thus entering the European Union. Until most recently, the dream seemed to have a chance to be fulfilled; however when Russia managed to be what Turkey dreamed to be, the imperialist ambitions of the Turkish bourgeoisie in Central Asia were mostly destroyed and the possibility of joining the European Union decreased. Although Erdoğan's government is still very strong, it seems highly unlikely that they will be as strong as they are now following the elections which are coming up. Erdoğan's government did not seem to be interested in entering Iraq when the United States invited Turkey; they too wanted to pursue imperialist interests in Northern Iraq but they did not want to go to where the United States wanted them to go, which was certainly not Northern Iraq at that point. It is also important to note that the social conditions were not really suitable for mass mobilization for war at that time because of the massive anti-war wave. However, right now, there are hundreds of thousands mobilized for nationalism and filled with anti-Kurdish feelings. The question here is whether the invasion of Northern Iraq is a fantasy of tiny fascist sects or an actual possibility. Would American imperialism prefer Turkish imperialism to the Kurdish bourgeois factions who have not been successful enough in controlling the area? Could the Turkish bourgeoisie turn its imperialist ambitions to the control of the oil in Northern Iraq? A new imperialist war in the Middle East might happen sooner than expected. Major television channels in Turkey, including the infamous Fox television network which had just recently started broadcasting in Turkey, has already started debating whether Turkey should enter Northern Iraq or not. While the leftists in Turkey are busy running as independent candidates in the upcoming elections in order to turn the bourgeois assembly into a warm and joyful place; the elections might end up with the creation of a war government, with the support of those who had been mobilized to defend secularism and Kemalism. It is a possibility: perhaps not the most likely possibility, but a very significant and dangerous possibility. What this possibility demonstrates is the mentality of the bourgeoisie in regards to imperialist wars. In decadent capitalism, imperialist wars are waged for the sake of waging wars.

In 1974, when the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, tanks and soldiers were sent to the Greek border by the army commanders. Had the situation been suitable, they would not have hesitated to start a bloody war with Greece. Today, if the conditions are suitable for the Turkish bourgeoisie, they will not hesitate to attack Northern Iraq, ignoring the endless conflict, destruction, violence and pain such war would bring. The bourgeoisie in Turkey is having serious problems: there are serious clashes between different factions of the bourgeoisie, the social state is withdrawing, the old bourgeois concept of citizenship fading away, the Turkish bourgeoisie has failed in regards to its relationships with the Kurdish bourgeoisie and the old Kemalist political and ideological structures, which are the foundations of the regime in Turkey, are now proving to be too heavy for the bourgeoisie. Yet the destruction of those old structures means risking the entire regime as the political justification of the bourgeois regime is based on Kemalism. The Turkish bourgeoisie is walking on thin ice. The only solution it is capable of offering to its problems is a new imperialist war. If it doesn't happen now in Northern Iraq, it will happen tomorrow, perhaps somewhere else: but it will happen. As the Manifesto of the Communist Left to the Workers of Europe, written in June 1944 by the Gauche Communiste de France and Revolutionären Kommunisten Deutschlands declared "As long as there are exploiters and exploited, capitalism is war, war is capitalism", and when we look at all different endless local wars, explosions in cities, brutal murders going on in the world, we can clearly see that capitalism is leading humanity into barbarism.

World Proletarian Revolution is the Only Alternative to Capitalist Barbarism

This brings the question on the situation of the proletariat in Turkey. Following the defeat of the massive wave of proletarian struggle in Turkey which was opened in 1989 with public worker's strikes, quickly spreading to unionized and non-unionized workers in private sectors and leading to the formation of independent factory committees and which ended in 1995 after the public worker's occupation of Kızılay Square in Ankara where the administrative centres of the Turkish government were, the unions managed to gain a very high influence on the proletariat. In the last years, there has been a noticeable increase in the class struggles going on. Especially in the last months, there have been several quite large workers' demonstrations, there has been a significant wave of factory occupations and there have been numerous strikes in quite a number of different industries. However, almost none of the struggles managed to achieve any kind of significant success, mostly due to the fact that although quite numerous, those struggles were limited to single sectors or even single workplaces and did not manage to spread. As there wasn't a united struggle; the bourgeoisie did not have a hard time defeating the struggles of the working class easily. It is also very important to note that most of those struggles were actively sabotaged by the unions; during one factory occupation, for example, the union's method of making the workers stop their struggle was giving them a Turkish flag to hang on the factory. In fact, in a great majority of those struggles, workers themselves made remarks about their discontent about unions. Indeed, the unions in Turkey do not work actively for the Turkish bourgeoisie in sabotaging workers militancy but they play an active part in mobilizing the proletariat for nationalist causes. Even the left-wing unions actively participated in lining up workers behind a section of the bourgeoisie in the secularist demonstrations.

The role of the unions was visible even better during the last May Day in İstanbul. The major left nationalist trade union had declared that it wanted to celebrate May Day in a ‘banned' area in İstanbul, Taksim Square, because this year was the thirtieth anniversary of the infamous Bloody May Day where around a million demonstrators had gathered and were fired at by unknown gunmen from two buildings and a car nearby. The İstanbul city governor, who is known with his sympathies towards Erdoğan's party was determined to prevent such a demonstration; however many leftist groups and parties had already declared that they would be joining the union in the demonstration. Soon, the event got out of union leaders' and legal leftist groups' control. The May Day in İstanbul was quite brutal: İstanbul city government had ordered police to be ruthless, and so they were. Whenever workers gathered to enter Taksim, they were attacked by the police. Many were beaten up, around a thousand were arrested and one old person died in his home because of the tear gas police were throwing around. While the right wing bourgeois media presented the policeman as heroes, liberal nationalists and leftists blamed the governor because of the problems which occurred in traffic, and the union leaders, who were allowed to enter the square by the police and then disappeared, only to declare to televisions later on that this was a victory, were celebrated as heroes. However, as it would be expected from them, the unions had done nothing in regards to class struggle. Simply a threat of a one-day strike would probably be enough to save many from being beaten up or arrested, however the union proved once again that it did not have anything to give to the working class. Instead, union called this May Day a fight for democracy, and the union leader went as far as describing police's attack on the proletariat as the revenge of the last secular nationalist demonstrations.

When we look at the situation of the proletariat in Turkey, we see that the proletariat is living in very bad conditions. The conditions of the industrial and agricultural proletariat are unimaginable in some parts of Turkey. Very huge parts of the university graduates, even doctors and engineers are highly proletarianized and are extremely exploited, if they have a job. There is massive unemployment, especially among young people and with the decomposition of the state ideology and in the absence of a strong communist voice, most of the unemployed are drawn into bourgeois ideologies such as Islamism, nationalism and national liberationism. There are very militant parts of the working class, but the domination of the unions and the influence of bourgeois ideologies on the workers are preventing the workers from uniting on a class basis. The only solution to the problems of the proletariat, the only cure to the harm done to proletarian struggle by bourgeois ideologies, is proletarian internationalism and international class solidarity.

The bourgeoisie is leading the proletariat into more pain, more misery and more deaths. Communism is the only realistic alternative to sinking into barbarism. Under these circumstances, we think that it is extremely important for different proletarian groups to engage in regular discussion and international solidarity.

This was also published on https://eks.internationalist-forum.org/en/node/51 [9] and on libcom.

July 2007.

Faced with these protests, on the 29th Chávez himself called upon the inhabitants of the shanty towns to "defend the revolution"; a little later, the "radical" deputies of the National Assembly (formed totally of deputies who support the so-called "Bolivarian revolution"), gave their full support to their leader's call for the inhabitants of the barrios to demonstrate against student movements. However the inhabitants of the shanty towns and the poor barrios - where Chavism is meant to dominate - did not mobilise and have not done so since. This shows a certain sympathy with the slogans of the movement which the media have treated as something secondary, such as the necessity to confront the problems of unemployment, delinquency, health and general poverty[2]. More than this, the lack of mobilisation by these sectors following the bellicose calls of the "Comandante" could express the fact that that the lying discourse of Chávez as the "defender of the poor" is not having the same hearing as he used to get with this sector of the population, which had placed its hopes in him as having a solution to increasing pauperisation. In the meantime, the President, his family and acolytes live the life of the real rich beneficences of power, just as the governments in the past have done[3].

As for Chávez and his followers who made this call, they mobilised the forces of repression and the armed gangs in order to intimidate and repress the students and those who came out of their houses and apartments to show their support. In the initial assault 200 students were arrested and various injured, many of these were young. While this pack of dogs attacked the protest, criminalising it and calling the students "lackeys of imperialism", "traitors to the fatherland", "well off children", etc, Daniel Ortega, the mandatory Nicaraguan "revolutionary", joined in these attacks whilst on a visit to the National Assembly, accusing the protesting students of coming from the richest classes of Venezuela and serving their "dream of stirring up the streets".

However, the repression and denigration aimed at intimidating the students only served to radicalise and spread the movement.

How to understand this student movement?

In order to characterise this movement, we must pose the following questions: are these demonstrations another expression of the confrontation between the bourgeoisie fractions of Chavism and the opposition, which have dominated the political scene over the course of 8 years of Chávez government? Do they represent merely student protests about their own concerns?

We think that we have to answer both of these in the negative. This movement by an important part of the students, to the surprise both of the government and the opposition, has taken on a character that is tending to break with the sterile circle of the political polarisation induced by the struggle between bourgeois fractions, and is expressed in a social discontent that until now has been caught up in this polarisation. It is therefore transcending a merely student framework. We can see that:

• It is undeniable that political forces of the government and the opposition have tried to use the movement to their on ends: the first pose it as a mere manipulation by the political forces opposed to the government, including North American imperialism; the second say it is a political movement of the opposition, since they share slogans such as the struggle for "free expression" and against "state totalitarianism", bourgeois slogans defended by the opposition which is trying to remove Chávez from power. However, the movement has tried to distance itself from political leaders and forces, as much the government as the opposition. The students have not hidden the political character of the protest, but they have made it clear that they owe no political obedience to the leader of the government or opposition. The statements by the spontaneous leaders of the movement have been clear on this aspect: "The politicians have their agenda, we have ours".
• With this aim, the movement has given itself organisational forms such as assembles, where they can discuss, elect commissions and decide upon what actions to carry out: this has taken place at the local and national level. It was in these assembles, formed in several universities, where they discussed the aim of the movement and prepared the first actions, which were transmitted to the rest of the students. For their part, the students have organised to cover the costs of the mobilisations through their own means, through collections amongst the students and the public.
• Another important character of this movement since its beginning has been that it has posed the need for dialogue and discussion of the main social problems effecting society: unemployment, insecurity, etc showing solidarity with the neediest sectors. To this end the students have called upon all of the students and the population as a whole, Chavistas or not, to take part in an open dialogue in the universities, the barrios and the street, outside of the institutions and organs controlled by the government, as well as those dominated by the opposition. In this sense, the students understood the need to avoid the trap set by the government, when the government proposed to discuss with the student adepts of Chavism in the National Assembly. The scheme backfired: other students mobilised, and, in a creative and audacious action, read out a document accusing the deputies of the Assembly of criminalising the movement, denouncing the Assembly for not being an impartial place for debate and posing their demands, abandoning the building, faced with the ire and astonishment of the deputies and Chavist students[4]
• The slogans of the movement have taken on an increasingly political character. although the media, mainly the parts controlled by the opposition, have made the central slogans of the movement the "struggle for freedom of expression" and "stopping the closure of RCTV" or the "defence of the autonomy of the universities", the students since the beginning of the movement have defended openly political slogans: the end of repression, the freeing of the detained students and those having to report to police stations daily, solidarity with the 3000 workers of RCTV, against criminality, against poverty and for the need to "create a better world" etc.

In this sense the student movement that is unfolding is in a "latent" state, due in part to the actions of the government and opposition to control and constrain it. But it did seek to break with the schemas of the past student movements and expressed a social content, influenced by tendencies within it to express the interests of wage labourers.

Where did these characteristics of the new student movement come from?

The genesis of this movement is in the worsening of the economic and political crisis that is taking place in the country. An economic crisis that Chavism has tired to hide behind the enormous resources of the oil manna, which has only served to strengthen the new "revolutionary" elite's hold on power., whilst the rest of the population is progressively becoming poorer, despite the crumbs distributed by the state through the "missions". One of the main expressions of this crisis is seen in the incessant growth of inflation, which according to the untrustworthy official figures has averaged 17% over the last three years (the highest level in Latin America). In fact the increases in the minimum wage directed by the government are essentially due to the incessant increases in the prices of food, goods and services. The much publicised economic growth which has averaged a 10% increase in GDP in the same period is fundamentally based upon the increase in exploitation, a growth of precarious and informal employment (camouflaged under the guise of cooperatives and the government "missions"), which affects about 70% of the economically active population including the unemployed. All of this means that the great majority of wage labourers receive no legal social benefits and a high percentage do not even earn the official minimum wage. This economic crisis, the product of the crisis that is affecting the whole capitalist system, existed long before the Chávez government but it has been exacerbated over the 8 years of this government, leading to the progressive pauperisation of society[5].

Along with the constant increase in the cost of living and growth of precarious employment, we have seen the scarcity of food, lack of housing, an increased criminality which in 2006 cost the lives of 1700 Venezuelans, mainly young people from the poorest sectors, the re-emergence of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, which are the products of ill health and the deterioration of public services. We could go on and on.

This situation is nothing but the expression of the Chavist model of state capitalism, which has no other course than to continue attacking the living conditions of the working class and the whole population, just as previous governments did, accentuating precarious work and pauperisation, but this time in the name of "socialism".

Clearly the students are not ignorant of this situation, since the majority of them are from proletarian families or those pauperised by the crisis. Many students in public and private universities experience exploitation because they have to work formally or informally in order to meet the costs of their studies or part of them, or to help their family's income. Nor are the students ignorant of the fact that their hopes will not be realised in the future: the majority of small professionals that have come out of the universities in recent decades have been increasing proletarianised, as thousands of health and education professionals, engineers etc can testify. They have difficulty in earning more than two times the official minimum wage[6], while the deterioration of the social wage (social security benefits, etc) undermines the possibility of having a dignified life, even it you are one of the "privileged" that the government mouthpieces talk about.

Likewise, a good part of the youth protesting in the streets have seen the ravages inflicted upon their families and society, by the political polarisation introduced by the Chavist and opposition leaderships in their struggle for the control of power. They have been victims of the division of society and a weakening of ties of solidarity; many of them and their parents have been caught up in the networks of political polarisation, even becoming fanatics for one fraction or the other, losing all perspective. They have also witnessed the struggle of the ruling class and its use of the motto of "the ends justify the means", its unscrupulous lying and manipulating, the result of the decay of bourgeois morals.

Thus, the student movement, although arising spontaneously, it is not result of an "infantile disease", nor has it been created by hidden leaders; much less is it something arising out of the heads of the leaders of the opposition or the CIA, as Chávez and his followers have endlessly repeated. It is the product of a process of reflection that has been under way for several years within society, and particularly amongst the new generations faced with living in a society where there will be no chance of living a dignified life. Hence, it is no accident that the student protests have raised slogans with a clearly social content: the struggle against unemployment, criminality, abandoned children and mothers, poverty, but also against the lying, intolerance, immorality and inhumanity that are eating away at society.

These characteristics show that this movement has transcended the conflict between opposition and government and contains the seeds of putting the whole of the capitalist system of exploitation into question; thus it has unquestionably inscribed itself in the struggle of the wage labourers, of the proletariat. The means and methods that it has given to the struggle (assembles, the election delegates answerable to it, the tendency to unite, the call for discussion outside of the universities etc) are those of the proletariat in its struggles for the defence of its interests. Although in a minor and unconscious way, there is the tendency in this movement to express the interests of the working class, and this has pushed it forward.

Over the last few years there have been student movements in other parts of the world, such as Brazil, Chile, France, which have had more or less the same characteristics. In France there were protests and demonstrations led by the students in May 2006, against the government efforts to impose precarious work, which mobilised millions of people across France[7]. The student movement in Venezuela has many similarities with these movements. These movements show that the students in Venezuela are not isolated, but rather are expressing a process of reflection that is taking place within the new generations who are searching for a perspective, faced with a society that offers no future.

Dangers facing the movement

The student movement has unfolded in a fragile and uncertain situation. The pressures exerted by the bourgeoisie in order to control and put an end to it are very strong. Both the government and opposition are making full use of their party machines, material means and the media to do this. There is also the polarisation and division of society brought about by the government and opposition, which has an importance that cannot be underestimated. Nor can the intimidation and repression carried out by not only the official repressive apparatus but also that of the gangs formed by Chavism.

However, one of the most important dangers for this movement is democratic illusions. Slogans such as the struggle for "freedom of expression" or "civil rights", amongst others, even if by these the students mean the necessity to confront the institutions of the state that stand in the way of the struggle, are fundamentally expressions of illusions about the possibility of being able to have freedom and "rights" under capitalism; that it is possible (perhaps with another government) to improve democracy in order to be able to really transform it into something that would allow the overcoming of the problems gripping society. Democracy, with its institutions, parties, mechanisms (mainly elections) is the system that the bourgeoisie has perfected in order to maintain the system of domination by a minority over the majority of society. "Freedom of expression" is part of the totality of "democratic freedoms" that the bourgeoisie has proclaimed since the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, which have only served to mystify the exploited mass in order to maintain its class rule. All of these "rights" are nothing by the codification of these illusions. All bourgeois regimes can recognise "freedom" and "rights" as long as the capitalist order and the state that maintains it are not threatened. Thus, it is no accident that in the confrontation between the government and opposition gangsters, each of them claims to be the true defenders of the democratic order.

The struggle for the "autonomy of the universities" is another expression of these democratic illusions. It is an old demand of the university milieu which defends the idea that these institutions can be free of state intervention, ignoring the fact that universities and educational institutions are the main means for transmitting the ideology of the ruling class (whether of the left or right) to new generations and for training cadre for the maintaining of this order. This slogan, mainly put forward by the student federations and university authorities, tries to imprison the emerging struggle within the four walls of the universities, isolating it from the whole of society.[8]

Another danger facing the movement is the similarity between its slogans and those of the opposition, which unite the interests of those forces seeking to penetrate and control it, and enables the government to try and identify the movement with the opposition. The movement needs to delineate itself from and confront the opposition forces with the same clarity and vehemence as it has the government. If it does not do this it could be submerged into movements that in other countries[9] have been used to bring the opposition forces to power, whilst the fundamental situation (the system of capitalist exploitation) remained intact. The students need to understand that the opposition as much as the government is responsible for the situation we are living in, that the opposition acted as the stepping stone for Chávez to come to power, and that if they return to power they will attack the living conditions of the working class as much as Chavism does today, and that they are both bourgeois forces trying to defend the existing order.

Perspectives

This student movement, which we salute and support, has the great virtue of trying to break with the vicious and poisonous circle of polarisation, through putting forward dialogue and discussion through assemblies that decide what to discussion and in what conditions. This is a gain for the students, for the workers and for society as a whole, since it strengthens the real ties of social solidarity.

However it would be illusory to think that the students' struggle, no matter how brave and courageous it has been, is going to change the present state of things. This movement will truly bear fruit if it can lead to the spreading of the proletarian elements that it contains not only to the barrios, but even more importantly to the workers in the factories and in the private and public enterprises. This cannot be done through the unions and political parties, but only by inviting workers from all sectors and the unemployed to participate in the assemblies. In this way workers will be able to see the proletarian vein running through the movement. At the same time this will stimulate reflection and also the struggle of the proletariat, whose actions are indispensable for confronting the state and being able to attack the root causes of the barbarity in which we live - the capitalist system of exploitation - and to implement real socialism based on the power of the workers' councils. However, if it were to stay an ephemeral movement, subsumed in the inter-bourgeois struggle, it will be crushed.

The most advanced participants in the movement need to try to regroup in discussion circles, in order to be able to draw a balance sheet of the movement up to now and search for ways to strengthen the proletarian elements of the movement which though still at an embryonic state, are being deepened because they arise from the worsening of the economic and social crisis.

Independently of the future of this movement, something very important for the future of the class struggle has occurred: the opening up of a process of reflection and discussion.

The ICC,

July 2007.

[1] According to the Minister of the Interior Pedro Carreňo, on the first day there were 94 demonstrations throughout the country.

[2] "We do not want to struggle against our brothers", so declared a member of the communal council of the barrio of Patarse, to the East of Caracas, referring to the call of President Chávez to mobilise the barrios against the students.

[3] "Being rich is bad" Chávez endlessly repeats in his frequent media presentations, whilst the proletariat and his followers (in the majority the poorest sections of the population) are accustomed to living a precarious existence, the real aim of "21st century socialism". However, he and his family, along with the top level state bureaucrats, do not follow this motto. To illustrate this the French newspaper, Le Monde in June published a series of articles on Chávez and his government, under the title of "Les bonnes affaires de la famille chavez" (‘The business affairs of the Chávez family'), where they described the way in which the new rich of the so-called "boliburguesia" (Bolivarian bourgeoisie) live. These articles showed that Chávez has become an object of interest to part of the French bourgeoisie, who want to use the "Bolivarian revolution" and its fanatical "anti-Americanism" to its advantage.

[4] The students had to be escorted by police when they entered and left the Assembly, since the Chavist gangs were surrounding the building.

[5] According to official figures the government has reduced poverty from 54% in 2003 to 32% in 2006. However behind these figures there is state manipulation (principally though the prices of the basket of food), to make sure that the government's talk about putting an end to poverty by 2001 corresponds to the "reality" of the figures. Nevertheless at the same time there has been the increase in the number of "buhoneros" (street vendors). The increase in consumption registered in 2006 was due to the increase in public spending leading up to the elections, and not because of a decrease in poverty. The Andrés Bello Catholic University which has been tracing the levels of poverty for years says that it increased to 58% in 2005.

[6] About $300 according to the official exchange rate of 2150 Bolivars to the $, which amounts to less than $150 at the black market exchange rate.

[7] see "Theses on the spring student movements in France" https://en.internationalism.org/ir/125_france_students [12]

[8] A demonstration of this was the "assembly" held on the 22nd June in the basket ball stadium of the Universidad Central de Venezuela by the Federation of Centros Universitarios, with the support of the university authorities and opposition. This was a show in order to divert attention away from the real assemblies. Faced with this some students shouted the slogan "we do not want shows, we want assemblies".

[9] see amongst other articles, ‘Ukraine: the authoritarian prison and the trap of democracy' https://en.internationalism.org/ir/126_authoritarian_democracy [13]