In mid-January, there were violent storms in all the major stock markets of the world, from the USA to Europe and Asia. In the space of a single day, values fell by between 4 and 7%. The press has talked excitedly about the most spectacular losses since September 11 2001; about growing fears of a recession in the US with its grim effects on world trade; about the Federal Reserve's drastic cut in interest rates, the biggest for 25 years.

Why this fall in the stock markets?

One after the other, the banks had been publishing poor results for 2007. Losses resulting from the crisis in sub-prime lending have been very widespread, with banks in the US being the hardest hit. For example, shares in Bank of America went down by 29% in 2007, Walchovia by 98% in the fourth quarter! But all continents were affected. After the German banks WestLB and Commerzbank, it was the turn of the second Chinese bank, Bank of China, to announce losses of several billion dollars. And of course the British government has had to intervene on a massive scale to save Northern Rock.

In France, the initial line was that French banks have been more responsible, and haven't been dirtying their hands in wild speculation. And then all of a sudden, AXA, BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole, Richelieu Finance published the most awful results. But the height of ridiculousness was undoubtedly achieved when the Société Generale justified its 7 billion Euro losses by blaming it all on the fraudulent activity of one shares trader, Jerome Kerviel. At a press conference SG boss Daniel Bouton talked about Kerviel's "incredible intelligence", his "extraordinary talent for deception", whose "motives are totally incomprehensible". Creating a "hidden enterprise inside the marketing rooms" of SG, he accounted for 4.9 billion losses against the mere 2 billion directly linked to the sub-prime crisis. The lie was on a huge scale and a number of specialists obviously expressed doubts about the validity of this story. But Bouton, Sarkozy and the government have stuck to their guns. In fact it wasn't long before the scandal hit the world press and Kerviel was being made responsible for the entire global stock market crash! The aim of this propaganda is simple: to deny the reality of the crisis and make us believe that it's just a problem of fraud, nothing to do with the system itself.

However, this crisis is really there. It's not a virtual crisis and the consequences are already beginning to be felt by the working class. One after the other the banks are announcing the ‘necessary restructuring', in other words, a wave of redundancies: 4000 jobs gone at Caisse d'Epargne, 2400 at the US building society Indymac Bancorp, 1000 at Morgan Stanley, between 17000 and 24000 at Citygroup; between 5 and 19% of jobs cut at Merrill Lynch and Moody's. And this is just the beginning of a series of lay-offs that are going to affect the entire banking sector.

Behind the financial crisis, the crisis of the real economy

"This stock exchange crisis is...actually good news for some. It will make the market healthier" (La Tribune, 22 January). The media have been drumming this line into our ears. It's almost as if the stock exchange convulsions and the problems with the banks have a moral aspect: the speculators who have been going a bit far will now be punished by the market and now things will start to go back to normal. This is all lies. Behind the very high profile financial crisis there is a deep crisis in the real economy.

The speculative frenzy of the last ten years has its roots in the problems that companies have in selling their commodities. Capitalism is suffering from a congenital disease for which it has no cure: overproduction. Capitalism's only response is to artificially create outlets by resorting massively to debt and credit. To cope with the Asian crisis in 1997, then the recession of 2001, the bourgeoisie opened the floodgates to credit. Interest rates had never been so low and the banks didn't even check the solvency of their borrowers. This summer, the income of the poorer American households was 80% based on credit: people buying their TVs, clothes and food by getting into debt. In July 2007 risky loans known as sub-primes accounted for 1500 billion dollars of debt! A real mountain - but a mountain that is eroding and about to crack. All these indebted households are incapable of paying back their debts. The real economy, which for the workers means unemployment and poverty, has reminded the virtual economy of the way things really are. For some time, the banks have been accumulating the losses that they have recently announced. Indeed, taking advantage of extremely low interest rates, the banks, the financial magnates, and all sorts of enterprises have in their turn been getting into debt in order to speculate, selling and re-selling the loans contracted by working class families. Around these risky loans, we're not talking about 1500 billion dollars but tens of thousands of billions which will never be repaid.

It is thus the crisis in the real economy which lies behind the speculative mania and the current financial convulsions. But now the problems facing the banks are going to have a boomerang effect on the whole of economic life: "Historians know this very well: banking crises are the most serious because they affect the nerve centre of the economy, the financing of company activities" (La Tribune, 22 January). The banks are no longer going to be able to hand out loans without first checking the solvency of the borrower. Business and households are going to find it harder to run up debts and this will slow down economic activity. As La Tribune put it, "in the euro zone, where small and medium sized businesses depend 70% on banks to finance their activities, the recessionary impact is unavoidable" (ibid). This is what the specialists call the credit crunch. The impact on the real economy is already being felt. In the last third of 2007, the world economy slowed down markedly, giving us a glimpse of what's in store in 2008 and 2009. A journal like Le Monde (21 January), normally quite cautious, no longer hides the reality of this recessionary tendency: "The Baltic Dry Index (BDI), which measures the price of maritime transportation of raw materials, is a good indicator of the level of commercial activity and of the world economy. In one day it has beaten four records for the lowest levels...if the predictions of the BDI are confirmed, the worldwide slowdown has already begun and it will be painful". The majority of the world's commodities pass through the maritime routes; the slowing down on these routes is thus a very significant indicator of the poor health of the world economy. Once again, the first victims will be the workers. Ford, for example, has already announced the axing of 13000 jobs (coming on top of the 44000 job cuts in 2006).

The bourgeoisie has no real solution to its historic crisis

Faced with this new crisis, the bourgeoisie once again turns to the same fix: more credit, more debt. George Bush has announced an exceptional plan of 140 billion dollars and the Federal Reserve has dropped interest rates by 75 points. The British government is about to pump £25 billion into saving Northern Rock. None of these measures can do much to halt the acceleration of the crisis. In 1997, by injecting 800 billion dollars, the bourgeoisie managed to contain the crisis in Asia. In 2001, the bursting of the internet bubble was dealt with by creating another bubble, the ‘housing boom'. But this is no longer a regional crisis like the Asian one or a problem that could be contained in one sector (the internet). The very heart of capitalism is being affected: America, Europe, and the banks. The crisis is therefore far more serious and the impact on our living conditions will be all the more dramatic.

Luckily, the economists who serve the ruling class reassure us, Asia and its fantastic rates of growth will help keep up world growth rates. But there again, reality is very different. Some experts are already beginning to admit it: "we have to say that yesterday Thailand, Singapore and Taiwan announced a slow-down in exports. The World Bank accepts that there are many channels for passing on the contagion of the crisis to the emerging countries (in particular) the impact of the recession in the US"(La Tribune, 22 January). China's exports will be especially affected by the US recession, a fact reflected in the Asian stock markets which took a tumble in the week after the plunge in Europe and America: "China's benchmark index plummeted 7.2 percent to its lowest point in six months on concerns that a recession in the US would mean less demand for Chinese-made products" (Associated Press, 28.1.08). In short, Asia, like all the continents, is going to be hit by this new acceleration of the world economic crisis. And there too this will be translated into poverty and famine for the mass of the population.

In the months and years to come, all over the planet, the proletariat will be confronted by a sharp decline in its living conditions. The bourgeoisie has not stopped attacking them and it will attack even harder. But for several years now the workers have been showing their ability to fight back. In the face of a new aggravation of the crisis and the degradation of living standards, they have no choice but to widen the struggle and forge class solidarity. Pawel 26/1/8

In the light of the precarious nature of the global economy, and the gloomy prospects facing Britain - despite Labour's claims of years of unprecedented growth - Gordon Brown's decision to impose a 2% public sector pay limit based on the projected inflation rate was only to be expected. We are told that ‘inflation must kept under control', and that the most effective way to ‘maintain stability' and protect Britain from the anticipated worldwide economic downturn is to accept pay restrictions. Essentially public sector workers are required to tighten their belts in order to hold back inflation. Discipline in the public sector is intended to provide a lead for the private sector, all of which will help prevent high prices and increases in mortgage repayments and, eventually, bring the economy back into line. Brown believes that this process will take around three years and is attempting to keep pay levels below inflation until 2012. This is the basis for the threatened pay freezes and the re-emergence of multi-year pay deals.

In reality it is extremely unlikely that raising, or lowering, public sector pay - or any other wages - will have any significant effect; or indeed any effect at all, on inflation. Brown might want to impress eagle-eyed officials at the Bank of England with his approach to inflation, but the Bank itself says that "overall pay rises averaging 4.5% across the economy are consistent with its 2% inflation target if productivity and other factors are included" suggesting that it also doesn't think that public sector pay causes inflation. Even the conservative "sages at the Institute of Fiscal Studies concur" (The Guardian 16.1.08).

If pay demands don't cause inflation what does? As the article in this issue on price rises shows, you have to look to the massive flight into debt and speculation, and a whole range of unproductive expenditure to see how capitalism's economic crisis is now pushing inflation toward centre stage. It is the decaying world economy that is to blame for higher prices not greedy workers.

So why are the wages of public sector workers being attacked in this way? As a recent leader article in The Guardian (9.1.08) put it, "the real - if unspoken - motivation behind all this is less low politics than the government's urgent need to balance the books. The Treasury has long sailed close to the wind and things became choppier during the autumn". So, "if, as expected the economy slows, the underlying state of the government's bank balance will become more transparent. Reining in the payroll could help restore some health to the public accounts". Britain has the largest budget deficit in Europe and the government is basically running out of money. It's a familiar story; the working class is paying for capitalism's crisis.

Although only just announced Brown's proposals have already provoked reaction within the public sector. Teachers' unions have threatened the first national strike for 21 years in response to a 2.45% pay deal beginning in September 2008. And on the 23 January, according to police ‘estimates', 25,000 police officers marched through central London, their first ‘protest' since 1918, against Jacqui Smith's refusal to backdate their 2.5% pay award from 2007-8. As the crisis deepens, Brown will be forced to remain intransigent on the question of pay. There will be attempts to create divisions within the working class with campaigns proclaiming public sector ‘job security' or higher wage levels in the private sector, when in reality no sector has been immune from the crisis of capitalism. The current period is one where, internationally, because of the force of the economic crisis, we are seeing a resurgence in the class struggle and Britain is no exception. This means that as the struggle develops workers will need to become aware of their false friends: the unions and the left.

Traps of the left and the unions

These loyal allies of the state have already begun to organise ... against public sector workers. Teachers' unions have begun to talk about a one day walk out and Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the NUT, said "he was confident the strike would go ahead. ‘I would be very confident that teachers would be saying yes because of the objective to protect their living standards'" (The Guardian 25.01.08). Dave Prentis of Unison has also commented on the recent pay deals: "this is the most unjust pay policy I've ever seen" (Socialist Worker 19.01.08). But just because the unions declare their sympathies doesn't mean they are on the side of the workers. ‘Days of action' have frequently been used to dissipate and divide the militancy of workers with union rules being used to prevent workers from different sectors (i.e. different unions) struggling together. The unions may sound militant but at the same time they are ‘negotiating' with management. The deal ‘won' by the Communication Workers Union recently should be a lesson to all those who still believe the unions are on our side.

The left, unable to provide an alternative perspective to capital for the working class, are reduced to being cheerleaders for the unions. So, for Socialist Appeal, "the union leaders should all be meeting together and preparing to resist the offer with strike action" (Socialist Appeal No 159). For the Socialist Workers Party "it will take heavy pressure from the rank and file of the unions to make the leaders fight" (Socialist Worker 19.01.08). They talk of the action required from the leaders or the need to put pressure on the unions, in order to obscure the need for workers to take the struggle into their own hands. The truth is that the unions and the left are on the same side, arm in arm with the state, trying to divide the working class and prevent it from developing its own struggle.

With the Police pay deal, it is an interesting reflection of the crisis that even the Police, one of the most privileged sectors in Britain, are unhappy about their pay deal - a sign that things must be bad! Workers should not express solidarity with them as ‘fellow workers', against the arguments of the left when they say that "socialists support police officers' right to a proper trade union and the right to strike. We should work towards bringing the ranks of the police closer to the labour movement" (https://www.socialistparty.org.uk [2]). As Trotsky wrote, "The worker, who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker". When workers meet police officers during future strikes they will be on opposite sides of the class line.

The needs of the struggle

It's only when workers take control of their own struggles, spreading them to other offices and workplaces, organising across different sectors, holding mass meetings open to all workers, outside the control of the unions, that they are able to defend their own interests. Solidarity is the main weapon of the working class in the fight against the state's attacks, and ultimately the capitalist system, but this can't fully develop if workers are trapped in one workplace, on one picket line. The most spectacular example of this kind of workers' self organisation recently was during the fight against the CPE in France in 2006, but examples, big and small, have emerged internationally, all of them expressing the same characteristics: the development of solidarity across the barriers of age, ethnicity and occupation, and with a concern for the future.

At the beginning of January in the London borough of Waltham Forest refuse workers, threatened with wage cuts of up to £8000 to bring them into line with other low paid workers, staged a wildcat strike blocking the Town Hall with their wagons for an hour. The strike may have been short, and appears to have been quickly recuperated by the unions, but it was yet another expression of the turning point in the class struggle that has been developing since 2003 and marks this period as being full of potential for the working class. As one worker told a local paper (Waltham Forest Guardian 10.01.08): "the bills won't go down will they?" Other "employees, who take home as little as £170 per week without overtime" said that "pay for kitchen staff and lollipop ladies should be brought up" to the level of the refuse workers. The limited actions of the Waltham Forest refuse workers express the same dynamic as strikes as far apart as New York and Delhi: the question of a perspective for the future and the extension of workers' solidarity across all barriers. It is these methods, this perspective, that other sectors of workers need to revive if they are to defend their interests.

There are 5.5 million workers on the public payroll who, when faced with inevitable falling living standards, will have no choice but to fight. The government should be nervous; it knows that the working class is undefeated and, more importantly, that the class is slowly beginning to regain its combativity. The future lies in the class struggle. William 30.01.08

In London every day on average five children are shot or knifed. Official figures for overall murder and knife crimes in London are actually down, and 58 homicides involving firearms in the UK last year hardly compares with the 14,000 firearms-related killings in the US in 2005. However, the murders of those under 20 appear as a particularly senseless loss of life. On TV you see the faces of those who've died and think ‘what a waste'. You see a headline like "Girl, 13, knifed to punish drug dealing lover" and see the age of innocence dropping like a stone.

All sorts of explanations and solutions have been offered. Ken Livingstone said that the majority of youth crime was caused by boredom. Others have blamed poverty, drugs, urban decay, racism, an absence of positive role models for young people, gangs, gang-life and gangsta rap. Last year leaked police documents showed how 257 gangs had been mapped across London.

A spokeswoman for the charity Kids Company said that "children are resorting to savage ways of surviving because from their perspective the adult world and civil society cannot protect them. When you are alone and the rule of law does not protect you, you have to adhere to an alternative system of power to ensure your own protection and that is where the weapon, violence and the gang comes in."

Gavin Hales, a criminologist who has worked for the police and the Home Office, thought "the average age of those involved in gun crime was falling and there was significant evidence this was because youths, some in their early to mid-teens, were becoming attracted to the criminal economy, especially the drugs market" (BBC News 14/11/7). Meanwhile, a professor at Strathclyde University believed it was "important to dispel the notion that young people are drawn into gang culture because of low self-esteem and lack of employment opportunities, and recognise instead that gun culture - of whatever ethnic background - brings its own thrills and material rewards" (ibid).

As solutions Livingstone proposed "new opportunities to learn skills through training, sports and cultural activities, with the aim of engaging young people and helping them to live a life away from violence and crime." Others want a police and prison ‘zero tolerance' crackdown. Some Christians just propose forgiveness. Headmasters say ‘don't retaliate'. A visiting New York gang leader said that education and empowering youth communities by "promoting healthy and viable alternatives to gangs and gang life" - as opposed to tougher prison sentences - were the only ways of breaking the ‘cycle of violence'.

How much of this rings true? If there are material and social explanations for ‘crime and the causes of crime' then changes in material and social conditions would improve the situation. But, as it happens, the economic situation in which most of us find ourselves is not only deteriorating, but shows every sign of taking further steps in decline. It's not only the poor that are getting poorer, but the possibilities of getting decent housing are getting scarcer, and health and education facilities are getting worse. There is nothing in the current social situation that could lead you to believe that violence on the streets might diminish.

But what about the thrills and rewards of gun culture and the attraction of the drugs market: have our academics hit on something? In a world in which the education system writes off the futures of so many children, in which the prospects for rewarding employment are minimal, where only the most basic rental accommodation is affordable, where so many estates are literally falling apart, the possibilities of excitement and even material rewards are bound to be appealing. Where there is little sense of community, where people feel isolated or separate from their fellow creatures (except possibly those in your gang) drawing a knife or a gun doesn't necessarily seem of much consequence, killing someone the work of a moment. If you're carrying a weapon you've only got to worry about the police; if you don't you have to worry about everyone who does. If you're not in a gang it seems like you're bound to be a victim.

Although capitalism needs a disciplined work force - both for working and for its armies - increasingly its individualist ethos is turning to ‘each against all'. This is the world that young people are growing up in, with the violence of nation against nation, gang against gang, individuals against each other. Seemingly random pointless violence is a pure product of decomposing capitalism.

The only force that can act against this is the solidarity of the working class in its struggle against capitalism. At the moment this potential is only acknowledged by a tiny minority. The majority live lives with no perspective for the transformation of society, and individual survival as the only prospect. But when the class struggle comes out into the open, new possibilities can be glimpsed very quickly. In the struggles against the CPE in France in 2006, striking students made a conscious effort to draw the most deprived sectors of the working class - the residents of the ‘banlieux' who are so vulnerable to crime and aimless violence - into a common fight against the capitalist state. That was only a beginning, but it indicates the path to follow in future struggles. Car 27/1/8

Everywhere you look, prices are going up! The prices of the energy suppliers have jumped up and so heating bills and travelling to and from work have become more expensive. There are big increases in the prices of essential foods, like bread and milk, and shoppers are getting a lot less for their money in their weekly supermarket shopping. And while prices keep going up.... wages don't.

"The problem is universal. Perhaps it's the first time that whether you live in a rich or a poor country, you are expressing the same type of concerns: Italians worried by the price of pasta, Guatemalans by the price of maize, the French and the Senegalese by the price of bread." (Le Monde, 17/10/07.) The price of pork, the meat the Chinese eat more than any other, has almost doubled in price in one year, while the prices of other farming products like chicken and eggs are also rising fast. Japan imports 60% of its goods and nearly all foods have gone up in price.

Why are prices rising so much?

The main explanation from the bourgeoisie for this is that the Asiatic economies are ‘too healthy': "The fall in the level of food production (aggravated by drought and the boom in bio-diesel, amongst other things) and the increase in demand (that has come about especially in emerging countries, like India and China, eager to copy the western style of eating) have brought about a rise in prices just as extraordinary as unexpected."(La Republica, in Courrier International no 888) In brief, it's a simple problem of disequilibrium between supply and demand!

That's sheer propaganda! The price rises are a direct product of the economic crisis. They are the first repercussion of the now famous subprimes crisis, which broke out this past summer in the US, on the living standards of the world's working class. All the central banks responded in the same way to the ‘black hole' of debt in the American market, making massive amounts of low cost money available (lending to speculators at very low rates), hoping to limit the contagion and the damage in the short term. But this policy won't work: it is only expanding the escalating debts[1] that, in reality, will only further fuel and aggravate the crisis. By supplying banks that are facing bankruptcy and the stock markets with the vast amounts of money, the hundreds of billions of dollars, they require, the bourgeoisie and the central banks are only unleashing a deep spiral of international inflation.[2]

But why is inflation affecting raw materials and basic foodstuffs indispensable to millions of human beings? The answer is reflected in the inhuman nature of the decaying system itself: "Raw materials attract speculators in search of new markets for their investments following this summer's crisis in the American property market. This pushes prices up."(Liberation, 2/11/07). Hence, the ‘crazy upward spiral' in fuel prices comes from speculative investing "which has retreated from certain markets (shares, bonds, currencies) to invest in ‘commodities', particularly oil". (Le Monde, 20/10/07). It's the same with cereals/grains: following the crash in August, "Goldman Sachs and Mark Faber, in line with all the other speculators, advise investing in the agricultural products markets where you can afford to take more chances."(Nouvelle Solidarité, 3/09/07). All these vultures are quite tight fisted about keeping their capital safe! And one of them openly expressed their limitless cynicism: "If the world is slowing down right now, it won't affect agricultural products because, no matter what happens, people will still have to eat"! (Bloomberg, 19/08/07.)

J.Sheeran, Executive director of the UN World Food Programme says "we are losing ground to hunger" Sweet euphamism! In the 82 poorest countries, where 60 to 90% of the family budget is spent on food, an expected 20% increase in the price of corn means that much of the population will suffer famine, and ultimately death; it's that simple! We have already seen food riots in Mexico, in Yemen, in Brazil, in Burkina Faso, or in Morocco again, since 2006. "The United Nations has warned that global food inflation could spark social unrest and force governments to reintroduce price controls to maintain stability" (Financial Times, 16/1/08). And governments are being forced to act. On 14 January 10,000 people took to the streets of Jakarta, capital of Indonesia, protesting at the doubling of the price of soyabeans, one of the country's staple foods, forcing the government to take action. In the same week, the Egyptian government banned exports of rice to protect local supplies and curb unrest. In Vietnam, protests by the poor and labour unrest faced with foods prices escalating, has forced the ‘communist' authorities to intervene. In China, "constant price rises are counteracting improvements in living standards."(Nanfang Zhoumo, Canton journal). In the West, it is becoming a luxury to eat properly. In France, where consuming around 400 grams of fruit and vegetables per person per day (recommended by the government) is equivalent to between 5 and 12% of the basic minimum wage (SMIC), it is clear that a lot of workers will not be in a position to satisfy these basic requirements.

Heading for another 1929?

If you read the papers, it is clear that the spectre of the 1929 Crash and the Depression haunts the whole bourgeoisie. They are asking: ‘Is another 1929 on its way?'

It's true there are similarities: the stock markets wobble and the yo-yo movements of shares can't disguise the fall in values; the mountains of debt appear insolvable, the crisis of confidence between banks deepens as losses multiply; the panic of the small savers forming endless queues outside their banks to withdraw their funds, in the US, in Germany and in England; the perspective facing many US workers of finding themselves without a roof over their head and without work, from one day to the next.

The Crash of the New York Stock Exchange in 1929, the famous ‘Black Thursday', triggered the first major economic crisis of a capitalism in decline. The Depression revealed the chronic overproduction of goods characteristic of capitalist decadence. The crisis of 1929 took the form of a slump and is remembered because of the fact that the bourgeoisie fell back on the old responses that had worked in past crises... of the 19th century (that is, when capitalism was still in its full bloom, in its ascendancy). But this time, not only did they not work, in the new historical conditions (capitalist decadence), they made things worse. In practical terms, when the Federal Bank of America restricted the quantity of money in circulation, it bankrupted most of the banks, and the loss of credit put an enormous brake on economic activity. The protectionist measures put in place to defend the national economies fragmented the world economy, blocking international commerce and thus lead to production contracting even further.

If the bourgeoisie hasn't found any real solutions to the historical economic crisis of its system since the 1930s (And this is because the destruction of capitalism is the only solution!), it has nonetheless adapted to this state of permanent crisis, being able to phase it in over time. In a real sense, the economy is still sinking, but more slowly. The bourgeoisie has understood how to use state mechanisms to deal with financial crises by playing with interest rates and by injecting liquidity into the banking system. That's why the current economic crisis, since 1968, has not taken the form of the brutal economic collapse like 1929. The decline has been more gradual. The crisis has staggered from recession to recession, each deeper and of a longer duration, while going through one pseudo-recovery after another, each successively shorter and less effective. This smoothing out of the unfolding crisis into a downwards spiral allows the bourgeoisie to deny its very existence, to cover up the bankruptcy of its system, but it does this at the cost of overloading the system with mountains of debt and running into more and more dangerous contradictions. The extremely fragile nature of the world financial system is the proof of the diminishing effect of all the palliatives used by the bourgeoisie.

The current crisis will not therefore produce a brutal breakdown of the economy as in 1929. However, despite this, we can still predict that the crisis will nonetheless become more serious and much deeper. When the New Deal, the programme to boost the economy to deal with the crisis of overproduction, was inaugurated in the 1930s in the US, the financing of all the credit for the government loans was only a tiny part of the annual national earnings (the equivalent of less than 3 months of military expenditures at the time of the Second World War)! Today, the American debt is already 400% of GNP! The certainty of some capitalist circles "that a very deep US depression (...) is going to have widespread consequences, though not to the degree of the crisis of 1929, (...) even if 1929 is still the last available reference point in modern history" (Global Europe Anticipation, Bulletin no. 17) shows the bourgeoisie is very nervous about the future! The crisis of 2007 has a global impact. "With the contagion of the real economy already underway, not just in the US but across the whole planet, the collapse of the property markets in Britain, France and Spain is now the focus at the end of 2007, while in Asia, China and Japan are going to face simultaneously the reduction in their exports to the American market and the rapid fall in the value of all their credit holdings in US dollars (US currency Treasury bonds, shares of the US companies, etc.)" (idem).

The perspective of severe recession accompanied by increasing inflation will give rise to a brutal degradation of living conditions and to the increased exploitation of the working class. Despite the promises mouthed by politicians from all sides, capitalism is incapable of finding a way out and hiding its open bankruptcy today. The only perspective it offers humanity is increasing poverty. The future, the hopes and the salvation of humanity depend on the struggle of the working class! Scott 26.11.07

---

[1] After the bursting of the Internet bubble in 2000-2001 and with the risk of a brutal dive into recession, the US State initially decided to create a new bubble that would bolster consumption. With this property bubble, systematic loans were made available to the least wealthy of American households. It would be enough for a few years till in turn it burst again, with the risks a lot worse still for the world economy (read our article ‘The housing crisis, a symptom of the crisis of capitalism', on our website: internationalism.org).

 

[2] "The quantity of money in circulation is determined by the sum of the prices of commodities (money value remaining the same), and the latter by the quantity of commodities in circulation" (Engels, On Capital). An increase in the quantity of money in circulation without increase in production of goods amounts to a devaluation; the prices (monetary expression of the value) must therefore increase in the same proportion to express the value of the goods, which, itself, doesn't change.

 

From the December election victory announcement of President Mwai Kibaki, democratic Kenya has sunk into a nightmare of government paramilitaries shooting to kill, politically organised gang rapes of women and children, hackings to death and the burning of homes with people inside them. Figures for the number of deaths are at 900 and rising and the number of internal refugees at a quarter of a million or more. To date there appears to be no let up in the violence. At the end of January, the Rift Valley area was particularly badly affected, with slums divided into tribal zones in a state of virtual civil war. Widespread attacks on ethnic Kikuyus have been countered by increasing activity of the Mungiki, a sort of criminal sect with links to the state and the governing party. They've been supported by the police in some of their murderous rampages in the west of the country.

Liberals the world over have urged the politicians to get together, to sort out their differences for the sake of the nation or the people, in short to make sure that democracy works. But even if these politicians were not rotten, murderous and corrupt to the core, which they are, they would soon have to be in order to take part in the fraud of democratic elections. Democracy is not a solution but part of the problem. This is as true of Africa as it is of the USA. Their elections are empty charades. What makes the present situation and the empty prospect of future elections particularly horrendous for the population of Kenya is that the ruling class has only brutal solutions; divided it organises on an internecine basis; the working class is numerically weak; and there is the pernicious influence of powers much greater than the brittle Kenyan state.

Much is made of tribal divisions being at the root of the problem but this is at best a half-truth. Tribal differences do exist, but they have been manipulated and inflamed by all the politicians involved in the election. Aljazeera (January 24) carries reports of how Raila Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement organised tribal violence throughout the election campaign through armed vigilantes. On the other hand, incumbent President Kibaki has used his Kikuyu base to stir up divisions and hatreds, rounding this off with the state's notorious General Service's Unit and government paramilitaries. This is the reality of a country that Britain and the USA have been using as an example of ‘tolerance and democracy'.

Kenya was not only vaunted as an example of democracy by Britain and the US; in the 1980s it was hailed as an ‘economic miracle' and more lately, a ‘model economy'. Oxfam recently said that around half of all Kenyans were living on less than $1 a day and gangs of destitute youth are easy meat for the political gangsters on both sides. Unemployment is massive and increasing and there are more than two million suffering from AIDS, untreated and forgotten. The prices of basic commodities for Kenyans have risen by 300% in the last months and the present expression of the global economic crisis can only worsen the immediate problems of the economy.

Dragged into a maelstrom

Kofi Annan, in his recent ‘peace mission', called for Kenya to become once again a ‘haven of African stability'. This is a country that sucks in refugees from war zones all around the region, not least the 15-year war around that other great murderous quagmire, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Imperialism has played its part in dragging Kenya into the maelstrom of crisis and war. Just before Annan's arrival, President Museveni of neighbouring Uganda came to talk ‘peace'. The Nation (Nairobi) reported that Museveni had already sent troops into Kenya just after the election in order to support the Kibaki regime. The USA's ally in the ‘war on terror', President Meles of Ethiopia (himself taking power after a disputed election in 2005) has also intervened, backing the US position of support for Kibaki. Don't forget that it was the US embassy in Kenya that was destroyed by the attack of Al Qaeda in 1998 and Kenya today is one of the termini of US ‘renditions'. Furthermore it is on the southern flank of the whole Horn of Africa region which has been a major focus of imperialist conflict in the last few years (Sudan, Somalia, etc).

The USA, Britain and, latterly France, are all involved in backing factions within the country. France has been making its imperialist presence felt in Africa against the USA and Britain for some years now, particularly infuriating the USA with joint naval manoeuvres with the Kenyan navy eighteen months year ago. Early in January Le Monde Diplomatique authoritatively announced that one million votes had gone missing from the ballot boxes. Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, was quick to publicly state that the election was "rigged', thus backing Odinga's ODM (raising the possibility of French imperialism being once again involved in playing the ‘ethnic card' in the region for its own ends).

Britain's role is no less insidious. Having run Kenya as a protectorate from 1895 and then a Crown Colony from 1920 up to ‘independence' in 1963, Britain has resented the intrusion of the US Godfather in Kenya. Her Majesty's Government quietly left it to a Deputy Minister of State to announce recently that, contrary to the US, "Our government does not recognise Kibaki's government". The Times (23/1/8) reported that Adam Wood, the British High Commissioner in Kenya was summoned to explain "why London was refusing to recognise Mr Kibaki as President. It has also tried to accuse the international community [ie, Britain and France in this case] ‘of stirring up violence by questioning the election results". The USA says it wants to prevent Kenya turning into another ‘failed state' in the region, but, as with the other powers, the defence of its imperialist interests can only worsen the situation in which the population finds itself.

The mission of Kofi Annan started with handshakes and smiles between Odinga and Kibaki, but it soon degenerated into scowls, threats and more killings. Kenya is another classic product of the post cold war New World Order of ‘peace' and ‘prosperity', democratic-speak for war, crisis and misery. During the 1990s the USA drew up a list of countries to counter British and French interests in Africa under the heading of ‘preventative diplomacy', ie countries on which to stamp its influence. Having a presence here is vital for US imperialist interests in the Horn of Africa and towards the Middle East. Such concerns, along with the deepening economic crisis, mean that Kenya will never be ‘a haven of peace,' but will become more of a theatre of war, decomposition and misery in which democracy is not just a pointless side-show but part of the imperialist script. Baboon, 27.1.8

The situation for the civilian population in Gaza, and particularly the working class, continues to go from bad to worse. Even before the recent tightening of the blockade three quarters of factories had ceased working, 100,000 had lost their jobs in Israel due to border restrictions, hundreds of thousands remain in 8 refugee camps 60 years after fleeing the 1948 conflict. In 2002 more than half the women of childbearing age were anaemic and17.5% of children suffered from chronic malnutrition. And they are constantly endangered by the tit for tat bombardments across the border by various Palestinian militant groups and Israeli bombardments and incursions. The blockade has deprived them of many necessities, particularly fuel needed for heating, for the power plant, for hospitals, and for running the sewage works.

The appalling misery suffered by the one and a half million people who live behind Gaza's perimeter wall is caused, maintained and worsened by the conflicts that created this economically unviable territory in the first place. Repeated invasions and blockades are part of this, forming part of the play between regional powers and their larger backers. So when Israel bombed roads and bridges and the one power plant in Gaza in summer 2006, much more was at stake than one 19 year old Israeli army corporal captured by militants. At the same time it launched an attack on Lebanon in the forlorn hope of defeating Hezbollah, with the tacit approval of its superpower backer. Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon are major clients of the USA and Israel's chief rival for dominance in the Middle East, Iran, and so a blow to them would weaken their backer. This, of course, was in line with America and Britain's interests in limiting Iran's power as a dangerous thorn in their side in Iraq, where it acts largely through the Shia militias. It is the competition to be the undisputed regional power that makes sense of Israel's actions over the last few years. The refusal to negotiate or hand over money owed to the Palestine Authority when Hamas won the election in 2006 was based on the calculation not only that Hamas would use its new-found authority to step up attacks on Israel, but that negotiating with it could only raise its profile as Iran's client. The recent complete closure of the border with Gaza, which made the chronic humanitarian crisis acute, is part of the same policy, not just a question of protecting Siderot from the cross border bombardments.

Israel's role in holding the population in Gaza hostage is well known, and has been accurately condemned as collective punishment. But we should not be fooled into thinking we have found the only culprit. On the big scale we should never forget that powers which criticise Israel, or propose a more softly-softly negotiated approach to Iran over the nuclear issue, also have an interest in the weakening of the USA. It is no wonder the UN was deadlocked and unable to come up with a resolution.

Hamas also uses the misery of Gaza population

Left wing papers like Socialist Worker often portray Hamas as at one with the population of Gaza: "For daring to elect a Hamas government the people of Gaza..." (2.2.08), a sort of brave little David standing up to the Israeli Goliath. After all they have courageously bulldozed a hole in the border with Egypt, allowing hundreds of thousands of desperate civilians into Egypt to buy fuel, food and medicines, so that "US strategy to isolate the Palestinian resistance was smashed into ruins".

Internationalists, by contrast, have the temerity to say that Hamas is also holding the population hostage.

Hamas may have won the Palestinian Authority election in 2006, but in the end they lost the internal struggle with Fatah, ending up with control over nothing but Gaza, 136 square miles of refugee camps with most of the infrastructure (railway, airport, bridges...) destroyed, and not even in control of their own borders. The hole in the wall gave them a very small lever to try and get taken seriously. Egypt has no love for Hamas, with its connections to the opposition Muslim Brotherhood, and has no wish to see the border kept open. But it had neither the troops to seal if off again nor would it have been wise to try. Hamas had bought itself an invitation to the negotiating table with Egypt if no-one else. Meanwhile President Abbas, from Fatah, proposed that the Palestinian Authority take over Gaza's border controls, alongside Egypt. The two warring Palestinian factions are continuing to squabble over who runs the show in their talks about the border controls.

People often talk of Gaza being occupied for 40 years since it was taken over by Israel in the 6 day war. In fact it was occupied two decades earlier, by Egypt, after the 1948 war, who used it for raids on Israel, just as now Hamas uses it for bombardments. Throughout that time Palestinian refugees were left to rot in camps and refused entry into Egypt. Today Egypt cannot wait to get shot of Gaza and has emphasised that it is Israel's responsibility.

The population of Gaza is caught between various bourgeois factions and powers, all of which are responsible for perpetuating its misery for their own advantage.

The need for internationalism

Those who defend Hamas, those who defend Palestinian nationalism, for all they can point to the appalling conditions faced by the population, are just as responsible as Israel, the USA or Britain. They are keeping them in camps as cannon fodder in the battle with Israel, or with the other Palestinian factions.

Hope does not lie with Hamas, bombardment of Israel or talks in Egypt. There is no hope even in the defeat of the most powerful imperialism. What good does it do the working class, or the civilian population anywhere if Israel suffers a defeat, or the USA a setback, if the winner is Iran or Egypt, Germany or China?

In spite of all this conflict the Middle East has seen some very important working class struggles: in Egypt, Israel (see WR 300, 302, 304,309). As this struggle develops workers need to reject any notion that they have anything in common with their ruling class and see themselves as part of an international class, ready to unite across all national divisions. Alex 2.2.08

In 2007, Germany saw the highest number of strike days since 1993 (just after reunification). 70% of them came in the strike last spring against ‘externalisation', ie the relocation of 50,000 telecom jobs. This in a country which has for so long been presented as a dynamic economy and a model of social harmony.

The railway strike

All that is a thing of the past. The railway workers' strike which ended in January after ten months shows that clearly enough. The number of railway workers has been reduced by half over the last 20 years, and working conditions have deteriorated as never before, wages have been more and more falling behind over the last 15 years, so that working on the railways is now one of the worst paid jobs in the country (around 1500 euros a month on average). During these ten months, the German railway workers were the target of all sorts of manoeuvres, threats and pressures.

- Last August the German courts declared that the railway strike was illegal. In fact the three day strike launched by the train drivers in November and clearly announced as an ‘indefinite' strike, was immediately, and as if by a miracle, legalised by the courts the moment the French railway workers also went on strike.

- The trade unions played a major role in carving up the workers' response, through a division of labour between those unions that advocated legal methods and the more radical ones that were ready to break the law, like the corporatist train drivers' union, the GDL, which was presented as the animating force behind the strike.

- The media launched a whole campaign about the ‘selfish' nature of the strike, although in reality it won a lot of sympathy among the majority of working class passengers, who saw the railway workers as common victims of ‘social injustice.'

- The German state tried to intimidate the train drivers by threatening to make them pay the millions of euros lost through the strike.

Despite all this, the railway workers did not back down and the German bourgeoisie had to make some concessions.

The strike ended with an 11% increase in wages, but not for all categories of Deutsche Bahn employees. This result was far short of the 31% demanded by the workers ten months ago and has already been eaten away by all the wage agreements of the last 19 months, including a reduction in hours from a 41 to a 40 hour week for the 20,000 train drivers, which will begin in ...February 2009. But it is still significant that the state made some concessions to the workers' demands in order to release a certain amount of social steam.

The struggle around Nokia in Bochum

The rising militancy of workers in Germany was illustrated in a more striking manner when the Finnish mobile company Nokia announced for the end of 2008 the closure of its site at Bochum which employs 2300 workers. When you take in the dependent jobs, this would mean a loss of 4000 jobs for the town. On 16 January, the day after the announcement, the workers refused to go to work and the workers of the nearby Opel factory, with others from Mercedes, steelworkers from the Hoechst plant in Dortmund, metal workers from Herne and miners from the region flocked to the gates of the Nokia factory to give their support and solidarity. On 22 January, a 15,000 strong demonstration marched through Bochum to show solidarity with the Nokia workers.

The workers were thus forging links with past struggles. In 2004, the workers of the Daimler-Benz factory in Bremen struck spontaneously, defying the blackmailing attempts of the management which tried to play the card of competition with the Daimler plant in Stuttgart, which was threatened with redundancies. A few months later, other car workers, those from Opel in Bochum, also launched a spontaneous strike against the same kinds of threats. It was precisely to prevent this kind of solidarity towards the Nokia workers that the government, regional and local politicians, the church, the unions and the German bosses' organisations orchestrated a major national campaign, denouncing Nokia's lack of scruples and accusing them of having "scandalously abused" the German state and of having taken advantage of its subsidies. All swore, hand on heart, that they had offered these funds to safeguard jobs and that today they are ready to fight tooth and nail to defend ‘their' workers against disloyal bosses The hypocrisy of this argument is all the greater given that the working class in Germany is being particularly exposed to the attacks of the bourgeoisie (retirement age raised to 67, redundancy plans, cuts in all social benefits in the ‘Agenda 2010' plan ...).

The perspective is for the development of the class struggle. Such a development, in a country as central as Germany, with all the weighty historical experience of its proletariat, can only be a catalyst for workers' struggles across the continent. And it is for this reason that the bourgeoisie is posing in Bochum as the defender and protector of ‘its' workers. Its aim is to smother the real expressions of workers' solidarity we have seen there and to prevent them from spreading. WA (27.1.08)

This is the latest in a series of articles celebrating the anniversary of the Russian revolution of October 1917 and the international revolutionary wave which followed. Although written in response to particular bourgeois campaigns in France, the denigration and distortion of the October revolution is a fundamental plank of bourgeois ideology everywhere, so the article loses none of its validity by being translated into English.

Every ten years, the bourgeoisie commemorates, in its own manner, the anniversary of the worst experience it has ever had: the proletarian revolution in Russia in October 1917. And every ten years, the ideological juggernaut of the bourgeois media is there to demonstrate not only that ‘Red October' was a terrible thing, but that it could only open the door to the worst kind of barbarity.

Thus, the articles from the newspaper Le Monde on 6-8 November, signed Jan Krauze, and the TV programme Arte featuring the pseudo-historian Marc Ferro (who has recently brought out documents from the unpublished archives) are particularly repulsive examples of the systematic falsification of the Russian revolution of 1917. Having carried out their ‘coup d'état', the Bolsheviks "turned with unprecedented savagery" against all the "social categories" which had helped them take power. Lenin was an "infallible demagogue" demanding "rivers of blood", "endlessly stirring up hatred" and "fixing quotas of people to liquidate". He apparently called for the Commissariat of Justice to be renamed "Commissariat of Extermination"! These capitalist scribblers, rifling in the archaeological record, have made their own contribution to the campaign of demonisation of the Bolsheviks and denigration of the Russian revolution. This campaign has featured The Black Book of Communism and recently took the form of the campaign of criminalisation of the movements of students and railway workers in France this winter. This is how the French bourgeoisie has celebrated the anniversary of the proletarian revolution of October 1917.

Who were the Bolsheviks?

The biggest lie, the one on which all the others are based, is that the revolution was nothing but a ‘coup d'état' carried out by a small band of criminals followed by an ignorant popular mass. For its bourgeois detractors, this was certainly not a revolution of the broad exploited masses, whose children were falling like flies at the battlefront, sacrificed on the altar of capitalist war (the existence of the Czarist regime, a vestige of feudalism, didn't mean that Russia in 1917 was not a capitalist state). October 1917 was a ‘plot' by a bloodthirsty minority, the Bolsheviks. Thus, the article in Le Monde tries to show that there was little to choose between the Bolsheviks and any other brand of adventurer ready to do anything to take power. October 1917, according to our great delver into the unpublished archives, Marc Ferro, was no more than a ‘Jacquerie' by backward peasants.

The Bolshevik party has a history which disproves this shameful lie. It came out of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which was affiliated to the Second International. The Bolshevik fraction was on its extreme left wing and was able to wage an intransigent political struggle in defence of proletarian class principles against all the confused and conciliatory tendencies within the RSDLP, including the opportunism of the Mensheviks. In particular, faced with the misery and military barbarism imposed on the exploited masses in Czarist Russia, the Bolsheviks were always the best defenders of all the oppressed, the proletarians or poor peasants. In 1905, when the ‘soviets' (councils) of workers, peasants and soldiers were spontaneously formed, it was Lenin who was among the first to insist that, faced with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (whether ‘Czarist' or ‘democratic'), the soviets were the "finally discovered form of the dictatorship of the proletariat". The Bolshevik fraction inside the RSDLP came out of a whole tradition of struggles against capitalism, carried out in clandestinity by working class militants who had to deal with a constant and very efficient form of repression. The Bolsheviks always firmly defended the political positions of the proletariat: not only did they take part in workers' struggles wherever they could, but also engaged in sharp polemics within the Second International, calling for concrete political policies against the drive towards imperialist war, furiously denouncing the treason of the social democrats who helped to mobilise millions of workers for the first world slaughter. They were the most determined defenders of the old watchword of the Communist manifesto of 1848: "Workers have no country, workers of all countries unite!" In Russia they were practically alone in defending an internationalist position in 1914. This impeccable internationalism put them at the vanguard of the revolutionary masses in 1917. the proletariat of the whole world had its eyes fixed on the October revolution in Russia which, thanks to its extension to Germany and the fraternisation of the soldiers at the front, forced the world bourgeoisie to put an end to the Great War. The Bolshevik party was recognised as a beacon for the working class by the other revolutionaries of the time, including revolutionary syndicalists and anarchists like Alfred Rosmer and Victor Serge. And above all it understood that only the oppressed and exploited masses would be able to bring the war to an end. Lenin's slogan "turn the imperialist war into a civil war" (i.e. a class war against the bourgeoisie) was not the slogan of a small minority of plotters fomenting a ‘coup d'état'. Would Professor Marc Ferro[1] (in the wake of the campaign organised by Monsieur Courtois with his Black Book of Communism) have preferred the world butchery to have continued? His very ‘democratic' literature, with his air of outraged virginity, is really just a shameful insult against all these young people wiped out on the battlefields, all those who came back wounded and mutilated from the front[2].

When he returned to Petrograd (today's St Petersburg) in April 1917, Lenin was aware that the party of the proletariat had to stop supporting the ‘democratic' Provisional Government which had succeeded the Czar, affirming that the "the masses are a hundred times further left than the party". For an opportunist greedy for power, this wasn't a very skilful move! All the more because the Russian democrats were at that point offering him and the Bolshevik party a place in the Provisional Government.

Who made the Russian revolution?

The bourgeoisie is however prepared to admit that this was a rather "strange coup d'état"[3] (Le Monde, 6 November). This is because the Bolsheviks, although obviously very determined, were only a small minority at the beginning of the revolution. Because the objective they put forward in the working class - the overthrow of the ‘democratic' bourgeois government led by Kerensky - was open and public, discussed everywhere to the point where the date of the insurrection was known in advance. A totally contradictory element: how could a ‘coup d'état' by a small group of plotters have succeeded without even the benefit of surprise? The answer is simple: the Kerensky government was incapable of satisfying the demands of the worker and peasant masses who were dying of hunger and cold in the slaughter at the front. The masses demanded ‘bread and peace!' If the Provisional Government was unable to stand up to the revolutionary impetus of the working masses, it was because it had no support from within the social body. The army was falling apart: the workers in uniform were being won to revolutionary ideas, and the peasants hated the political heirs of the great landowners as much as the Provisional Government which was unable either to divide up the estates of the feudal proprietors or put an end to the war. As for the working class, in the rear or at the front, it knew that within its ranks there was a small minority which had "a clear awareness of the means and goals of the proletarian movement as a whole" (Communist Manifesto). This is why the masses were waiting for Lenin's return from exile in Switzerland (since the Bolshevik party, weakened by the exile of so many of its members, needed all its strength[4]). When he got back to Russia in April 1917, he was welcomed with open arms by the workers who had come in force to meet him on the platform of the Finland Station in Petrograd. This warm welcome had nothing to do with the fact that these proletarians were "uncultured" and were being "manipulated" by the great "demagogue" Lenin[5]. It was simply because, to be able to struggle against the imperialist war, the battalions of the Russian proletariat needed a determined and far-seeing political direction to their mass movement: it was thanks to the April Theses, written by Lenin, that the Bolshevik party was able to reinforce itself. The workers demanded no less. For them, as for all the non-exploiting classes and strata, it was a matter of survival. These masses of workers, peasants and soldiers were less stupid than certain highly ‘cultured' scribblers of the decadent bourgeoisie. It was at the demand of wide layers of the proletariat, organised in the soviets, that the ‘Military Revolutionary Committee' (MRC), nominated by the Petrograd Soviet where the Bolsheviks were in the majority, was able to organise and coordinate the overthrow of the Provisional Government. The seizure of power was carried out mainly by the workers' militia, the Red Guard, and by the sailors of the Kronstadt garrison who trained their naval guns on the Winter Palace where Kerensky sat with his ministers. And the latter were isolated by the fact that their telephone lines were cut off by the telecommunication workers. This small cabal of minsters around Kerensky was arrested on the basis of a decree of the MRC, although Kerensky was able to escape in a car provided by the American embassy. If this insurrection, which was anything but a ‘jacquerie by backward peasants' was able to succeed, it was also because the garrisons of the capital, convinced by the arguments of the Bolsheviks and the mass action of the workers, rallied one after another to the camp of the proletarian revolution, to the point where the government fell like a house of cards, practically without a fight.

 

---

 

Glasgow 1917: The above edict, forbidding the holding of a meeting in Glasgow to call for workers’ and soldiers’ councils, was issued on the orders of the War Cabinet. Even before the October insurrection, the bourgeoisie was aware of the danger of the ‘Russian example

 

---

 

It was not surprising that the soviets, which were formed by the centralisation of mass assemblies, went over to those who were providing clear political answers to the questions posed by all the non-exploiting layers of the population. "End the war! Expropriate the bourgeoisie! Overthrow the Provisional Government! Spread the revolution internationally!" The election of Trotsky to the presidency of the Petrograd soviet was not a ‘coup d'état', but a logical consequence of the fact that the working class as a whole was more and more recognising itself in the political leadership provided by the Bolsheviks. The soviets were not a rubber stamp for the decisions of the Bolshevik party. They expressed the living activity of the class itself. The fact that the Bolsheviks, who were the most conscious of the tasks of the hour, were able to win a majority in the soviets through the most animated debates, is no mystery, except for the official historians. This had nothing to do with conspiracies and behind the scenes manoeuvres by the ‘great demagogue' Lenin.

The so-called ‘coup d'état' denounced by the ideologists of the bourgeoisie was not carried out by a small cohort of Machiavellian plotters, but by the proletariat, whose actions were discussed and voted on beforehand in the soviets. The October insurrection was a living testimony to the real power of the soviets, just as the centralisation of the insurrection by the RMC (headed by Trotsky who was a mandated delegate) was an expression of the collective and unitary character of the proletarian mass movement.

The Holy Alliance of the great democracies strangles the Russian revolution

The Russian revolution could not survive by remaining isolated in one country and the Bolsheviks were perfectly well aware of this. They waited impatiently for its extension to all the other industrialised countries, and above all to Germany. Every month, the delay of the revolution in Europe was a tragedy for the Russian revolution, which was subjected to the counter-revolutionary pressure not only of the White Armies, but of all the capitalist powers, who were continuing to savage each other in the Great War, but who were totally united in the need to drown the revolution in blood. How is it that the paid ideologues of capital don't mention in their press the bloody massacre of a quarter of the working class population of Finland by the German army in the spring of 1918? Is it because they haven't discovered the ‘unpublished archives' or because their role is to falsify history? How is it that these ‘brilliant' writers have not written about the fact that it was these same German armies who shortly afterwards were fraternising with the enemy troops? Perhaps these ideologues have not understood that such sudden and unforeseen turnarounds had a simple explanation: the belligerent armies were made up of workers in uniform who had had enough of being massacred by other workers in uniform, who could no longer tolerate this bloody and fratricidal conflict. These workers, and the ‘uncultured' peasants, had become aware that their exploiters had turned them into killing machines, thanks to all the nationalist propaganda and the treason of the social democratic parties who had gone over to the camp of capital after 1914. Evidently, this ‘extermination' of 20 million people during the first of capital's Great Wars does not shock these accusers of the Bolsheviks!

The bourgeoisie was well aware of the global stakes of the October revolution in Russia. This is why the Holy Alliance of all the camps of capital preferred to sign the armistice and unite their forces in order to crush the revolution in Germany, encircle Soviet Russia by establishing a cordon sanitaire around its borders and imposing an economic blockade so that its population starved. The paid hacks of capital don't need the ‘unpublished archives' (now on offer by Putin) to know any of this!

Faced with the offensive launched by well-equipped professional armies, the proletariat in Russia had to defend itself with the means at hand. What's more the revolution paid heavily for some of its errors: thus the Bolsheviks initially released most of the counter-revolutionaries they had captured on a promise that they wouldn't bear arms against the revolution. None of them kept their promise.

If the October revolution degenerated, if the soviets were not able to maintain themselves as organs of workers' power, and if the Bolshevik party ended up identifying itself with the state, it was because of the failure of the revolution in Germany and of its extension to the other industrialised countries. It was the Social Democratic Party which smashed the proletarian revolution in Germany (and we should not forget that the Freikorps it recruited for this job formed the backbone of the future Nazi SA). The barbarism of the capitalist counter-revolution was only able to be unleashed thanks to the propagandists of the bourgeoisie with their cynical anti-Bolshevik campaigns[6].

The aim of the seizure of power in Russia was to ‘hold out' until the proletarian revolution in Western Europe came to the aid of the Russian revolution. And Lenin even wrote that "losing the revolution in Russia will not matter if we win it in Germany". Strange kind of tyrant this, accepting the loss of ‘his' revolution so that another could win!

The ruling class is incapable of understanding October 1917

For the ruling class, it is impossible to understand the action of the working masses can be a conscious action: the bourgeoisie believes, and will always believe, that a revolution can only be the work of a few determined plotters who succeed in manipulating the exploited masses and persuading them to realise their designs. This conspiratorial vision of history, at root wholly irrational, is the proof that the bourgeoisie is a class which no longer has any historic future. It can only maintain itself as a ruling class by wallowing in blood and filth. As for the ‘scoops' by the hired hacks of capital, they more and more take the form of sordid gossip. It's not just a tissue of lies functioning in defence of the dictatorship of capital: the bourgeoisie is quite incapable of understanding that wide layers of the exploited class could develop a clear understanding of the stakes of history and take power, not to set up a new dictatorship based on the exploitation of man by man, a blind anarchy, a bloody chaos, but a new mode of production and a new society: world communist society.

From the standpoint of the capitalist class, the idea that the working class could be the bearer of a higher, clearer form of consciousness, free of the alienation imposed by its position as an exploited class, is inconceivable and intolerable. In his History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky gives us many examples of the insults the bourgeoisie hurled against the workers, who it thought incapable of the least degree of political thought.

The proletariat, weakened by the betrayal of social democracy, was not able to overturn the capitalist order on a world level. But it did prove that it had the strength, when it was united, solid, and collectively organised, to put an end to the barbarism of war, concretely refuting all the lies of the bourgeoisie about the immutable nature of its system, its frontiers, its national states. The proletariat showed in practice that everything that Marx and the communists had said was no hot air: the proletariat is the only revolutionary class in capitalist society. And today, once again, on the occasion of the anniversary of the October revolution, which opened up the first international revolutionary wave, the workers' movement must denounce the reactionary, obscurantist nature of the present anti-communist campaigns.

The working class in France has been celebrating the anniversary of October 1917 in its own way, paying practical homage to the generations of workers who overthrew the bourgeois government of Kerensky and took power. Faced with the intensification of exploitation, and all the lies of the media, the students and railway workers, without yet being aware of it, made their own salute to the Russian revolution by launching a movement which loosened the mask of the trade unions, and above all the Stalinist union, the CGT.

As in 1917-18, it was above all the younger generation of the working class which was at the forefront of the struggle and was able to draw the principal lesson of the Russian revolution: "if we remain on our own, they will eat us for breakfast"[7] . As for the internationalist communists, they must also render homage to Lenin and all his Bolshevik comrades whose contribution to the workers' movement remains inestimable. And just as the Bolsheviks knew by heart the lessons of the Paris Commune, the revolutionaries of tomorrow will remember and make use of the example of the Russian revolution by drawing out its lessons and criticising its errors. BM,January 2008.

 

---

 

[1] Certain fans of ‘black humour' from the former eastern bloc countries, like the ones who have edited a book called Draw me a Bolshevik are participating in this same anti-Bolshevik propaganda but in a more ‘subtle' way. These first big ‘discoveries' of the 21st century were (as if by chance) made public at the same moment as the anniversary of the October revolution. Did our brilliant explorers go on the same organised trip, on the same charter? In any case, they deserve at least a Nobel Prize for Social Peace. As for the honest ‘intellectuals' who don't know much about this historical period, they would do well to be a bit more modest rather than displaying their prejudices in public, unless they want to end up like Marc Ferro: a warterer watered (reference to very early comedy film L'arroseur arrose)

[2] Even humanist scientists and intellectuals of the time (such as Freud, Romain Rolland, Stefan Sweig) had a lot of sympathy for the Bolsheviks. These ‘free thinkers' had at least the merit of not running with the wolves of capital, like Monsieur Marc Ferro.

[3] Lenin was not in Russia at the time and could not have manipulated the masses from afar since there was no television! And if these masses were so uncultivated, they would have been incapable of understanding the Bolshevik press.

[4] See our article in International Review 89: ‘April Theses 1917, signpost to the proletarian revolution', https://en.internationalism.org/ir/089/April-theses [10]

[5] The predecessors of our modern media put out posters showing Bolsheviks with knives between their teeth, with the aim of spreading the message: ‘proletarians of all countries, submit to the capitalist order!' it was precisely this order, this social peace (obtained in particular through Stalin's extermination of the Bolshevik old guard and of the Spartacists in Germany by the ‘Socialists') which opened the way to the second world holocaust of 1939-45..

[6] The intellectuals who still believe in the greatest lie in history - the continuity between the proletarian revolution of October 1917 and Stalinism, which was its gravedigger - would do better to change their reading habits if they want to remain intelligent.

[7] Point made by a student in the struggle against the CPE in 2006. The students didn't need ‘unpublished archives' or ‘Bolsheviks' in their general assemblies to understand the ABC of history

Two weeks after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, President Musharraf said "Pakistan is not on the verge of disintegration" [12] . The man who has ruled Pakistan as military dictator for 8 years, newly turned civilian president, is commenting on the possibility of the country breaking up. Even if he responds in the negative, even if he tells us "Pakistan is not Lebanon" and does not need the UN to investigate the assassination, still the question of the disintegration and Lebanisation of the country has been posed by the President of the country.

Clearly the assassination, whoever carried it out, is just one more example of how the ruling class conducts its politics and settles its differences just like gangsters. But this would only be secondary in the life of the bourgeoisie if it did not take place within a dramatic context which opens the way to growing chaos whose main victims will be the population in general and the working class in particular.

Equally dramatic was the commentary by Michael Portillo, British politician and commentator (and Secretary of State for Defence in the Major government during the 1990s), who wrote of the "assassination" of the West's foreign policy in Pakistan. So who was this great hope for a stable, moderate, democratic Pakistan able to play a full and reliable part in the "war on terror"? The head of the Bhutto feudal dynasty from Sindh, and therefore the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, a former prime minister whose two previous terms in office ended in failure and scandals, who was only allowed back into the country with an amnesty on corruption charges, was an unlikely saviour of democracy. But the PPP looked likely to win the election and the US and Britain had hoped she would provide a democratic face for a pro-western government, able to shore up Musharraf's declining authority. In the aftermath of the assassination PPP supporters went on the rampage burning whatever they could, and from the other side suicide bombings have continued unabated, reaching 20 in the last 3 months. Although the PPP may gain a sympathy vote in the postponed elections this month, the party does not have the solidity to play its promised role without Benazir Bhutto, and has had to resort to making her 19 year old son, Bilawal, its designated figurehead with her widower, Zardari (known as "Mister Ten Percent" since his time as minister for investment in the mid 1990s) as regent. The other high profile opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League, has declared he would not work with Musharraf and is currently campaigning against close cooperation with the USA.

Pakistan never able to forge a coherent state

Pakistan, created in 1947, is a mosaic of ethnic and tribal rivalries - Punjabis, Sindhis, Pakhtuns, Baloch, Mohajir[1] - united only by Islam. The Pakistani state has been unable to really control this collection at any time. Federally Administered Tribal Areas have been no-go areas since British rule, where each tribe "has its own armory and they don't like intrusions into their privacy at all"[2]. To maintain a minimum of stability Musharraf even had to establish a sort of pact between the different Islamist parties: "support us in Islamabad, and you will be free to run your own areas", before the army dared to enter the Tribal Areas in 2001. It is in fact very difficult to draw a clear distinction between the secret services and the Islamists. Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) trained and equipped the Taliban until they took power in Afghanistan, and there is every reason to suppose that they continue to maintain ties to the Taliban and even Al Qaeda today.[3]

Even before the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the USA armed and manipulated a series of "freedom fighters" to pin the Russians down in a bloody and debilitating war.[4] Pakistan played an important role in the US proxy war since much of the money and weapons sent to the Taliban (in those days the Taliban had US-supplied Stinger missiles on their side as well as Allah!) and other "freedom fighters" was channelled through the Pakistani ISI - much to the latter's own profit.[5] Following the collapse of the USSR the US lost most of its interest in Afghanistan, but the situation changed radically after 9/11 when the US decided to hunt down and destroy its former Taliban and Al Qaeda allies.[6] Pakistan found itself in an impossible situation, forced by its dependence on American goodwill and military aid to turn against its own allies amongst the Islamists, yet at the same time trying to continue using the latter in its endless war with India over Kashmir. Pakistan had good relations with the Taliban, and it needed the Afghan hinterland to strengthen its hand in the conflict with India over Kashmir. Yet Pakistan was strategically vital for the US invasion, and in the end had no choice but to cooperate:[7] the Pakistani army had to enter tribal areas it had not set foot in for 50 years, areas where Al Qaeda operate more or less at will. While the US was riding high following its military victories in Afghanistan and then Iraq this was bad enough, but as it has become bogged down in both countries its enemies and rivals have become bolder. Pakistan and Musharraf have therefore found themselves in the uncomfortable position of being chained to a declining superpower. The tribal areas have become increasingly unsettled, fighting has extended from the North Western Frontier to the tourist region of Swat, on several occasions during 2007 soldiers surrendered to Islamists without firing a shot, humiliating Musharraf. The opposition has also gained ground, forcing Musharraf to step down as army chief and allow opposition leaders back into the country ahead of the elections, in spite of his state of emergency and spat with the Supreme Court.

Since the assassination there has been much suspicion in Pakistan that the murder was ordered by the secret service, or even by Musharraf himself. On the face of it however, it is difficult to see what advantage the latter could gain from Bhutto's death. Indeed Bhutto had returned to Pakistan more as an ally than a rival to Musharraf: both defended the same pro-American foreign policy orientation, and while Musharraf has manipulated Islamist support he is above all a pragmatist who has no desire to see Pakistan go the way of the Taliban. If anything Musharraf needed Bhutto, even as a victorious presidential candidate, in order to maintain some kind of stability internally, and some kind of "democratic" credentials with the US.

It does seem perfectly possible, on the other hand, that the assassination was the work of elements in the ISI close to the Taliban, opposed to Bhutto both for ideological reasons and because they feared a potential threat to their lucrative gun- and drug-running business into Afghanistan.

The only thing we can be certain of is that Bhutto's assassination has deprived the Pakistani ruling class of one of its last hopes of maintaining some kind of stability. The very fact that she is to be succeeded by a 19-year old boy whose sole claim to the position is dynastic - and is moreover hotly disputed by members of his own party, opening up the very real possibility that the PPP will simply disintegrate - is indicative of just how unstable the situation is and how little real solidity there is in the ruling class. As in so many peripheral countries, the only real unifying force in Pakistan is the army and the secret service: if these institutions start to tear each other apart, then the perspective for the country and its population is grim indeed - a downward spiral into increasingly violent inter-ethnic killings, manipulated by different fractions of a disintegrating ruling class.

A nuclear timebomb

But this is not all. Pakistan is at the heart of enormous imperialist tensions, between the USA and its rivals in the region such as Iran, between India and China, between the USA and Russia, and its own increasing weakness and instability cannot help but further destabilise the whole region. It has been involved in a 60 year conflict with its larger Indian neighbour over Kashmir which has led to three wars. A feeble Pakistan inevitably strengthens India and may encourage aggression from that quarter. But China cannot stand idly by and see its Indian rival gain at the expense of its Pakistani ally (in the 1990s China helped Pakistan join the nuclear club as a counterweight to India, so that when conflict erupted over Kashmir in 2004 the two countries squaring up to each other were both nuclear powers). The USA gets nothing from this conflict and only wants to limit it, as it did in 2004. As far as South East Asia is concerned its interests coincide with India in wanting to limit China's power, hence the recent US-India agreements on nuclear power. On the other hand the USA needs Pakistan as a staging post and supply line for its adventure in Afghanistan, which has so far led it to try and shore up Musharraf as a force for stability, and much to the disappointment of the Indian bourgeoisie regards him as an ally against terrorism rather than a perpetrator of it. Of course Pakistan, just like the US, Britain and every other imperialism, is both - a perpetrator of terrorism when it advances their interests and an opponent when it does not. Nevertheless, the instability in Pakistan encourages Islamist groups in the Middle East, just as the USA's difficulties have weakened Musharraf and encouraged Al Qaeda and suicide bombings there.

At the present time the USA is concentrating on what it can do to make up for Pakistan's deficiencies as an ally. It has negotiated an agreement to send its forces into Western Pakistan against Al Qaeda, or even to negotiate directly with the tribal leaders. Musharraf may be protesting that there is no need and that the US would regret breaching national sovereignty, but the deal has already been agreed, and on recent evidence it is difficult to see what the Pakistan army could do about it. US presidential hopeful Obama has gone further, proposing the bombing of Al Qaeda strongholds with or without consent.[8] Similarly the US has now imposed conditions on aid to Pakistan - military funding will be conditional on performance in the war on terror.

Another major concern relates to the dangers of nuclear weapons being help in such an unstable state as Pakistan. Of course we cannot regard any bourgeoisie as a safe pair of hands to protect us from imperialist war with any of the weapons at their disposal, as the whole history of the 20th century shows, and "Pakistan has already made it clear that, in the face of a superior enemy, it would be prepared to initiate a nuclear confrontation" (The Guardian 23/5/02). However, there is a more immediate danger pointed our by Muhammad ElBaradei of the IAEA, that nuclear weapons "could fall into the hands of an extremist group in Pakistan or in Afghanistan", and "I fear a system of chaos or extremist regime in this state, which has 30 or 40 nuclear weapons". Hilary Clinton has called for Pakistan to share responsibility for these weapons with the US and perhaps Britain.

Meanwhile misery is heaped on the population. Pakistan is still "home" to over a million Afghan refugees; more than two years after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake 400,000 are facing another winter without proper shelter, 600 schools have still not been rebuilt; the population in ever increasing areas is a victim of the fighting and even in the most ‘stable' of cities the population is subject to the violence of gang warfare and suicide bombings.

Bhutto was supposed to bring hope and democracy to Pakistan - her assassination and the events that have followed are yet another demonstration that even if a democratic and peaceful Pakistan were a possibility, which it is not, this would not put an end to the suffering of the population. Only the communist revolution will be able to do that.

2nd February 2008

 

---

 

[1] The Mohajir are descendants of the Muslim refugees forced to leave India after independence from Britain and the partition of India and Pakistan, leading to the biggest episode of ethnic cleansing in history.

[2] CNN report [13] .

[3] "Musharraf was quick to blame the killing [of Bhutto] on Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader from the Afghan border area of southern Waziristan with links to Al Qaeda... Critics pointed out Mehsud had previously been working with the Pakistan military, receiving handreds of thousands of dollars and that if the country's intelligence service could tape his conversations, they should be able to capture him." (Sunday Times, 13/01/2008).

[4] In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

[5] According to a paper published on a French government web site (https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/Gayer.pdf [14]), "Although the regulating authority of central government seems to be contested by its populations' illicit trans-national relations (...) the agents of the Pakistani state also profit from this ‘grey zone' on the border with Afghanistan where they can take a discreet part in all kinds of illegal activity which both serve their own personal interests and finance certain government policies. The involvement of many prominent political and military figures in the trade of ‘white gold' [ie heroin], which every year generates a profit greater than the entire Pakistani budget is doubtless due to strategies of personal enrichment but also to the determination of the leaders of the Pakistani military to acquire a nuclear capacity, their nuclear research programmes being financed in large part by the profit from the drugs trade".

[6] During the Russian occupation Osama Bin Laden worked as intermediary between the CIA and the Saudi secret services, and the Taliban and other Islamist groups.

[7] According to a BBC report [15] , "The US threatened to bomb Pakistan ‘back to the stone age' unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda, President Pervez Musharraf has said. General Musharraf said the warning was delivered by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Pakistan 's intelligence director. ‘I think it was a very rude remark', Gen Musharraf told CBS television. Pakistan agreed to side with the US , but Gen Musharraf said it did so based on his country's national interest. ‘One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did', he said".

[8] Reuters, 1st August 2007 [16].

Since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 there has been no let up in the effects of the conflict on the local population, caught between invading western armies, feuding warlords and the Taliban. While the media fawn on ‘our hero' Prince Harry, leading US generals admit that the mission is on the verge of failure, claiming that Karzai's Kabul government only controls 30% of the country.

Equally, on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq you can look back and see an endless procession of atrocities, whether by the occupying forces or the insurgent ‘Resistance'. Despite the US government's claim that the ‘surge is working', the numbers of Iraqis meeting violent deaths has again started to rise, with at least 633 civilians dying in February alone. And death comes not only though the aerial, car and suicide bombardments that indiscriminately leave their victims strewn across the landscape, but the collapse of the infrastructure and the threat of diseases like cholera.

Having stirred up these hornets' nests in Afghanistan and Iraq, the current US administration seems hell-bent to spread the chaos and destruction even further, as it continues to rattle sabres at Iran. And this is in turn related to the fact that Iran has itself been trying to assert its own regional imperialist interests, particularly through its support for Shia factions in Iraq.

In fact the entire region from the Mediterranean to India is an actual or potential war-zone. The Israeli blockade of Gaza has deprived the population of absolutely basic necessities while civilians continue to be the main victims of Israeli bombardments and Hamas rocket attacks. To the north, Lebanon is still a powder-keg and Turkey is conducting another armed incursion into Iraq in pursuit of the PKK.

Further east, the instability in Pakistan, the possessor of nuclear weaponry, together with the increasing intervention of China and the US in the area, holds the possibility of a precarious situation tipping into catastrophe.

Everywhere you look capitalism's wars continue or, where there is ‘peace', threaten to flare up at a moment's notice. In Europe the ‘independence' of Kosovo brings with it the possibility of re-igniting conflict in the Balkans. In Africa the massacres in Kenya (that ‘haven of peace') take their place alongside Darfur, Chad, Congo and so many other places that could soon be joined by renewed wars between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

The drive to war is inherent in capitalism

The organisers of the 15 March demonstrations describe them as "a global day of protest against Bush's wars". But Bush, whatever his faults, is not uniquely responsible for all the conflicts in the world. His predecessor Bill Clinton didn't hesitate to bomb Serbia. Among his potential successors Hillary Clinton supported the initial attack on Iraq and Barack Obama has said "I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm. Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth..." And in Britain since 1997 Blair and Brown have shown themselves far greater warmongers than Thatcher and Major were in the 18 years of Conservative rule.

It's not because of dodgy individuals, or even particular states, no matter how powerful, that the planet is plagued with military conflict. It's because we live in the historic period of capitalist decline that war has become inherent to the way every nation functions. Every country is compelled to fight for its position, not just economically, but with force of arms in the cockpit of imperialist conflict. This applies just as much to the newest ‘independent' countries such as Kosovo, East Timor and Eritrea as it does to the big powers such as America, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan. Militarism is a condition of contemporary capitalism regardless of the hopes and desires of the individuals in the ruling class.

It was the First World War that definitively confirmed that, because the great capitalist powers had divided up the world market, all each capitalist state could do was fight for its re-division in their favour.

The First World War was not the ‘war to end all wars'. The Second World War mobilised and massacred even more millions under the ideological banners of fascism or democracy, and led to a world redivided between American and Russian imperialist blocs. The period of Cold War was not one of peace but of scores of local wars, most of them as much proxy battles between greater powers as between the participants on the ground. Meanwhile both blocs coldly developed the technology for Mutually Assured Destruction, the ultimate no-win situation.

And when the Russian bloc fell apart, which meant that there was no way that the US could maintain the discipline of its ‘allies', it unleashed the period in which we are still living: that of ‘everyone for themselves'. Alliances have become less stable and conflicts more chaotic, and the threat of nuclear war is in many ways even more acute than it was in the Cold war period.

War has become integral to the way that capitalism functions. The weakest countries fight for their very existence. The strongest countries try to consolidate and reinforce their position. Imperialism is not a sin restricted to a few powerful states but has become a way of operating essential to all capitalist regimes, down to the smallest proto-state or nationalist gang.

The working class holds the key

But, just as the drive to war is fundamental for capitalism, so is the existence of the working class, the class whose exploitation is at the heart of capitalist production. The working class is the only force with the capacity to take on the capitalist system that gives rise to war. The clearest demonstration of this was the end of the First World War. It was the weight of workers' strikes, soldiers' mutinies and revolutions in Russia and Germany which brought the Great War to a finish. The working class had had enough of the slaughter and started struggling for its own interests, which do not correspond to those of the capitalist war machine.

Internationally, in the late 1960s, in the 70s and 80s, you didn't have to look far to see expressions of the class struggle. Indeed it was the resistance of the working class which made it impossible for the two imperialist blocs to mobilise their respective populations for world war during that period. During the 1990s there was disorientation in the working class and a very low level of struggles. But in recent years we have begun to see the re-emergence of the class struggle. Whatever the immediate reasons for workers' struggles, the defence of our own interests, the self-organisation and extension of our struggles, and the development of relations of solidarity, all lay the basis for creating a force that can finally put and end to capitalism and its war machine. WR 29/2/8

We are publishing here the first of two articles on British capitalism from Bilan, the theoretical organ of the Italian communist left in the 1930s. ‘Evolution de l'imperialisme anglais', signed Mitchell, appeared in Bilan 13 and 14, December 1934 and January 1935. The motivation for studying the situation of British imperialism is stated at the beginning of the article: the necessity for the proletariat to have a precise understanding of the major imperialist forces leading it towards another world war, and the specific reasons for the decline of British imperialism as part of the general decline of the capitalist system as a whole. Many of the elements given in Mitchell's essay are still enormously important for any analysis of the real state of British capitalism today. We thus intend to follow up the Bilan articles with other contributions which will enable us to update and concretise the rich historical insights that they contain.

In our study ‘Crises and cycles of capitalism in agony' (republished in International Reviews no102 and 103), we tried to show the significance of the general crisis of bourgeois society. We aimed to make it clear that capitalism in general and the imperialist groupings in particular are now obliged to follow the decadent historical course that has been mapped out for them. Because the irresolvable contradiction between the ‘socialist' form of production and the capitalist mode of distributing products no longer allows capitalism to continue with the development of its productive forces, it is clear that all the expressions of its activity from now on are simply various aspects of its need to adapt to the conditions that history has imposed upon it. Since these are very far indeed from representing steps towards the strengthening or stabilisation of capitalism and a revival of its progressive role - such a perspective has now been definitively excluded - these expressions, these ‘recoveries', are leading the system, through the exacerbation of its contradictions, towards imperialist war or revolution. Now that a series of proletarian defeats has stifled the second eventuality, the political and economic course being followed by capitalism can only be a material preparation of the economic apparatus, and the ideological preparation of the masses, for imperialist war. The road towards this is uneven and incoherent, since it can only reflect the different degrees of development of the various imperialisms and their readiness for conflict. In order to throw off the chains that bind it to the approaching carnage and oppose it with its own revolutionary solution, the proletariat must make an immense effort aimed at discerning and analysing the enemy forces that confront it.

British imperialism is one of the most powerful of these forces, one of the two or three poles of attraction for the secondary capitalist formations. But the powerful group which dominated the world prior to the 1914 conflict is now being undermined by the microbes of decomposition; and although the decadence of Britain is just one aspect of the decadence of capitalism in general, the classic form it has assumed and the considerable weight it exerts within the world economy makes it a particularly interesting case to examine.

The rise of British world supremacy

While Britain was the birthplace of industrial capitalism, it was not in fact the first capitalist nation. In the history of primitive accumulation, of mercantile capital, the product of commercial and colonial pillage, it was preceded by Spain and above all by Holland.

But after the opening up of the great ocean routes, England's key position by the Atlantic favoured its rise to maritime and colonial supremacy. The bourgeois revolution which Cromwell carried through in 1649 in the interest of the already-powerful class of merchants and manufacturers, allowed the latter to extend their commercial networks across the globe (this took them the best part of a century). The Navigation Act of 1651, by assuring the British Isles a monopoly in maritime transport, laid the basis for its naval power. At the same time, the adoption of protectionism, vital for the defence of its nascent industry (and which soon provoked a response from Colbert in France) made Britain the greatest manufacturer in the world.

In sum, Britain's prosperity, which blossomed in all its arrogant pride up until the end of the 19th century, was fed by three essential activities by the bourgeoisie: first, its universal role as a merchant class which, as Engels said, "is the class, which, without playing the slightest part in production, knows how to conquer its general management and to economically subjugate the producers; a class which makes itself the indispensable intermediary between two producers and exploits both of them". It was this parasitic function which assumed a considerable importance in the British economy and we should not lose sight of this.

Next, its industrial activity, which was able to embark upon a dizzying ascent thanks, on the one hand, to the support of a considerable sum of merchant capital accumulated over nearly two centuries of pillage and exploitation of the indigenous and colonial masses; and, on the other hand, to the immense possibilities both for realising surplus value and for capitalising it by placing it in the vast colonial domain won by despoiling the Spanish, Dutch and French colonies. The four corners of the world thus kept British coffers full to the brim. Finally, there was its function as the world's banker.

The cement of the British Empire was its fleet, merchant or naval. This was an indispensable instrument in its capacity to rule over a huge scattered domain which lacked any geographical, economic or political unity. Equally vital was the dense network of its banking apparatus, spread like a net over the whole globe; finally, there were the contractual links of its loans and investments, subjugating the debtor peoples to the City of London, the world's lender. In 1932 this golden chain was worth more than the equivalent of the total national income of the same year, or 3 billion 700 pounds sterling, 3/5 of which were invested in the Dominions and the colonies and the remaining 2/5 abroad, representing almost double the investments of French imperialism, which were mainly placed in Europe.

A domain three times more extensive and with seven times the population of France, with nearly one third of the population of the globe, boasting immense resources of grain, cattle, wool, rubber, metals: this was the field in which British imperialism was able to grow. But this geographical milieu's lack of homogeneity was accentuated by the very sharp differentiation of its constituent parts: on the one hand, former colonies for population, now become Dominions and highly evolved capitalist states in themselves but whose solidarity with the Metropolis was becoming increasingly tenuous: Canada, Australia. On the other hand, colonies for exploitation, such as its possessions in Africa and India - countries which remained backward and where the indigenous bourgeoisie (as in India) far from representing a force capable of moving towards its own emancipation, has made itself the servile instrument of British capitalism in order to subdue a starving proletariat which can only attain its own liberation by linking up with the proletariat of the advanced countries. We should also add the ‘independent' states like the Scandinavian countries, Portugal, Argentina and other so-called ‘sterling' territories: zones of influence and operation for British imperialism.

The financial apparatus was very different from the banking system of French imperialism: the latter, more centralised, more closely linked to production (less however than German or American finance capital) confined its principal activity to exports of capital by states. British banking capital, began its concentration during the Victorian era and this was only just completed on the eve of the war. It reduced the number of banks from 104 in 1890 to 18 in 1924, but it still retained a decentralised character: the five great London banks alone possessed between 1,500 to 2,000 branches spread over Britain and the rest of the world, and, linked to numerous other banking establishments, made up a network of incomparable breadth. But an important characteristic of this colossal apparatus was the fact that it was not greatly interested in direct industrial participation and long-term loans, limiting itself to short term loans and the financing of the wheels of production indirectly, through loans on commodities. Banking income was thus much more a function of the circulation of commodities than of their production: the surplus value which these revenues expressed was produced outside the direct control of the banks. It is a fact that British finance has for a long time ceased to be interested in the industrial and agricultural sphere in the Metropolis, contenting itself with gleaning profits from merchants and colonies and from the capital exports derived from accumulation in industry. It thus serves a powerful bourgeoisie with an aristocratic origin, detached from production and whose interests are in sharp opposition to those of the industrial bourgeoisie. This is explained by the fact that organically, British bank capital is lagging behind that of France, Germany or the USA; the process of fusion of industrial and banking capital was never pushed so far in Britain; its character as ‘finance capital' was never so pronounced. This lag, while it can explain the relative stagnation of the productive forces, can itself be explained by the existence for nearly a century of a highly centralised productive apparatus which was the motor for the prodigious accumulation of British capital and which allowed it to make use of credit for its expansion.

The structural particularities of finance capital constitute both a weakness and a strength: a weakness, because, due to its intimate links with the mechanisms of world trade, it suffered from their perturbations; a strength because, cut off from production, it retains a greater elasticity of action in periods of crisis.

Decline of the ‘workshop of the world'

Such was the imperial field of expansion which the metropolitan economy could rely upon, and which enabled it to reach the peak of its power at the end of the 19th century. How then could its machinery come apart to the point where today it can only function to the extent that the Empire keeps it going with the surplus value extracted by an even more ferocious exploitation of the colonial peoples? To answer this we have to make a very brief analysis of its evolution.

Cobden and his Manchester League, by abolishing the Navigation Act, protection rights and the Corn Law, around the middle of the 19th century, established ‘Free Trade', the pivot of British economic policy. The bourgeoisie, equipped with a solid productive organisation, with abundant resources in coal and minerals, could profit from its privileged situation and accumulate huge amounts of capital as long as it retained a quasi-monopoly in the field of manufacturing. Through the export of its transformative industry, incomes derived from freight and investments, it could overcome the deficiencies of an economy dependent on the outside world for 5/6 of its food needs (the agricultural population is today 6% of the active population whereas in France it is as much as 40%).

The sectors which supplied the essential of British exports were coal, iron and steel, textiles, precisely the ones which were to be the most affected by the decline of the economy and the hardest hit by unemployment.

The structural organisation of the coal industry, although based on the existence of rich seams of carbon that were easily accessible and close to the sea, concealed a ‘congenital' weakness that resulted from the mode of appropriation in the mines. The latter belonged to the owners of the land, who demanded a rent, a "royalty", in exchange for the right to exploit the coal underground. Furthermore, important seams of coal made up the frontiers between different properties; they thus remained unexploited and were definitively lost. A backward technology also increased the price of bringing coal to the surface. At the same time, the development of the coal industry in continental Europe and the US, and the growing use of other sources of energy - hydro-electric, oil etc - led to Great Britain definitively losing its preponderant position in world coal exports, ceding this to the US and falling into third place. But, more importantly, this regression undermined one of the main pillars of its economic armoury: export cargo. Coal constituted the main outgoing cargo that the British fleet distributed to the four corners of the earth, bringing back food and raw materials. The reduction of this cargo considerably cut down the competitive strength of the fleet and the income derived from merchant activity.

The power of the iron and steel industry, which reached its culminating point in the middle of the 19th century, was thus inevitably and strongly affected by the world-wide rise of the capitalist mode of production and the rapid and formidable development of other centres of iron and steel production. Already in 1897 Joseph Chamberlain had tried to react against this threat to the whole of British industry, projecting the creation of an imperial ‘Zollverein'; but the Dominions - themselves capitalist states - would not go along with it. In 1923 Baldwin failed in a similar attempt.

There is no doubt that British heavy industry entered into its phase of decline when we note, for example, that German cast iron production, which was only 2/3 of British levels in 1892, succeeded in doubling itself by 1912. In 20 years, Germany had progressed by 320% and Britain by only 32%. The retreat in British production in relation to world production also manifested itself clearly. For cast iron, 13% in 1913, 7.8% in 1929, rising to 8.4% in 1933. For steel, 10.2% in 1913, 8% in 1929 and 10.5% in 1933. The relative improvement in 1933 is explained by the fact that, sheltered by the 33% protection imposed on imports in 1932, steel producers managed to replace lost external markets with a monopolised national market. The necessity to maintain a monopoly also prevented them from finding a place in the continental steel cartel, and thus from enlarging their exports which, in 1933, remained essentially stationary. We are now seeing an attempt to face this difficulty through export subsidies appropriated from the income derived from domestic sales.

But where the situation proved particularly grave was in the cotton industry which had been the leading source of exports.

Between 1770 and 1815, Britain held a monopoly over the cotton market and through its advanced technology was able to inundate the world with its textile products. Through the mass ruin of native Indian artisans it was able to develop its exports in the subcontinent, after going through the great crisis of 1847 and having pushed the cost onto the proletariat, which was reduced to famine levels. The Lancashire magnates reached the summit of their power around 1860. The saturation of the market in India (its main client) and Australia, the American Civil War, led to the debacle of 1862-63 and threw the cotton industry onto the road of decline. Later on, other factors further aggravated the situation: Japanese competition for the Asian markets, US competition in South America, the growth of the Indian textile industry which, in 1913, had 6 million bobbins, and 9 million in 1933, and which in 1905 worked 50,000 looms and 154,000 in 1926.

The structural weakness of the Lancashire industry, losing ground to better equipped competitors, was above all expressed through the existence of a number of small and medium enterprises which were extremely specialised and constituted a major obstacle to a stronger centralisation. Furthermore, the speculative fever of 1919-20 resulted in overcapitalisation and multiplied the bank charges which weighed heavily on prices.

In the process of concentration and centralisation of cotton enterprises, Britain today is clearly behind Japan, which is the most direct threat to its position in Asia. In 1932, the number of Japanese enterprises was three times lower, with three times as much capital as that of the British factories. Britain, which had been the first to mechanise its looms - since in 1789, it already had steam power - had twice the number of looms as the Japanese in 1932, but they were only 5% automated whereas Japan's were 50% automated: it had five times more automated looms than Britain.

These differences could only result in a considerable reduction in Britain's markets. In relation to 1913, the fall in the overall export of cotton textiles was 41% in 1926-29, 63% in 1930, 79% in 1931. Exports to India represented 45% of the total in 1913 and they fell to 25% in 1931. The scale of the collapse in production can be measured by looking at the levels of utilisation of productive capacity. In 1930-31, for every 1,000 bobbins installed, those in Lancashire processed 36 bails of cotton, while in Japan it was 357 and India 275. In certain British factories, 50% of machines lay idle and 60 to 75% of workers were unemployed.

The decomposition of this industry, once the pride of the British economy, has now reached the stage where a re-organisation of the spinning sector is on the agenda: it will mean the withdrawal of around a quarter of existing looms from the sphere of production. Capitalism is resolved to destroy materialised labour, productive forces that are useful to humanity but harmful to the bourgeoisie, because they can't function as Capital. Destroy what the proletariat has produced and at the same time intensify its exploitation, because in the textile industry the problem of the productivity of labour, clearly ‘insufficient' in the face of Japanese competition which has a workforce of 85% women as opposed to 65% in Britain, 4 ordinary looms per man in Britain against 8 in Japan, which also pays wages in...rice!

Furthermore, the reaction of the Lancashire employers was already expressed in 1929 with the great lock-out, during which they vainly tried to impose the ‘more loom' system, or an increase in the number of looms per worker. On the other hand, in 1933, the failure of the general strike allowed it to push through a reduction in wages. The proletariat in the textile sector is more under threat than ever.

The growth of the unproductive sector

Coal, iron and steel, textiles, were thus the three sectors most hard hit by the decomposition of the British economy, as well as by the chronic depression which, for the last 13 years, following the brief phase of artificial prosperity of 1919-20, gnawed at the productive apparatus like a cancer and made high and mighty Britain the classic county of endemic unemployment: a million men constituted the army of unemployed which British capitalism, even during the post-war revival, had definitively ejected from the sphere of production. In 1934, this figure had already doubled, while in certain branches of industry, levels have more or less gone back to what they were in 1928-29. The effects of a ‘salutary' rationalisation and intensification of labour, condemns two million proletarians (13% of the working population) to permanent unemployment, since the British economy has now reached the limits of its capacity for absorbing new workers and because it can now only throw thousands of others out of the labour process.

In 1928, the year of the economic high point, unemployment among British miners stood at 25%. For all the declining industries put together, unemployment rose from 17% in 1929 to 33% in 1932 and 28% in 1933. For manufacturing industries in general, the percentage was respectively 8, 25 and 15. For the consumer industries, it was only 6, 13 and 11 percent. A particularly significant fact which underlines the growing parasitism of the British bourgeoisie: from 1920 to 1930, it was the industries producing food, furniture and luxury domestic equipment which expanded the most. In 1861, Marx had already pointed out that the number of domestic servants was practically equal to the number of industrial proletarians (see Capital volume 3). This relative and absolute growth of the unproductive population - servants, lackeys etc - was one of the consequences of the general process of capitalist accumulation which engenders, on the one hand, a gigantic development of the productive forces, a considerable elevation in the organic composition of capital (less pronounced however in Britain than in Germany or the US), resulting in the increasing productivity of labour; and, on the other hand, the export of capital.

The changes that took place in the distribution of the economic functions of the active population in the 80 year period between 1851 and 1931 clearly express the structural evolution taking place within the British economy; thus the percentage of men occupied in the industrial sphere went from 51% in 1851 to 42% in 1931. In agriculture, the regression was much more striking: the abolition of the Corn Law accelerated the penetration of capitalist production into this sector, further aided by the existence of a strongly capitalist form of landownership. In 1920, there were only 300,000 landowners, whereas in France there were ten times this number. In Britain, 8,000 of these landowners owned half the land between them, and most had replaced crops with cattle. As a result the percentage of men involved in agricultural work fell from 24% in 1851 to 7% in 1931. The proportion of productive workers of both sexes (workers and small farmers) went from 59% in 1920 to 52% in 1930, and the number of workers in commerce, transport, domestic service, and offices went up from 40.21% to 47.2%. The industrial proletariat went from 33.4% to 30.9% and domestics alone went from 8.1% to 10.1%, giving a proportion of three workers to each domestic servant. Such a social relation should not surprise us if we refer to the figures for the export of capital, expressing a considerable enlargement of the British bourgeoisie's extra-metropolitan activity, enabling it to live more and more on surplus value produced outside of its direct control, and to draw from it a revenue that was up to 5 times higher than what could be derived from external trade.

This can be explained easily through the collaboration of British imperialism with the leaders of the trade unions and the Labour Party and thus the deep influence of bourgeois ideology in the minds of the workers, translating itself into an extreme weakness of the political consciousness of the proletariat.

A profound alteration of the internal balance of the active population of the metropolis is thus one of the aspects of the parasitic decomposition of British imperialism. The revisionists of marxism rush to claim that this once again confirms that Marx was mistaken in predicting a growing process of proletarianisation resulting in general pauperisation. De Man in particular, in the columns of Le Peuple in Brussels, has tried to demolish the perspective traced by Marx and to justify his Labour Plan and the shifting of the centre of gravity of reformist policies towards the middle classes.

These expert falsifiers of marxism hide one fundamental aspect of this prediction: that the increase in the ‘unproductive' but exploited population, even though reaching near saturation point, is still based on the mass of surplus value produced, a part of which is used for the upkeep of this population; and that, consequently, given the relative and absolute diminution of the proletariat, this mass of surplus value can only be maintained through the intensification of the exploitation of this proletariat, which must necessarily lead it to become aware of the historic role it is called upon to play. We think that such a conception is much more imbued with the ‘spirit' of marxism than with its ‘letter'. Mitchell

To be continued

 

"For four decades, one speech has cast a shadow over British immigration policy" (The Observer 24.2.08). Enoch Powell's anticipated river "foaming with much blood" may have failed to materialise but, forty years on, immigration continues to pose difficult questions both for the working class and the bourgeoisie. Enoch's prophecy was wrong but it seems "the anxiety [that he] exploited has not gone away" (ibid).

One of the latest expressions of this "anxiety" is Labour's proposed "new route to citizenship" - in reality, a new attack on immigrant workers and a new means of creating divisions within the working class as a whole. Currently, "skilled economic migrants" can apply for British citizenship after five years, or after two if they are joining family members. According to The Guardian (21.2.08), "about 150,000 people a year successfully apply for a British passport, there is no compulsion to do so and around 100,000 with indefinite leave to remain in Britain retain their original citizenship". Plans that will effect economic migrants, relatives of British and permanent residents, refugees and asylum seekers, as outlined in a new Home Office green paper, The path to citizenship, would change this. "Newcomers will be classed as temporary residents for two to five years before becoming probationary citizens for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years depending on their behaviour" (The Guardian 21.2.08).

The proposed three stage "route" would mean that becoming a British citizen would take six years (or three years for those joining family members, or eight years in some circumstances). But only migrants who play by the rules will be successful. For example, in order "to secure citizenship, applicants will need to fulfil a number of requirements. These include: speaking English, paying tax and becoming self-sufficient, obeying the law, and demonstrating integration into British life by playing an active role in the community" (The Guardian 20.2.08). Full access to benefits may be denied to some migrants until they have been in the UK for five years. Migrants who have been imprisoned will be prevented from accessing ‘probationary citizenship' while those who have committed minor offences will have their ‘journey' to citizenship slowed down. Citizenship will now have to be ‘earned'. As Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, made clear when the scheme was announced, these changes will "ensure that the rights of British citizenship are matched by the responsibilities and contributions we expect of newcomers to the UK" (ibid).

Hordes of immigrants? The working class is a class of immigrants

Even though the proposed plans don't affect the rights of migrants from the European Economic Area (which includes Poland) some people will undoubtedly think that they are a good starting point: ‘finally, the government is going to do something about the hordes of immigrants flooding Britain who are abusing our public services and destroying our communities'. Attitudes like this are certainly common, as The Guardian (ibid) noted, "recent surveys have found, for example, that the public believes that 20% of the population are immigrants", while "another poll found that the average Briton believes this country takes 25% of the world's asylum seekers". Even though the real figures are quite different - immigrants only make up 4% of the population and Britain only takes 2% of the world's asylum seekers - those questioned in these surveys would still think that their anxieties about the damaging affects of immigration are legitimate concerns rather than potential racist propaganda. Immigration minister Liam Byrne agrees; "consultation around the country has shown that Britain [is] not a nation of Alf Garnets"; people just want "newcomers to speak the language, obey the law and pay taxes like the rest of us" (ibid).

Instead of criticising workers who hold such views, shouldn't we try and engage with their ‘legitimate' concerns? After all, aren't they just an expression of class consciousness? No, the empirical evidence for xenophobic ideas amongst sections of the working class doesn't make them a manifestation of class consciousness. Historically, the workers' movement has understood the principle that the working class is one international class. Workers have no country. It is a class of immigrants. It has no ‘community' to defend. These ideas are central to the principle of international proletarian solidarity. Attitudes, like, for example, the ‘concern' over asylum seekers exploiting the NHS or the fear that Polish builders will force British builders' wages down, expressed by some British workers and regurgitated in the bourgeois press are a manifestation of bourgeois not working class consciousness. They are a virus in the body of the class. It's not surprising given the bourgeoisie's recent ideological campaign around the question of immigration and ‘national identity' that some of its ideas have found an echo in the working class. As Marx wrote in The German Ideology, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas". But just because the origin of these ideas may be recognisable, and sections of the class are receptive to them, this does not make them legitimate. Communists cannot make any concessions to the imagined ‘communities' of bourgeois ideology. The history of the workers' movement shows us that the real enemy has always been the capitalist class, not foreign workers.

Rather than worrying about how many Polish plumbers there are in the UK British workers should be more anxious about what the British state is planning to do. Faced with the deepening economic crisis the bourgeoisie will have to make more ‘tough decisions' over jobs, pay, pensions and public services as it struggles to offer any perspective for the future. As it begins its attack, Labour's official mask of liberal anti-racism will slip away to reveal the racism that lies at the heart of the British bourgeoisie. For over forty years it has exploited the question of race and immigration to divide and rule the working class while benefiting from cheap and ‘flexible' labour. Today's campaign around ‘citizenship' is just the latest example.

Certainly the bourgeoisie uses immigrant workers to cheapen the overall price of labour; it does the same thing by ‘relocating' industries to countries like India or China. But for the working class the answer to this can never be found by going along with the bourgeoisie's manipulations and divisions, but by uniting all workers together in a common struggle against attacks on the living and working conditions of all workers. And this is not a utopia. Despite all the bourgeois campaigns we have already seen examples of native and migrant workers struggling together, at, for example, Cottam power station in 2006 and in Liverpool during last year's postal strike. Since 2003 workers internationally have slowly begun to rediscover their combativity and as a consequence have also rediscovered the importance of solidarity across the artificial barriers created by the bourgeoisie: race, nation and ‘community'. It is in these (at the moment small) struggles where we see a real perspective for the future, a perspective imbued with a vision which is the antithesis of the bourgeois world of competing nations and ethnic groups: communism, the human community, a world without frontiers. Kino (28.2.08)

This article has already been published on our site here:

https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/02/turkey [25]

Acting under US imperialist protection, a large chunk of southern Serbia, the province of Kosovo, was last month declared ‘independent' from Serbia, raising the prospect of a Greater Albania that also draws in Macedonia to the east, further squeezing Serbia. The ramifications are wide and dangerous and posit a further serious destabilisation in inter-imperialist relations. Within Kosovo itself, with its 90%, 1.9 million Albanian majority, three Serb municipalities, including the divided city of Mitrovica, are effectively partitioned. About 120,000 Serbs live in this region that Serbia considers its historic and spiritual heartland. It is a sign of the decomposition of capitalism that this Kosovan enclave, with its depressed economy, massive unemployment, endemic corruption and gangsterism, can be called a ‘nation state'. But this is the reality of nations and nationalism from World War I to today. Kosovo, itself awash with weapons, has needed the permanent presence of 17,000 Nato ‘peacekeepers' for ten years, and 2,000 more are to be added to the strength.

The powers that make up the ‘international community' are once again at each other throats over Kosovo's declaration. The EU itself, far from reacting as a unified ‘bloc', is riven by divisions over the issue. So far, France, Britain, Italy, the USA and Germany have backed Kosovan independence. Russia, Greece, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Spain, Romania and many others battling separatist movements (Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka and China) are implacably opposed. The opposition to the new Kosovan statelet is led by resurgent Russian imperialism that threatens to open a new can of worms in retaliation. It sees a precedent in its interference in Georgia and Moldova. "Above all this we must not forget: behind Serbian nationalism stands Russian imperialism" said Rosa Luxemburg in The Junius Pamphlet. While there's little chance of direct Russian intervention in the present circumstances, it shouldn't be forgotten that the 1999 war ended in a tense, three day stand off in Kosovo's Pristina airport between Russian and Nato troops. And, discounting direct Russian intervention, the commander of the EU forces in Bosnia was nevertheless talking last November about the need for Europe to be able to intervene militarily "in the event of another outbreak of war" (The Observer, 18.11.7).

The long history of imperialist conflicts in the Balkans

It can be somewhat bewildering looking at the complexities of the Balkans - its states, politics, geography, and incessant wars; and this has been the case since capitalism began to plunge humanity into a cycle of ever-increasing and expanding war since the turn of the 20th century. The Balkans has since then been a fundamental expression of the development of imperialism and can only be understood in a global and historical context. This region is where the new period of imperialism expressed itself most starkly in 1914, when the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the spark that lit the conflagration of World War I. It was a key battleground in the deepening barbarism of World War II, a focus of rivalries between the two imperialist blocs between 1945 and 1989, and played a pivotal role in the phase of chaotic warfare that followed the collapse of the old bloc system, shown in the cruel and horrendous wars of the 1990s.

Writing in the first year of WWI, Rosa Luxemburg in The Junius Pamphlet is as clear as a bell: "In their historical connection, however, which makes the Balkan the burning point and the centre of imperialistic world politics, these Balkan wars, also, were objectively only a fragment of the general conflict, a link in the chain of events that led, with fatal necessity, to the present world war..." The "great game of world politics... the general world-political background", for revolutionaries, had to be taken into account in order to form a sound judgement and not get dragged in to the imperialist whirlpool. The gunshot in Sarajevo led to world war in 1914 because it brought into play the imperialist alliances which were already sharpening their swords for control of the region: Serbia, Russia, Britain and France on one side, Germany, Austro-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey on the other.

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, the imperialist rivalries are just as acute. In 1991, after the break up of Yugoslavia, it was Germany in 1991 that unleashed the rabid dogs of nationalism into the region with its open support for Slovenia and Croatia. It was Britain, Russia and France, for their own imperialist interests, who not only looked the other way from the ethnic cleansing undertaken by Milosovic and the Greater Serbia nationalists, and covered his back while he was committing atrocities. And it was the USA that set up and armed its own nationalist gangs (in Bosnia), attacking the manoeuvres of its imperialist rivals (everyone else), and, through its ‘humanitarian' air strikes and superior weaponry in the 1999 war, eventually came out on top.

At least 10,000 Albanians were killed and over 800,000 displaced in the brutal crackdown of Serb President Milosovic in 1998/9. With Nato (on this occasion expressing the interests of the US) bombing Serbs out of Kosovo in 1999, the Albanian bourgeoisie, through the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), had its revenge, paving the way for today's ‘declaration of independence'.

The formation of the new state of Kosovo will not resolve the nationalist tensions in the Balkans. On the contrary: the process of ‘Balkanisation' into unviable states was inseparable from the slide towards war in the first part of the 20th century and remains part of the same grim dynamic in the early years of the 21st. For the working class in this region, the euphoric celebrations of Albanian nationalists or the backlash from pro-Serbian forces (which has already resulted in violent clashes on the Serb/Kosovan border and attacks on the US embassy in Belgrade) are equally dangerous and reactionary, serving only to drag the exploited and the oppressed further into the sordid squabbles of their exploiters and oppressors.   Baboon, 1.3.8.

Dear Comrades,

I read with much interest your debate with EK on the question of Che, national liberation, Stalinism etc. This seems to me to be a crucial question at the moment particularly amongst leftists and from what I see, in Latin America with the rise of left-leaning governments in Venezuela etc. From what I gather from friends who have travelled in Latin America, the iconography of Che is as prevalent as ever and is seen as a symbol of revolution, or change... sometimes in a quasi-religious sense. Now my thoughts on the "Che" question (him as a symbol for the whole question of Stalinism in Latin America) are basically the same as yours. I'm no expert but when I read the biography of Che it was obvious that their "revolution" was parachuted in by a minority of bourgeoisie nationalists (Castro). The rest of Che's career in the Congo and Bolivia seems to be explained by the term "parachuting" as well. This is Stalinism for sure. However, the question becomes one that has often arisen when I consider the positions of the ICC. The positions of the ICC seem to me to be "trenchant" - vigorous in their defence of internationalist positions, which are essentially my positions. But yours is a tiny fraction with little support among the proletariat. The proletariat may be becoming more combative... but not yet in a revolutionary direction. In the absence of this, I suspect a lot of people of the "left", socialist, communist or even anarchist look around for something, anything that is remotely similar to their positions. So, we turn to Che, Cuba, Chavez, Venezuela etc. We see US imperialism being fought... and we can't help but approve. We see vast poverty of the masses and some attempts to address them (Venezuela). We see the masses in action (Venezuela), we see workers talking about "workers control". In this situation it is very tempting to have a sneaking regard for positions historically alien to us. "Someone is fighting back", would be the refrain I suppose. Further, I was looking at a speech by the Trotskyist Alan Woods on the web (Hands off Venezuela) - he quotes or paraphrases Lenin (apparently) "those of you who wish to see a pure workers revolution will never see one." Presumably he means that revolutions always begin as complex affairs with the mobilization of a variety of classes and class interests etc. So his Trotskyite organisation takes the official stance of "critical support" of Chavezism - looking for the trends that might drive it forward. I suppose you could take a similar stance to the whole phenomenon of the Stalinist left in Latin America, to Che and all the rest? But the ICC does not do this. They are probably right in their "trenchant" position. But what concerns me is two fold, practical and theoretical: 1. That communist internationalists will forever be a tiny minority with no effective voice because they alienate those who might otherwise by sympathetic. In their hostility to all movements that are not proletarian internationalist they may get left behind in their theoretical purity? 2. That to stick rigidly to a vision of revolution from 1917 (etc.) and to assess all movements by that standard has the danger of verging into idealism - or even Platonism: the view that there is a perfect idea of revolutionary path to which reality must adjust itself. Thus, the real situation of complexity, for example in Venezuela, becomes dismissed out of hand as not conforming to the Platonic "internationalist positions"?

.... I look forward to your in-depth reply as always. These thought of mine lack coherence - but somewhere in there is something that approximates to a critique of your method. Good luck and I hope you appreciate that these comments emerge from a sympathiser looking to be involved in supportive and constructive debate!

Our reply

 

Dear comrade,

Thank you for your letter. In our response we hope to deal with some of the questions and issues you raise. First of all we are glad you agree with us on the role and nature of Che Guevara, as you say in your letter “… the iconography of Che is as prevalent as ever and is seen as a symbol of revolution, or change... sometimes in a quasi-religious sense”. He has been made into the official poster boy for all things relating to ‘revolution’ and not a few things relating to style and fashion! We don’t call Che and his coterie Stalinist just because they were ‘parachuting in’, but also because of the fact that very quickly they aligned themselves with the imperialism of the USSR. This is the reality behind ‘national liberation’ and ‘anti-imperialism’.

Despite your agreements you say that “..But yours is a tiny fraction with little support among the proletariat. The proletariat may be becoming more combative... but not yet in a revolutionary direction. In the absence of this, I suspect a lot of people of the “left”, socialist, communist or even anarchist look around for something, anything that is remotely similar to their positions. So, we turn to Che, Cuba, Chavez, Venezuela etc. We see US imperialism being fought... and we can’t help but approve. We see vast poverty of the masses and some attempts to address them (Venezuela).” In essence you seem to be saying that although we have a correct position, the fact that most people aren’t aware of it means that there has to be some ‘in-between’ action, until there is movement in a revolutionary direction. Of course, we don’t espouse the vision of ‘revolution or nothing’ in the sense of deriding everything that is one fraction less than revolutionary. We support workers’ struggles and movements. It has often been said, not least by us, that a class which is unable to defend itself economically and politically is not a class which will make a revolution.

You ask in your letter: “1. That communist internationalists will forever be a tiny minority with no effective voice because they alienate those who might otherwise by sympathetic. In their hostility to all movements that are not proletarian internationalist they may get left behind in their theoretical purity? 2. That to stick rigidly to a vision of revolution from 1917 (etc.) and to assess all movements by that standard has the danger of verging into idealism - or even Platonism: the view that there is a perfect idea of revolutionary path to which reality must adjust itself. Thus, the real situation of complexity, for example in Venezuela, becomes dismissed out of hand as not conforming to the Platonic ‘internationalist positions’?”

It is true today that there are not the mass workers’ parties of the past. The counter-revolution combined with the betrayal of the mass parties and organisations of the working class (Social Democracy, unions etc.) dealt heavy blows to the consciousness of the masses. This is also compounded by the weight of bourgeois ideology that teaches us that there is no alternative to capitalism and the people who argue and militate for such a thing are ‘loonies’ or ‘crazy’ or, indeed, a ‘tiny cult’. We are a long way from the days when militants were known amongst the class, when there was a daily press and mass meetings... And yet, despite all of that, the working class on a worldwide scale has not been defeated. Indeed since 2003 there has been a slow resurgence of struggles world wide, often small in scale, but on significant political questions.

The need to be clear

Being a ‘tiny minority’ in itself isn’t the crucial question, because being a revolutionary inherently means being in a minority against the mainstream of society and bourgeois ideology. If the main concern of revolutionaries was to be ‘with the masses’ then why not just join one of the Social Democratic parties, or a big union? In reality the main question is whether one defends clear positions that correspond to the needs of the working class struggle, even when they fly in the face of majority opinion. Even in a period of downturn in the class struggle, it’s important to see the long-term perspective. For example after the collapse of the Russian bloc in 1989 there followed a period of huge reflux in consciousness, reflected in the low level of struggle throughout the 1990s. The bourgeoisie was singing from the rooftops about the ‘death of communism’ and the triumph of capitalism. In contrast, the ICC showed that we had entered a new period in imperialist relations, a period of ‘each against all’ which would lead to ever greater conflicts. What has been the reality? Since that time we have had two wars in the Gulf, near genocide in Rwanda and Congo, the proliferation of nuclear technology to some of the most unstable regions of the world (India, Pakistan, North Korea), spectacular economic collapses (Argentina) as well as generalised economic downturns, and the ‘war on terror’ – when it will end, no one knows

However, it was our understanding that the working class hadn’t been historically, definitively defeated. Despite everything, there has also been a resurgence of interest in the positions of the communist left, with new contacts (individuals and groups) coming forward from all over the globe. That’s not to say they all have identical positions to the ICC, but there is a minimum criteria of the defence of proletarian internationalism, and we have been able to engage at a number of levels. What is most significant is the impulse pushing forward this political maturation – the stagnation of the economy, ecological crisis, war.... In general we can say that those parts of the working class which follow populist movements tend to end up demoralised and burnt out. There are legions of combative workers who have been recuperated by the left wing of capital and thus neutralised.

Struggle between classes

On your second point, undoubtedly, all large scale struggles involve complexities; the fact that there are workers of different sectors, of different levels of political consciousness and organisation, or who have been subject to different influences. The question to ask when judging a class based movement is what direction are the different classes going, what is the class dynamic? Even in a situation where there are many confusions, where the first demands are not necessarily those coinciding with the interests of the workers (Russia 1905, Poland 1980 to give two examples) things can develop very rapidly in a particular direction. One of the hallmarks of the “movement towards a revolutionary direction” is that the working class is increasingly taking direct control of its own struggles, that it is prying away from the grip of the unions and other bourgeois factions (leftists etc.). The working class will have to draw in other factions and classes (e.g. the peasantry) behind its struggles and demands – which is certainly not the same as saying we should support Chavez because he says he is doing something for the poor or fighting US imperialism. It’s against these historical indicators that we have to measure reality, not some “Platonic ideal” of a perfect uprising, as you say in your letter.

You seem to pose the situation in Venezuela as an example of this ‘in between’ situation – so the question is, what is the reality of Chavism? Does the rule of Chavez present an opportunity for the working class to develop its struggles, its self identity and collective strength? Is the specific fight against ‘US imperialism’ a workers’ struggle? We would say loudly: no! There is nothing new in the rule of Chavez – he is in the best traditions of state capitalism. The fact that he has taken control of the country and the economy (nationalising industries etc.) does not mean he has escaped the iron laws of capitalism. He is the head of the capitalist state and so is tasked with defending the national capital. He must still ensure that all of the nationalised industries generate profit – and where economic activity is interrupted say, for example, by workers’ struggles, he has responded the same way as all bourgeoisies all over the world, with an iron fist. A recent example has been the struggle of the oil workers (see our article online at: https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/dec/ven-oil-struggles [26] ). History shows us, time and time again, the working class will always be faced by the bourgeois state in all its various guises and by individuals and factions who claim to represent the interests of the working class. But the praxis of the working class, whose highest point was in Russia in 1917, shows the dangers of believing that the capitalist state can be taken over and used for furthering the interests of revolution…

 

On the occasion of the anniversary of the October 1917 revolution in Russia, the scribblers of the ruling class regularly serve us up with the same refrain: the dictator Stalin is the heir of Lenin; his crimes were the inevitable consequences of the policies of the Bolsheviks of 1917. The moral? The communist revolution can only lead to the terror of Stalinism.

Men make history, but they do so in definite circumstances that necessarily weigh on their actions. So, the principal cause of the emergence of a regime of terror in the USSR was the tragic isolation of the 1917 October revolution. Because, as Engels said in 1847, in his Principles of Communism, the proletarian revolution can only be victorious at the world level: "The communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries...It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."

The Russian revolution wasn't beaten by the armed forces of the bourgeoisie during the civil war (1918-1920), but from the inside, through the progressive identification of the Bolshevik Party with the state. That is what allowed the bourgeoisie to spread its historic big lie, either presenting the USSR as a proletarian state or spreading the idea that any proletarian revolution can only end up with a Stalinist-type regime.

The politics of Stalin weren't those of Lenin

Contrary to what the ideologues of the bourgeoisie affirm, there is no continuity between the politics of Lenin and those undertaken after his death by Stalin. The fundamental difference that separates them rests in the key question of internationalism: the idea of ‘socialism in one country', adopted by Stalin in 1925, constituted a real betrayal of the basic principles of proletarian struggle and the communist revolution. In particular, this thesis, presented by Stalin as a ‘principle of Leninism', meant the exact opposite of Lenin's position. The intransigent internationalism of Lenin, his total adherence to the cause of the proletariat, was a constant throughout his life. His internationalism wasn't dimmed with the victory of the Russian revolution in October 1917. On the contrary, he saw this as the first step of the world revolution: "The Russian revolution is only one detachment of the world socialist army, and the success and triumph of the revolution that we have accomplished depends on the action of this army. This is a fact that no one amongst us forgets (...). The Russian proletariat is conscious of its revolutionary isolation, and it clearly sees that its victory has the indispensable condition and fundamental premise of the united intervention of the entire world proletariat". (Report to the Factory Committees of the Province of Moscow, 28 July, 1918).

It's for that reason that Lenin played a decisive role, with Trotsky, in the foundation of the Communist International (CI) in March 1919. In particular it was Lenin who drew up one of the fundamental texts of the founding congress of the CI: the ‘Theses on the democratic bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

At the time of Lenin, the CI no connection with what it was to become under the control of Stalin: a diplomatic instrument of Russian state capitalism and the spearhead of the counter-revolution on a world scale.

Contrary to Lenin, Stalin affirmed that it was possible to construct socialism in a single country. This nationalist policy of the defence of the ‘socialist fatherland' in Russia constituted a betrayal of the proletarian principles enunciated by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto: "The proletarians have no country. Proletarians of all countries unite!" The politics of Stalin served to justify the strengthening of state capitalism in the USSR with the accession to power of a privileged class, the bureaucracy, living on the ferocious exploitation of the working class. Stalin was the iron fist and the figurehead of the counter-revolution.

If he was able to be the hangman of the revolution, it's because he had certain personality traits that rendered him more apt than other members of the Bolshevik Party to fulfil this role. It was exactly these traits of personality that Lenin had stigmatised in his ‘last testament': "Comrade Stalin in becoming General Secretary has concentrated an immense power into his hands and I am not sure that he always knows how to use it with sufficient prudence."

And in a post script, drawn up on the eve of his death, Lenin wrote: "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a General Secretary. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a minor detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance" ( 4 January 1924).

From the middle of the 1920s, Stalin oversaw the ruthless liquidation of all the old comrades of Lenin, using the organs of repression that the Bolshevik Party had originally put in place in order to resist the White Armies (notably the political police, the Cheka).

The great Stalinist purge within the Bolshevik Party

After Lenin's death in January 1924, Stalin was quick to place his allies in key posts within the Party. He took his aim at Trotsky principally, the alter ego of Lenin during the revolution of October 1917. Opportunistically, Stalin allied himself with Bukharin who committed the fatal error of theorising the possibility of constructing socialism in one country (later, Stalin had no scruples about executing Bukharin).

From 1923-24, a whole series of divergences appeared within the Bolshevik Party. Several oppositions were constituted, the most important of which was led by Trotsky, later joined by other militants of the Bolshevik old guard (notably Kamenev and Zinoviev). With the growth of bureaucracy within the Party, the Left Opposition had understood that the Russian revolution was degenerating.

Stalin occupied a key post. He controlled the apparatus of the Party and even the promotion of its leadership. This is what allowed him to put his men in place and transform the Bolshevik Party into a deadly machine. He particularly favoured the entry into the Party of a great number of ambitious arrivistes. The latter, whom Stalin supported, were only looking for a career within the state apparatus.

Henceforth, he had a free hand to undertake the great purge of the Party, with the principal aim of removing from the leadership the principal figures of the October revolution (Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin and above all Trotsky) in order to finally liquidate everyone.

Progressively Stalin withdrew all political responsibilities from Trotsky up to the time he was expelled from the Party in 1927 and from Russia in 1928. This is the period where all oppositions to Stalin and all suspects filled up the Gulags. The Moscow Trials (1936-1938) allowed Stalin to liquidate the Bolshevik old guard under the fraudulent pretext of hunting ‘terrorists', following the assassination of the party chief of Leningrad, Sergei Kirov, on 1 December 1934.

Dozens of Bolsheviks were persecuted, imprisoned, and finally exterminated in terrifying conditions. It was the time of the great Stalinist campaign against the "Hitlero-Trotskyists". Accusing them of a lack of ‘loyalty' towards the ‘Socialist Fatherland', Stalin also executed thousands of Bolshevik militants who had been the most implicated in the October revolution. It was necessary to definitively muzzle all those who had kept their internationalist and communist convictions. It was necessary to wipe out for ever all the witnesses capable of contradicting the ‘official' history, by exposing the great lie: the idea that Stalin was the executor of Lenin's will, the idea of a direct continuity between Lenin and Stalin[1].

The complicity of the democratic bourgeoisie with Stalin

Faced with the barbarity of Stalinist repression, what was the reaction of the great democracies of the West? When, from 1936, Stalin organised the wretched ‘Moscow Trials', when the old comrades of Lenin, broken by torture, were accused of the most abject crimes and themselves ended up asking for exemplary punishment, this same democratic press in the pay of capital let it be known that ‘there was no smoke without fire' (even if some newspapers made some timid criticisms of Stalin's policies, affirming that they were ‘exaggerated').

It was with the complicity of the bourgeoisies of the great powers that Stalin accomplished his monstrous crimes, that he exterminated, in his prisons and concentration camps, hundreds of thousands of communists, more than ten million workers and peasants. And the bourgeois sectors that showed the greatest zeal in this complicity were the democratic sectors (and particularly Social-Democracy); the same sectors that today virulently denounce the crimes of Stalinism and present themselves as models of virtue.

It's only because the regime that consolidated itself in Russia after the death of Lenin and the final crushing of the German revolution (1923) was a variant of capitalism, and even the spearhead of the counter-revolution, that it received such warm support from all the bourgeoisies that only a few years earlier had ferociously fought the power of the Soviets. In 1934, in fact, these same ‘democratic' bourgeoisies accepted the USSR into the League of Nations (ancestor of the UN), an institution that Lenin had called a "den of thieves" at the time of its foundation. This was the sign that Stalin had become a ‘respectable Bolshevik' in the eyes of the ruling class of every country, the same rulers who had once presented the Bolsheviks of 1917 as barbarians with knives between their teeth. The imperialist brigands recognised Stalin as one of their own. Henceforth, the communists who opposed Stalin submitted to the persecutions of the entire world bourgeoisie.

It was in this international context that Trotsky, expelled from country after country, under police surveillance at all times, had to face a campaign of shameless Stalinist lies, which were obligingly repeated by the bourgeoisies of the western democracies.

But where the complicity of the big democratic powers is most evident is in the fact that no one would give Trotsky asylum when he was expelled from Russia. The old leader of the Red Army was considered persona non grata everywhere. For Trotsky, the world became a planet without visa.

At the time of his stay in France in 1935, journalists, members of the intelligentsia, and some members of the Academie Francaise (like Georges Lecomte) went as far as circulating rumours that Trotsky was planning a terrorist ‘coup d'état'. Following these rumours, Trotsky was expelled by the French democratic state. To prevent him being delivered to the Stalinist political police, the Norwegian government offered him provisional asylum, before expelling him.

After wandering for more than ten years, Trotsky was finally welcomed by the Mexican government in 1939 thanks to the painter Diego Rivera who had some sympathy for Trotskyism. After a first murder attempt from a squad led by the Stalinist painter Siqueriros, Trotsky was assassinated on 20 August 1940 by an agent of Stalin, Ramon Mercader, who infiltrated his entourage by seducing one of the old revolutionary's collaborators.

Trotsky succumbed to the blows of Stalinist repression at the very time when he was beginning to understand that the USSR wasn't a "proletarian state with bureaucratic deformations" so dear to the epigones of the Fourth International (to which many of today's Trotskyist organisations give allegiance).

Today's democrats can shout as loud as they like about the abominable crimes of the Bolshevik Party. They will not wipe out our memory of these historic facts: it is with the blessing and complicity of their predecessors that Stalin was able to carry out his dirty work.

This reminder of one of the most tragic episodes of the 20th century reveals, if it's needed, that there was no continuity but a radical break between the politics of Lenin and those of Stalin. On his death-bed Lenin had seen correctly: Stalin had concentrated too much power in his hands[2]. Replacing him wouldn't have changed the course of history: another leader of his stamp would have taken on the role of hangman of the revolution. Stalin's personality was suited to take on this role, as was that of Hitler, himself benefiting from the favours of a German bourgeoisie avid for revenge after the defeat of 1918 and shaken to the core by the revolutionary wave of 1918 and 1923.

Contrary to the lies spread by democratic propaganda, the worm wasn't in the fruit of October 1917. Bolshevism did not contain in itself the terror of Stalinism. It was the crushing of the revolution in Germany that opened the royal road to the counter-revolution in Russia, the same as the death of Lenin on 20 January 1924 removed one of the last obstacles to Stalin's grip on the Bolshevik Party. The latter became a Stalinist party with the adoption of the theory of ‘socialism in one country.

Bolshevism belongs to the proletariat, not to its hangman, Stalinism.

Sylvestre, 20/1/08.

---

[1] In order to wipe out any trace of the past, all testimony, Stalin even tried to liquidate foreigners residing in Russia, such as Victor Serge who was imprisoned. He was quite a well-known writer and was only saved thanks to a large international campaign.

[2] It's for that reason moreover that Lenin's doctor, under orders from Stalin, estimated that it wasn't necessary to prolong his agony and proceeded with his euthanasia (this ‘humanitarian' gesture had the ‘merit' of preventing Lenin giving his last directives about the weaknesses of the Party).

 

When the announcement to formally nationalise Northern Rock was finally made there was a burst of optimism from the Financial Times "The differences between this nationalisation and failed nationalisations of the past are clear. Northern Rock's spell in public ownership will be temporary. It will be managed at arm's length. ... Therefore anybody who suggests that the Labour government has gone back to the 1970s socialism deserves ridicule." (18/2/8)

It is not, certainly, a question of the Labour party ‘going back to 1970s socialism' since the Labour government is a government of the capitalist state and nationalisations are part of the defence of the national capital in the face of the economic crisis. The state apparatus is always and everywhere intervening in each country to keep the economy moving, or at least attempt to combat the worst effects of the crisis.

As for the 1970s, Rolls Royce was nationalised when it ran into financial difficulties in the development of an aero-engine. It was subsequently privatised again in 1987. So it's wrong to say that the idea of holding a company in the public sector while it is financially repaired is some king of modern notion that was never tried in the past. Even British Leyland was finally sold back to the private sector in the end - simply to get rid of the corpse that the business had become. It is not necessary to speculate about the future of Northern Rock to see that there are rather serious problems confronting the bourgeoisie's ambitions to rescue it in some way.

The Financial Times thought that "Once the bank is in public ownership it will be possible to look to the future. It may even be a bright future. The inflated £100bn-plus size of its loan book will have to be scaled back to reflect its deposit base, but Northern Rock has efficient operations and some well-located branches."

Amidst the buoyant optimism we have here the central point - the fact that the size of the loan book is out of proportion to the deposit base at the Rock. Has this got better over the five months since the famous scenes of depositors standing in queues outside the bank? No, in fact it has got worse - very much worse. When the government gave its guarantees to the depositors it stopped people queuing outside the Rock's branches, but people still pulled out more and more money. This is known, not because it is officially admitted, but because the money has turned up at the bank's competitors - for instance at the Leeds, Nottingham and Newcastle building societies.

The bourgeoisie say it is set on the idea that the Rock can be turned round. But there is the unfortunate point that, although the loan book of the Rock is relatively ‘good quality' (meaning that it is not all sub-prime mortgages) the security on which they rest is vanishing as the housing market starts to tumble. That is based on absolutely fundamental factors that no management of the Rock has control over - whether the management is from the private sector or the public sector. The Bank of England has issued dire warnings about current financial problems being the "the largest ever peacetime liquidity crisis."

The bourgeoisie are not deluded about the real extent of the financial crisis, and the government danced a minuet with Mr Branson and the other private sector bidders for the Rock essentially for reasons of publicity. The mandarins at the Bank and the Treasury have not lost their minds and are just as clever as they ever were. Obviously they would have been very pleased to dump the wreckage of the Rock onto anyone - as long as they were guaranteed to get back the money the state has put in. At the end Branson remained the only bidder because his team was the only one prepared to say that they would pay the money back in 3 years, rather than 5 as originally stipulated. Since that was a fantastic offer the mandarins obviously did not believe he could actually do it.

What has really changed since the 1970s is that the state's room for manoeuvre in the face of the crisis has radically diminished. Not only is the Rock still going down, it is taking the £55 billion of loans and guarantees from the state down with it. The Evening Standard thought that the new management put in place by the state would cut the number of staff working for the bank and that that would help find the money to pay back the loans. If they cut half the staff, as has been suggested, that would save £75 million a year - if one takes £25,000 as the average wage for the Rock's workers. On the basis of such a saving it would take 700 years to pay back the loans!

Under Brown the treasury pretended for years that state spending has been kept within the bounds of Brown's self-imposed measures of prudence in relation to the scale of the state's debt - by making ‘adjustments' to the calculations and taking key items of expenditure ‘off balance sheet' (effectively not counting them). All this ‘good work' on the accounting front has been completely destroyed by the size of the loans to the Rock. The Rock itself is of no importance - the government would put it into administration, except for the blow that would deliver to confidence in the banking system. But the finances of the state are of critical importance to the whole economic situation, since the state constitutes 40 or 50 per cent of the entire economy and the welfare of the rest of the economy is absolutely dependent on the stimulus provided by state expenditures.

The British state's room for manoeuvre to confront the present open phase of crisis has therefore been seriously restricted right at the outset because of the collapse of a second order bank. But this is the fire that the bourgeoisie have been playing with in the period of so-called ‘globalisation' - where growth has, to a very large extent, been a question of financial engineering. The state has to act as guarantor for all the financial chicanery that goes on in the ‘private sector'. And this phase of open crisis is just beginning as it spreads from the financial sector into the wider economy. Hardin 29/2/8

With the ‘sub-prime' credit crunch, the world economic recession stands out clearly. Throughout the world hundreds of thousands of workers have been simultaneously and brutally hit by the economic crisis. Among the first victims are the families evicted from their homes because they cannot pay their debts or have lost their jobs. In the US the rate of repossessions has doubled in a year, with 200,000 repossession proceedings in the second half of 2007 creating ghost towns. Runaway pauperisation is making much greater demands on existing food aid programmes: ‘Kids Café' distributes children's meals in 18 counties; and in New York soup kitchens have increased 24% in a year. Furthermore, 27,000 building workers are due to be made redundant, 12,000 jobs are due to go at Ford factories, and General Motors has asked for 74,000 ‘voluntary' redundancies. Already in 2006 the sacking of 30,000 hourly paid workers showed the bosses determination to emulate the productivity of Asian construction workers. The same motives are involved in today's plan to hire new workers paid a third of the previous rate: $25 an hour, including benefits, instead of $75 an hour currently (reported in Libération 23.2.08). We should add that there the great difference between this plan and previous attacks are that the workers must agree to give up their health insurance and pensions on leaving. There are also increasing job losses in manufacturing industry and elsewhere. Clearly this devastation will spread to the service sector. In the financial sector 26,000 redundancies are planned in previously untouched concerns such as HSBC, UBS and Citigroup envisage between 17,000 and 24,000 job losses.

The effect of the credit crunch is just as visible in Britain where repossessions rose 21% last year, to 27,100, with those behind on mortgage payments up 8.6%. And the Council of Mortgage Lenders has warned it will get worse this year with food and fuel price rises and over a million homeowners coming off their fixed rate mortgage deals, and lenders taking fewer risks. In addition to the ubiquitous relative pay cuts (below inflation pay deals) local government is imposing horrendous cuts in pay presented as ‘single status' or equal pay policies, such as bin men in Waltham Forest who stand to lose up to £8,000.

Today the frontal attacks linked to the crisis cannot just be pushed onto the peripheries of capitalism, the poor countries of the third world, and now the heart of the capitalist system and the most concentrated proletariat in the world is affected. In Europe Germany, a country whose export performance and the dynamism of its enterprises has been extolled, there are more and more redundancies: 35,000 planned for this year at Deutsche Telecom; 8,000 jobs to go at BMW to maintain profitability; Siemens intends to throw 3,000 employees into the street from its Enterprise Network division. Nokia is getting ready to move to Rumania in order to cut costs and prices. The telecommunications sector elsewhere is also cutting jobs with 2,000 to go from KPN in the Netherlands in addition to 8,000 already announced in 2005. In France, 23,000 public sector job losses are anticipated, 18,000 from Peugeot between now and 2010. Many bankruptcies are also leading to redundancies, particularly for the most vulnerable workers, immigrants and especially illegal immigrants without papers, but ‘legally' employed in public building works, restaurants, electronics etc. This disaster is only at its beginning, and affects all the countries in Europe and the rest of the world. Even in the China, which is presented as the new El Dorado, the contraction in the world market is leading to numerous bankruptcies and redundancies. In Shenzhen in the South one enterprise in ten has shut (see www.lagrandeepoque.com [31]) and a new ‘right to work' introduced on 1st January has provoked massive redundancies.

We should have no illusions, poverty is increasing everywhere! What the bourgeoisie presents as a ‘leaner' healthier economy or a ‘necessary correction' is in reality one of the most significant expressions of the bankruptcy of the capitalist economy. WH (adapted from RI 388)

Immediately after the US Federal Reserve pushed JP Morgan Chase into an emergency salvage plan for Bear Stearns, Gordon Brown felt it necessary to reassure people in Britain with an article in the Sun (19/3/8). The Prime Minister wrote that "When a major bank in America has to be rescued over a weekend and billions are wiped off share markets across the world, I understand that people are worried about the future." In fact he also knew perfectly well that it's a longer experience of the economy that has got people worried "The British people know this is going to be a tough year. They are already feeling the pinch with their shopping and fuel bills."

Capitalism's Dance of Death

Yes, far from the propaganda about a decade of ‘prosperity' under Labour governments, people know that real inflation, on essentials like food and the energy utilities like gas and electricity, is way above the official figures, in the same way that real unemployment could be three or four times what government statistics proclaim. Take the example of higher petrol prices, which is not just an increased burden for individual motorists but has an impact on the cost of every commodity that's transported by petrol-driven vehicles. The reason that people are worried is because of their actual experience of prices going up, services being cut and jobs becoming more insecure.

Brown tries to be a calming voice by saying that the decisions that his government have taken "mean that we face this period of global uncertainty much better placed than other major economies". Yet this goes against the reality of a global economy in which each national capital is interlinked. You can't understand the collapse of Bear Stearns or Northern Rock without putting them and the ‘credit crunch' in the context of a crisis of the world economy. Recession in the US in particular has an impact across the world. In Japan for example any recovery in its economy is dependent on its ability to sell its exports to America, which isn't about to happen when the dollar's value is collapsing, and with a population already massively in debt and scraping around to pay off mortgages.

Forget all the talk about a "period of global uncertainty": what we are witnessing are the convulsions of a system in a chronic state of crisis, and capitalism can only buy fleeting moments of ‘health' by adopting measures such as the flight into further debt that can only worsen the prospects of the next catastrophic plunge.

American recession, not ‘if', but ‘how deep?'

The big question for the media in the US is whether the economy is in recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a respected group of several economists that provides answers to such questions, but only after it's had a protracted period of decline in activity as evidence it can examine. Other economists are prepared to announce a recession, but often only to minimise its significance. For example some point to recessions in 1991 and 2001 (the bursting of the dot.com bubble) and say that while the rate of job losses during them was typically 250,000 a month, they only lasted 8 months each.

The recently announced US unemployment figures seem to put a recession beyond doubt. They show job losses for the third month in a row, the 80,000 drop being the biggest since March 2003. 2.6 million jobs have gone from the manufacturing sector over the last two years. The New York Times (4/4/8) declared "The economy is suffering the effects of a housing collapse, a credit crunch and a financial system in turmoil. That is causing people and businesses to hunker down, crimping spending, capital investment and hiring. Those things in turn further weaken the economy in what has become a vicious cycle."

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has a longer term view: "The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War." In reality the ruling class is looking back to the Crash of 1929 and the Depression of the 1930s to draw lessons for today.

For example, the Fed had to invoke emergency provisions from 1930s legislation in order get the bailout of Bear Stearns underway. Or, again, when US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson unveiled a review of the regulation of the financial sector - the biggest overhaul since the 1930s - it was welcomed as a response to the ‘credit crunch' and the turmoil on the markets. Paulson said it wasn't a response to the immediate situation but a long needed rectification. The actual measures give sweeping powers to the Federal Reserve and include the establishment of a new body to take over the role of the five existing banking regulators. As with other aspects of the proposals it amounts to a further strengthening of the role of state intervention in the economy. The state is the only force in capitalist society that can prevent the economy spiralling out of control.

With Bear Stearns, for example, this was not the first occasion that the Fed forced a bank into a shotgun wedding with a failing financial institution. A couple of months ago Bank of America Corp agreed to buy Countrywide Financial Corp, the largest mortgage lender in the US after encouragement from the Fed. The trouble with this policy is that many banks have credit problems of their own and others are already entangled in big takeovers. European banks have resisted the temptation to get involved, with one banker describing the process as like "catching a falling chainsaw". This is why the US taxpayer ends up footing the bill. As well as the thousands of Bear Stearns employees who will lose their jobs

The current crisis will not be limited to the financial sector, but will spread to the rest of the economy, having effects on trade, jobs and wages, not just in the US, but throughout the world. In America, like Britain, the real levels of unemployment and inflation are not revealed in official statistics. However, there are some fairly dramatic figures which do show how the working class in the US is already suffering from the crisis of the capitalist economy, beyond the numbers of repossessions, job cuts and rising prices. As the New York Times (31/3/8) described it: "Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s." This projection is from an official source, the Congressional Budget Office. What is not known is what proportion of the poor take up their entitlement - a maximum of $3 per person per day. The current US definition of poverty is an income of $21,500 (£10,750) for a family of four.

It will be worse in Britain

The measures adopted in Britain have been the same as in the US. The state intervened in Northern Rock, ploughing in £55bn, and still thousands of jobs will go. The British government has massively resorted to debt; its borrowing in February was the biggest for more than a decade and in the recent budget the public sector deficit was raised £7bn to £43bn. Personal indebtedness is at one of the highest levels in the world. The CBI suggests 11,000 jobs are under threat in the financial sector alone. In the budget prescription costs went up again and the Chancellor announced there would be further attacks on those on incapacity benefit.

These are the sort of measures that are familiar to workers in many countries, but here we are focusing on aspects of the crisis which will have a particularly devastating effect on the British economy.

For a start the financial sector in Britain is on a completely different scale to most other countries. Britain has seen a long-term decline in manufacturing, so that the financial sector, already centrally important for more than a century, has acquired a disproportionate weight in the British economy. As a result financial crises have a more serious effect on the rest of the economy.

Secondly, the housing bubble in Britain is bigger than elsewhere, with a much greater proportion of non-rented property and prices outrageously inflated. In America one of the signs of the recession is that house prices have fallen nationwide for the first time since the 1930s Depression. In Britain so far there have been only regional fluctuations; bearing in mind the hysteria from papers like the Mail and Express over the slightest hint of instability in the house market, they will surely become speechless with apoplexy if the US experience is repeated here. More importantly it will have an impact on many other parts of the economy

Thirdly, the effects of the economic crisis are already quite advanced in Britain. For example, at the very time that we're being encouraged to try and manage our debts, the Evening Standard (2/4/8) reports that, with mortgage approvals down 40% over the last year, "Homeowners have gone on a borrowing binge as cheap remortgaging deals dry up. Credit card debt went up by £350m and bank loans and overdrafts soared by £2bn in February. It was the highest monthly increase since records began in 1987, according to today's Bank of England figures." Of course this ‘binge' is not a matter of post-Christmas indulgence but a desperate attempt to pay household bills. Further evidence of this is shown in the number of people cutting down on their pension contributions. As Reuters reports "Britons have cut their pension contributions by almost half in the past year as prices rise and credit becomes harder to obtain. On average, people paying into private and company pension schemes have reduced their monthly contributions by 48.3 percent, according to research by Prudential [....] It also reveals that 55 percent of non-retired people are not contributing at all to private or company pension schemes." In a recent survey the vast majority of people admitted to financial worries and many have no idea how much longer they will be able to cope.

The link between crisis and class struggle

Internationally the economic crisis has taken a qualitative lurch. After years of lies about unprecedented growth the ruling class now has to admit there's a crisis. The only options open to capitalism lie in the intervention of the state and the resort to debt. We can't predict every detail of what's ahead, but we can see what's threatened. There's a huge build up of inflationary pressures, which is something that we didn't see in the 1930s. There's the threat of the collapse of whole sectors of some economies. And although the bourgeoisie of different states is capable of co-operating at some levels, every country still remains in competition with every other and is not going to bail out the failed enterprises of its rivals.

The increasingly simultaneous nature of the crisis internationally means that it's going to be less likely that the propagandists can point to possible ‘engines' that are going to drag the rest out of the mire: the limitations of what can be expected from India and China are being rapidly exposed.

We are witnessing struggles by the working class that are responses to similar attacks in different countries - on jobs, services, wages, prices and pensions. Because the crisis more and more shows the links between all economies, there is the possibility that workers can see their shared international interests, and understand that the capitalist economy cannot deliver the basic necessities of life. The working class is pushed into a fight for survival against the effects of capitalism's crisis.

Recently there have been significant struggles in Germany, typically against negotiations which amount to a direct attack on working class living and working standards, and waves of struggle in Greece, most recently against pension reforms. At the moment the media keeps such things quiet. In the future the working class will become aware not only of the bankruptcy of capitalism but of the need for a unified international class response. Car 4/4/8

The Treaty of Versailles stamped out British imperialism's most formidable competitor in the decades that preceded the war. The antagonism between Britain and Germany was at the centre of the tensions that led to the world conflict. But the threat of German expansionism was only kept in check at the cost of the growing domination of an even more formidable force: the USA, whose power of attraction was such that the centre of the world financial market was shifted from London to New York, while the US annexed many of Britain's markets in Latin America, and even drew Canada, the richest of the Commonwealth Dominions, into its orbit. American capital was able to do this not only because of the technical, organic superiority of its economy, but also because it was also able to exploit its prestige as the world's creditor.

The war also led to the rise of another force threatening British predominance in Asia: Japan, which, during the course of the conflict, actively pursued its penetration into the Asian continent and particularly into China, thus clearly posing the problem of the conquest of this market, which can only be resolved through the next world conflagration.

After redressing an economy profoundly shaken by the war, in 1924 Britain launched the struggle against the USA in order to re-conquer its global hegemony.

In spite of the degeneration of its productive apparatus, an evolution whose main characteristics we analysed in the previous article, British capital aimed to conserve intact the basis of its activity and its control, i.e. the vast network draining surplus value from the four corners of the globe, from which a parasitic bourgeoisie drew what it needed to maintain the most inept, idle existence. We have seen that the banks held the key to this universal organisation. Benefiting from the ‘failure' of the first Labour government, which had been unable to solve the problems posed by the industrial bourgeoisie, the banks, following the coming to power of Baldwin, launched a vast ‘deflationary' offensive in 1925, with the aim of revaluing the Pound. The return to the gold standard was decreed in April of the same year. The antagonism between industrial capital and finance capital, which in Britain remained much more tenacious than in Germany, France or the USA, for the reasons we have indicated, was settled for a long time to the advantage of the banks.

The effects of the deflationary policy on social relations were soon felt. In May 1926 the General Strike broke out like a thunderbolt. Lasting for 12 days and paralysing the whole of economic life, it threw the bourgeoisie into disarray. But capitalism's agents, the Citrines and Co in the TUC, alarmed by the magnificent display of proletarian solidarity in favour of the miners, dissipated the movement, abandoned the miners to their fate and left them to fight on desperately for another six months until they were totally defeated (the central issue behind their struggle had been the lengthening of the working day from 7 hours to 8). The deflationary policy, while improving the position of the Pound, weighed heavily on the productive apparatus and left British industry in an inferior position on the world market, where its competitors could sell on the basis of devalued currencies. We have already examined the striking fall in exports after 1925 and its effects on the level of production.

The collapse of industry came as no surprise when we know that, of the total volume of exports, manufactured goods made up 82% of trade with the colonies and 74% of those with countries outside the Empire. Let's add that, inversely, 2/3 of purchases were made up of food items and that these accounted for 40% of foreign imports.

An examination of the curve of external trade is interesting for two essential reasons: on the one hand, the movement of exports hides a considerable reduction in the weight of British industry on the world market; at the same time, the evolution of imports starkly reveals the parasitism of the British bourgeoisie.

The place of Britain's total trade in the global circuit of exchange has not ceased to fall since the last century: 27% in 1830, 15% in 1913, a decrease by almost a half. This was the price paid by British capitalism for having been the first to produce surplus value in large collective factories, and then seeing its privileges undermined by the extension of capitalist production to the whole world. The same can be said for the freight sector which represented a third of total trade in 1860 and stood at 9% in 1913. Here again the British merchant was losing ground.

Over a 20 year period, from 1891 to 1910, Britain only increased the volume of its trade by about 50%, whereas Germany's went up by 100%, the USA's by 75% and Japan's by 250%.

During the feverish and superficial period of economic revival after the war, overall British trade managed to keep the position it had held in 1913: 15% of world trade. But this was the last favourable period for industrial capital, which, benefiting from the general rise in prices, didn't significantly augment the volume of its exports.

The new political-economic orientation imposed by the bankers in 1924-25 was to wipe out the broad perspectives which had seemed to open up for industry. The reaction was not long in coming. And, in 1928-29, the extreme point of the fallacious and final phase of ‘prosperity' for world capitalism, we saw that while in relation to 1913 British exports had grown in value by 40% (which is explained by the rise in prices), in relation to 1924 they had fallen. Once the world crisis erupted, they fell much more rapidly than in France or Germany for example. Thus in 1931, expressed in gold Pounds, they were only a half of what they had been in 1929. But the dizzying fall in prices made it impossible to precisely measure the repercussions of such a decline on the productive apparatus. By measuring the fluctuations in the volume of exports from 1924 to 1931 we can see (especially with regard to manufactured goods) a 35% reduction, a proportion which reached almost 50% in the iron and steel industry.

But while such a decline in exports eloquently expressed the weakening of British imperialism's ability to realise on the world market the surplus value produced in the metropolis, it still doesn't show its entire depth. To do this you would also have to determine what strength this surplus value extorted from the British proletariat conferred on the bourgeoisie. An approximate way of arriving at this is to establish the percentage of exports against imports, which would thus express the buying power of the former with regard to the latter. Thus in 1913 80% of foreign purchases could have been covered by exports; in 1929, this was down to 65% and in 1931 it fell to 49%, which means that exports could only have paid for one half of the imports. In absolute figures the trade deficit trebled between 1913 and 1931. It is important to add that this figure is considerably attenuated by the fact that between 1924 and 1931 the price of imported materials fell by 50%, while those of exported goods fell by only 25%, thus improving the rate of exchange. Put in another way, in 1931, to cover a given quantity of imported commodities, you needed to export less goods than you did in 1924.

This is confirmed by the fact that the volume of imports grew by 17% between 1924 and 1931, whereas as we have seen the volume of exports plummeted by 35% in the same period. But here we can also see the insouciance of a rentier bourgeoisie, for whom the war seemed to be no more than a parenthesis and which in 1931, in the midst of the crisis, consumed 60% more foreign goods than in 1913, while three million workers had been ejected from the sphere of labour. A violent contrast typical of decaying capitalism.

A trade deficit that trebled in 20 years could hardly have been tolerated unless other factors served to restore a certain equilibrium. This counter-weight was provided by the surplus value produced outside the sphere of British capitalism properly speaking, in the colonies and the rest of the world, in the form of banking commissions, commercial ‘services' (freight etc) and revenue from exported capital.

After 1925, and in the period of the ‘stabilisation' of capitalism, which provided a relative security for the circulation of capital, these various forms of revenue increased considerably and in 1929 the increase reached 50% in relation to 1913. This margin was still not sufficient to counter-balance the fall in exports, and we saw the overall balance of payments, which had been in surplus to the tune of around £200 million before the war, transformed between 1924 and 1931 into a chronic deficit, averaging £400 million on average, except in 1929 when it was positive.

The banks still continued their policy of investment, which very rapidly exceeded the capacities of the capital market, which had been dried out by the persistent deficit in the balance of payments. The latter was only held in some kind of equilibrium thanks to a flow of foreign capital into the City of London, mainly short term placements which the bankers, owing to the lack of home-based capital, soon reinvested in more distant places like Central Europe and South America. Such a policy was well adapted to economic ‘liberalism' on a money market freed from all limitations, but was in diametric opposition to the tendency towards the closing of the economic hatches, towards the fragmenting of the world market into antagonistic ‘autonomous' economies.

The inevitable happened. On the one hand, the budget disequilibrium, the increase in floating debts, even an attempted revolt in the war fleet; on the other hand, the moratorium on debt decreed by failing debtor countries like Germany, Austria, and Argentina, were among the essential reasons leading to insecurity, panic, then the breakdown. The suspension of the gold standard was Britain's response to the massive withdrawal of capital. The resistance of the banks, however, did not reveal any fissures as was to be the case in the USA. The suppleness of the system permitted a remarkable adaptation, this time in favour of industry. But an essential point here was the fact that what had once been the cornerstone of the whole imperial edifice - Free Trade - definitively collapsed, and the Economist even went so far as to affirm that MacDonald's National Government, which took the path of protectionism and nationalism, had "signed the decree for the dissolution of the Empire".

British imperialism, faced with the depreciation of its currency, still thought that this necessity might give rise to some favourable possibilities for struggling on the world market and against American imperialism.

Certainly, an event like the crisis of 1931 could, more easily than in other countries, have had the effect of shaking the economy back to life, but British capitalism had entered the crisis of 1929 almost without any transition, since it merely prolonged the chronic depression which had been paralysing it for ten years. Furthermore, from 1929 to 1931, thanks to the free entry of foreign products, the more than 30% fall in world prices had considerably benefited the powerful buying capacity of the British market. The latter had not been severely disorganised and ‘industrial peace' had been maintained: a 5% fall in nominal wages did not really undermine the buying power of the workers, and this situation was to some extent analogous with the period of stagnation between 1885 and 1905, during which British capitalism, thanks to free trade, had benefited from the steep fall in world prices: the rise in real wages which resulted, and the maintenance of nominal wages contributed to the anaesthetising of the proletariat, to suppressing the least murmurs from the class.

The resort to protectionism provided capital with a unique historic opportunity to exploit an internal market which had been opened to the four winds for nearly a century. Here there was a perspective for a relative expansion of industrial and even agricultural production which the fall in the Pound helped to stimulate - on the one hand, as a universal currency, by exerting a downward pull on world prices, and consequently on the prices of raw materials needed for industry; and on the other hand, by enabling industry to increase its export capacities. The facts however soon gave the lie to all these bright hopes, at least with regard to exports, since the latter, far from increasing, barely managed to stay at the same volume while falling in value, under the joint impact of falling prices, the exacerbation of economic nationalism and the virulent competition from Japan which devaluated the Yen immediately after the devaluation of the Pound - the Yen was reduced by up to 40% of its value in gold whereas the Pound, on the eve of the American crisis of 1933, was only reduced by a third.

As for the internal market, even protected by tariffs, its ability to absorb the surplus from production remained very limited by its very nature - given that it is more or less a pure capitalist market, where the size of the buying power that doesn't derive from the capitalist sphere of production was limited to a very small layer of independent farmers and producers. The backward organisation of monopolies and finance capital also didn't permit a deep exploitation of the mass of consumers and made a rational policy of dumping rather difficult, all the more so because the enormous productive apparatus was disproportionate to the relative extent of the mass of consumers. British capitalism was still less aware of this structural weakness of the monopolies, which it proposed to eliminate through the development of cartels and industrial rationalisation. Meanwhile any increase in the use of its productive capacity could only be achieved by excluding foreign produced goods from the internal market; but these only represented 30% of imports. Purchases of iron, steel and machinery fell by half between 1931 and 1933, those of part-worked textiles by 4/5, while those of raw silk, supplying the luxury industries, grew by 50%.

At the same time, purchases of food products didn't significantly decrease since the devaluation of the currency weakened rather than strengthened the industry's position by provoking reactions by foreign exporters of these products.

On the world market, the retreat of the British economy continued. It turned out that the fall of the Pound didn't enable it to pierce the formidable line of defences erected by each imperialist economy. While in 1932 the volume of exports stayed at their 1931 level in value, they continued to fall behind, especially in the Far East, to the USA, Germany and the countries of the gold bloc. The failure of expansion assumed all the more importance in that the possibility of exploiting the advantages conferred by the fall of the Pound tended to disappear as internal prices, becoming detached from the world wide price falls, began to move upwards under the impact of protectionist tariffs.

Let's leave it to the partisans of ‘planning' and monetary manipulations as a means of ‘increasing the buying power of the workers' to refer to the British model and argue that a devaluation doesn't necessarily lead to a rise in prices: they are doing no more than constructing a stereotype, since although in Britain, immediately after the crisis of 1931, the rise in prices was not obvious, it was still verified by the fact that they stagnated in relation to the world-wide price fall.

Britain seeks to use the Empire as a shield against the crisis

In fact, the lack of new markets in the general crisis of capitalism forced British imperialism to orient itself towards other solutions if it didn't want to see its relative share of global surplus value diminishing. Hence its efforts towards a more rational exploitation of its colonial domain. Here the Ottawa accords of 1932 were an attempt to set up an imperial system of preferential tariffs which, while destined to be integrated into the general evolution of imperialist nationalism, was not able to set up a closed imperial economy, since this was an impossibility.

Developing metropolitan exports in the direction of the Empire and acquiring a monopoly over colonial raw materials: these were the two central objectives Britain was looking for at Ottawa. To what extent will the disintegrative and contradictory factors within the Empire, a product of its heterogeneous nature, prevent the realisation of this programme?

In the first place, the generalisation of tariffs came up against the economic needs of certain Dominions which are closely linked to other economies: Canada lives in the orbit of American capitalism, while Australia sells its wool to Japan on the condition of buying its coarse cotton goods and its silk; apart from these Dominions, India supplies Japan with cotton and buys it back as cloth. In the second place, the protectionism afforded to British agriculture is in conflict with the necessity to import the agricultural products of the colonies and elsewhere (e.g. Argentina), which in turn has repercussions on metropolitan exports.

In the third place, the preferential system constituted a threat to the motherland's extra-imperial outlets and the regulation of its loans, since it resulted in the devaluation of its currency, the basis for the buying power of its market.

In the fourth place, the capitalist nature of the Dominions and their growing industrialisation could only restrict the outlets for products manufactured in the motherland.

What is the definitive balance sheet of the Ottawa regime after only a year, together with two years of the ‘free' monetary regime?

Let's note first of all that Britain's trade balance with the Empire, which was positive in 1913, was 30% in deficit by 1931 and by 1934 this deficit had increased to 60%. On the other hand, the balance with the four Dominions and India, negative in 1913, became positive by 131% in 1931 and 134% in 1934.

As for the displacements towards Europe of a fraction of Britain's total trade between 1931 and 1934, this operated very clearly. In absolute figures, while imports from abroad (including those in transit) fell by 30%, those coming from the Empire tended to increase; exports to the Empire only fell by between 7 and 10% for sales abroad.

The need for British imperialism to prepare for war

In relative figures, the commodities coming from the Empire in 1913 were the equivalent to a quarter of total imports. In 1931 this figure stood at 28.8% and 36.9% in 1933. The relative part of exports to the Empire, which made up 32.9% in 1913, went to 41% in 1933.

From all the internal and external fluctuations of imperial trade, the following conclusions can be drawn.

The specific weight of intra-imperial trade in world trade increased after Ottawa. This was a positive result of considerable importance, even if a relative one, since the total volume of exchanges continued to contract. But imperial trade was the least hard hit. However, if we examine this result from the angle of the position of British imperialism concentrated in the metropolitan centres, it loses a lot of its value. In effect, the displacement of a part of world trade towards the Empire was essentially geared (not absolutely, but relatively) to British purchases from the Empire; and consequently, the inverse movement of colonial purchases from the metropolis was much less profound[1].

Furthermore, imperial tariffs favoured colonial exports to the metropolis to the detriment of those directed towards areas outside the Empire, but this only feebly stimulated British sales within the Empire.

The metropolitan market still remains a vast outlet for food products, raw materials and luxury goods; and it's not the growing pauperisation of the proletariat which contributes towards this, but the growing parasitism of the bourgeoisie, which up till now has managed to resist the extinction of its own industrial activity thanks to a mass of surplus value gathered throughout its huge imperial domain, and which to a large extent it has devoted to unproductive consumption.

Today it seems that for British imperialism it is no longer its coercive apparatus alone - whose relative importance has in any case diminished - which can maintain the indispensable cohesion of its system of domination. The power of its metropolitan market also represents a centripetal force capable of neutralising the tendencies towards disintegration at work in the Empire.

Not only can British capitalism ill-afford a reduction in the global volume of its profits which condition its buying power - on the contrary it must be in a position to increase them.

Between 1931 and 1933 it did manage to reduce the deficit in its balance of payments, thanks to an improvement in the trade balance; on the other hand revenues derived from exchange (freight, various services) and those from investments have continued to plummet in relation to 1931, and it is clear that the exacerbation of inter-imperialist antagonisms, the tensions in Asia, the stifling ambience in which international trade is taking place today, are elements which can only further exhaust these sources of surplus value. That is to say, those existing outside the direct control of the British bourgeoisie.

In the pre-war phase, the British bourgeoisie will have to return to the neglected problem of the development of its exports, all the more so because the trade balance has again got worse in the first nine months of 1934.

It is becoming clear that Ottawa cannot overcome the contradiction between, on the one hand, the necessity to expand industrial production in the motherland, and, on the other, the continual contraction of foreign markets since 1932, following the further reduction of world trade. For the first nine months of 1934, exports towards the Scandinavian countries and Argentina are in absolute regression, and towards the USA and Japan the decline is even more marked. Exports to Japan are hardly a third of what they were in 1929, while imports have remained at the 1929 level and even rose by 33% between 1933 and 1934. The fall in exports towards Scandinavia and Argentina is the ransom paid by the Sterling zone to the conversions of loans accorded by the City. We can also see that in the same period, in order to preserve its currency, Britain increased its purchases of foreign goods, especially from Europe.

Although British imperialism, because of its basic structure, needs to gear its activity towards the international arena, it is being pushed more and more towards nationalism, which is disarticulating the world economy. Faced with the deepening of imperialist antagonisms, whose nerve centre is Asia, it needs to develop its ability to compete. It needs to completely overhaul its archaic industrial apparatus and adapt the whole of its backward economy to the demands posed by the preparations for the next inter-imperialist war.

Because of this, the British proletariat, which has been gangrened by 50 years of ‘economism' and collaborationism, and whose powerful but short-lived outbreaks of struggle have not raised it to becoming conscious of its historic tasks, is going to face a rude awakening in the near future.

The absence of a revolutionary vanguard today makes us fearful that the leading clique of the Labour Party and the Trade Unions, which has rallied to the imperialist policies of protectionism, will tomorrow succeed in dragging the British workers, and in their wake the workers of the colonies, into the abyss of imperialist war. We thus see confirmed the conclusions drawn recently by Information about the results of the last municipal elections: "the old and traditional wisdom of the British nation will persist. The basics of British policy will not change. Going in turn from Conservatism to Labourism is, for the British, the way to guarantee their greatness and ensure peace"! Mitchell

 

---

[1] The most recent figures, for the first nine months of 1934 indicate an improvement in the coefficient of exchange between the Metropolis and the Empire in relation to 1933. But the general tendency we have noted remains.

 

The Chávez government - with the support of the opposition and unions- has unleashed repression against the workers of the Steel Zone of Venezuela who are struggling for their most basic necessities. Here we see the real Senor Chávez and his "socialism of the 21st century".

Here we are publishing a leaflet distributed by our comrades of Internacionalismo in Venezuela. We salute their effort to do this in very difficult conditions of repression and Chavist blackmail. We want to express our solidarity with the workers of the area and with our comrades and call on others to distribute and discuss this leaflet. The struggle of the proletariat is international and must confront all the forms of the bourgeois state, be they "liberal", open dictatorships or wearing the mask of "Socialism".

The bourgeois state of Chávez attacks the metal workers

After more than 13 months of discussion of their collective contract, the steel workers at Ternium-SIDOR have had enough. Indignant about the starvation wages they receive (near to the minimum salary, in one of the regions of Venezuela with the highest cost of living) and the deplorable working conditions that have lead to the deaths of 18 workers and left dozens ill from industrial illness over less than a decade, they have carried out several strikes against the firm's refusal to meet their demands about wages and working conditions.

Various parts of the media have echoed the firm's campaign of victimisation, claiming that their demands amount to more than the firm's annual sales. These lies form part of a "black out" of information, both from the opposition media and the official media, about the true causes of the metal workers' struggles. Since the 1990's these workers have been subjected to a policy of cuts in pay and working conditions, introduced through the programme of restructuring, that has led to their benefits being lower than other workers in the region. The metalworkers' struggle is about a decent level of living. They know that if they accept the company's terms and conditions[1] they will suffer more than two years of miserable increases in their wages and benefits, whilst the price of food and the cost of living increases by more than 30% annually, according to the none too reliable figures of the Central Bank of Venezuela. Another important demand of the movement is to make the contracted workers (who make up 75% of the workforce of 1,600) permanent, since this will give them better benefits. Thus, the struggle of the SIDOR workers is expressing the discontent and uncertainty that dominates the workers in the region and the whole country, faced with the endless increase in the price of food and cost of living generally, along with precarious working conditions.

Likewise, the metalworkers have had enough of the bickering between representatives of the company, government and unions. The latter in particular have progressively undermined the initial demands of the movement (the unions are now "demanding" 50 Bolivars a day, whereas at the beginning of negotiations it was 80). Having fulfilled all of the requirements for going on strike, they took part in the high level commission formed by the nefarious triumvirate. Whilst these gentlemen discussed behind the workers' backs, the workers themselves assembled at the steel work's doors and decided to carry out several stoppages, the most important of these being that of the 12th March for 80 hours which expressed the radicalisation of the movement. They did not have to wait long for the firm and the state to respond: on the 14th March the National Guard and police unleashed a furious repression, leaving more than 15 workers injured and 53 arrested. With this repressive action the Chávez government has unmasked itself in front of the workers: it cast aside its "workers" uniform and put on its true uniform, that of the defence of the interests of the national capital. It is not the first time that the "workers and socialist" state has attacked workers' struggle for their own demands: we only need to mention for example, the terrible repression meted out to oil workers last year who were struggling to improve their working conditions.

The SUTISS union is also part of the repression of the workers (despite union leaders suffering repression), since its role is to act as a fireman in the movement. It tries to put itself at the head of the movement whilst negotiating a reduction in the wage demand.

Referendum and nationalisation: new traps for the movement

Faced with the workers' intransigence, they have pulled another trick from up their sleeve: the holding of a referendum in order to consult each worker about their agreement or not with the firm's proposals. Promoted by the Chavist minister of Labour (a Trotskyist or ex-Trotskyist), the proposal has already received the agreement of the SUTISS, though with certain "conditions". Class instinct has led several workers to reject this trap, which is aimed at undermining the sovereign assemblies (where the real strength of the working class is expressed) by turning each worker into a "citizen", who will have to define himself for or against the firm and state in isolation by means of the ballot box!! Faced with this the workers need to affirm themselves through their sovereign assemblies.

Another trap used against the movement is the proposition by the unions and various "revolutionary" sectors of Chavism to renationalise SIDOR, which is mainly owned by Argentine capital (the Venezuelan state owns 20% of the shares). This campaign could be a disaster for the struggle, since the workers have no choice but to confront the capitalists, be they Argentine or Venezuelan state bureaucrats. Nationalisation does not mean the disappearance of exploitation; the state-boss, even with a "worker's" face, has no other option than to permanently try to attack workers' wages and working conditions. The left of capital presents the concentration of companies in the hands of the state as a quick way to "socialism", hiding one of the fundamental lessons of marxism: the state is the representative of the interests of each national bourgeoisie, and therefore the enemy of the proletariat. The Chavist bourgeoisie today is the head of the state which is seeking to increase the amount of surplus value it can gain, and in the name of "Bolivarian socialism" massively increases the level of precariousness of work through the missions and jointly managed companies (as happened with the workers of Invepal or Inveval).

These "Bolivarian revolutionaries" try to make the workers forget that for many years SIDOR was a state firm, and that they have had to struggle at various ties against the high rank bureaucrats of the state who administered it and their forces of repression, struggling for their own demands but also against the unions (the allies of capital in the factories). At the beginning of the 70's during the first Caldera government, this included burning down part of the installations of the CTV in Caracas in response to its anti-worker actions.

The state has been in the hands of the Chavists since 1999, but has not magically lost its capitalist character. All that has changed are its clothes, which now have a "socialist" colouring; but it is still a fundamental organ in the defence of the interests of capital against those of labour. The fact that Chávez presents himself as a "Sidorist" or a "worker" when it suits him should not confuse us about the class character of the Chavist government, which capital put in place in order to defend its system of exploitation as it sinks deeper and deeper into crisis. The workers are not so stupid as to believe these "revolutionaries" who put forwards the panacea of "re-nationalisation", but who live like bourgeois, earning salaries 30 times or more than the official minimum wage.

The only way to win: real workers' solidarity and solidarity with the population

The only way that this movement can succeed is through looking for solidarity. Initially with the contract workers, where the demand to make them permanent is one of the principle expressions of solidarity; but it is no less important to win the solidarity of workers in other branches of industry, at the regional or national level, since whether we work in the state sector or the private sector, we are all being hit by the blows of the economic crisis. It is also necessary to express solidarity with the population of Guayana, where the unemployed are affected by the high cost of living, and by the problems that the state cannot resolve, such as delinquency, housing, etc. However, this solidarity cannot be carried out through the unions, since they are the main organs for controlling the struggle, creating divisions between different industries and sectors, and in the last instance, complementing state repression; neither can solidarity with the local population be left in the hands of the social organisations created by the state, such as the communal councils. Solidarity must be "generated" by the workers themselves, through assemblies open to other workers.

The struggle of the metalworkers is our struggle, because they are fighting for a decent life, for the benefit of the whole of the proletariat. But the best benefit, apart for the momentary increase in the level of wages, resides in the development of consciousness of the strength that the proletariat has in its own hands, outside of the unions and the other institutions invented by the state in order to control social discontent.

The national bourgeoisie know that the situation in Guyana is intensely dangerous to its interests. The concentration of workers in this region and their experience of past struggles makes it very explosive, since at the same time there is a wider accumulation of labour and social discontent which has existed for some time due to the attacks on employment and workers' living conditions. In this sense, the so-called Metal Zone has a potential for transforming itself into a focal point for the workers' struggle in the country, as happened in the 60's and 70's.

The SIDOR workers have taken the only road possible for confronting the attacks of capital, that of the struggle. Spreading the fight to other branches of regional and national production, whilst looking for solidarity from the population as a whole: this is the road that will enable the Venezuelan proletariat to become part of an international movement for the overthrow capital and the creation of a real socialist society.

25.03.2008

Internacionalismo

Section in Venezuela of the International Communist Current

Web: www.internationalism.org [32]

Email: [email protected] [33]

 

---

 

[1] An increase of 44 Bolivars divided up as follows: 20 initially, 10 more in 2009 and another 10 in 2010, with another 1.5% based on performance.

We have received from Ecuador a position about the military tensions with Colombia following the incursion of its troops onto Ecuadorian territory on the 1st March, when they attacked the FARC. We are publishing the complete text here along with our commentary in order to animate and contribute towards an internationalist discussion.

To all those who have no frontiers: to the proletariat of Ecuador and Colombia

At midnight on the 1st March, Colombian armed forces entered Ecuadorian territory, hunting down and killing more than 23 guerrillas, leaving three women injured; amongst the dead was the number 2 of the FARC. This act of war, killing and massacre has unleashed the "diplomatic crisis" between the two countries; but what is the fundamental cause? First of all, everyone knows that the FARC have been coming and going from Ecuadorian territory for some time. For example, the city of Lago Agrio, which according to the inhabitants has practically become "a resting place for guerrillas and paramilitaries", until now had not been a place of conflict. Is it not strange that the areas which the FARC has controlled for some time on Colombian territory have not been recaptured by the army of this country? Likewise is it not strange that there are Colombian and North American sectors that live from the good business of war and control of drug trafficking?

In order to fully understand this conflict it is necessary to see that it is inescapably linked to the enormous crisis of the international capitalist system. The first reaction to this crisis was the 1st World War, it then spread with the 2nd and the unending wars which have continued since, causing more death and destruction than the 1st and 2nd World Wars combined. This crisis has not been overcome and amongst those affected North America prominently stands out. The economy of this country has entered into a phase of crisis which is unprecedented in its history since its foundation; as often happens with the tricks put in place by capitalist interests, war is a means for trying to absorb this crisis through blood and fire. Therefore is it not strange to see the en bloc pronouncements of the left of capital in favour of so-called "national sovereignty", "territorial inviolability", etc? No, the reality is that the leftists do not represent the interests of the proletariat but the layers that oscillate between the top and the bottom of society. They are always flirting with the most sickening nationalist tendencies. Opposed to this the world proletariat has no fatherland or nation. Our sovereignty as individuals is daily trodden under foot by capitalism's oppression and exploitation. And there is the alarming, widespread worsening of poverty, unemployment, falling wages. Therefore we can have nothing to do with the slogans that divide up the unity of the world proletariat. For our Colombian brothers and sisters there is one enemy, the bourgeoisie of Uribe (President of Colombia) is the same as the bourgeoisie of Correa (President of Ecuador), but we need to clarify about some of the differences, such as the posture of the FARC.

The movement towards the right in the 1980's and spreading into the 1990's was a violent strategy for imposing certain mechanisms aimed at allowing capitalism to emerge from its crisis. However, what was called neo-liberalism did not work. More than that, it generated a process of crisis that produced large scale reactions by various sectors of society. These reactions dominated a number of "social movements" which had the aim of opposing the implementation of "neo-liberalism", i.e. the privatisation of everything and a process of the monopolisation of trade, production, circulation and services, in favour of the world's enormous capitalist emporiums. These social movements had nothing to do with "anti-capitalism"; rather they were the most moderate expressions of the logic of the capitalist system, and never put the system as such in doubt. The move towards the right in Latin America meant a process of accumulation for certain exclusive sections of the bourgeoisie, leaving many sectors of the same class on the outside, some of which ended up being ruined whilst others simply survived on the margin of profit that the market allowed. The ideology of these sectors was increasingly soaking into these social movements, with their speeches about "new democracy", "participation", "equality" etc. This led to these "progressive bourgeois" sectors setting themselves up as political reference points for many of the socially excluded sectors and turning themselves into governments characterised by nationalism, anti-imperialism, the socialisation of certain benefits for the population, the reactivation of the productive apparatus etc; all with the aim of consolidating a local and regional market that would allow these displaced sections of the bourgeoisie, to recuperate the process of accumulation. This could only mean control through the state, with Constitutional Assemblies as the main legal tool. Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia are living examples of this. In none of these countries will we encounter a proletarian process of organisation. Rather this is avoided at all costs, since for these sectors proletarian organisation is an anachronism. The dominant ideology is the same: bourgeois, with the qualification that this has not been designed by Washington, but by the intellectuals of the capitalist system, dressed up as socialists or progressives. These bourgeois nationalists and their "human face" are the norm in countries such as Ecuador, and Correa is a representative of this tendency.

For its part the extreme right, linked to the imperialist interests, faced with the fear of annihilation or being replaced by other bourgeois forces, has had to adopt an apocalyptic discourse, and arm itself with the best technology of assassination, without being able to resolve the conflicts that these horsemen of death have set in motion. However, this crisis is reaching its end. The wars in Iraq, Palestine, and throughout the Middle East, as well as in Colombia, have produced nothing other than ruin, and it is the same for sectors of the bourgeoisie such as Uribe. Certain sectors dominated by the left have taken advantage of this panorama and the lack of proletarian organisation in order to make pronouncements in the name of the proletariat.

The proletariat has never asked them to represent it; their liberation will be the work of their own hands, or it will not be. These supposed representatives of the proletariat are nothing but the most frightening, congealed forms of state capitalism, which is as rancid and rotten as the rest of the capitalist system

For this reason the petty-bourgeois interests of the FARC are not an alternative for the Colombian proletariat. To gain socialism nationally, in one country? This is already a failure. A boss who will be the emperor of the Colombian government until he dies? One party and those who do not agree with it to get a bullet? Putting all private means of production under the control of the state? The spirit of marxism has never been, nor ever will be, based on the falsification of revolutionary theory, through these supposed revolutionary initiatives.

"Workers of the world unite" is still as valid today and tomorrow as yesterday.

Our comments

We want to salute and support this rapid taking of position on events in the region, which is clearly situated on the proletariat's internationalist terrain. The text expresses the courage of these comrades, who faced with the orgy of nationalist declarations, and even the mobilisation of troops towards the frontier with Colombia, have responded with the defence of the interests of the working class, denouncing the calls for defence of the homeland from the government and the leftists.

Internationalism is the fundamental principle of the proletariat. Throughout the history of the workers' movement, its defence and has been a key element of the revolutionary struggle; rejecting it has been synonymous with betrayal. The Social Democratic parties who, faced with the First World War, supported the military initiatives of their respective national bourgeoisies, as much through pacifism in the abstract as defending war in the concrete, betrayed the cause of the proletariat and incorporated themselves into the ranks of the bourgeois state; afterwards these same parties massacred the revolutionary struggles, for example, in Germany. Following on from them, the Stalinist CP's and the Trotskyists (already without Trotsky), faced with the Second World War, lined up the workers behind the war in the name of the "defence of the USSR" and democratic anti-fascism.

The left fractions who remained loyal to internationalism responded to the treason of these currents by putting forwards the revolutionary programme during the worldwide wave of struggles between 1917 and 23. Placing themselves at the head of the proletarian insurgency against war and for the revolution, they formed the Communist International. Then, faced with the death of International, through its transformation into an instrument of the imperialist policy of the Stalinist state in the USSR, and the treason of the CPs, the communist left remained loyal to internationalism, denouncing both gangs in the Second World War and supplying the programmatic bases for a new revolutionary perspective, in particular by drawing up a critical balance sheet of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution.

Therefore it is not strange that today internationalism - and the search for references in the positions of the communist left - are a characteristic feature of those revolutionary elements which are emerging in different parts of the world.

The comrades in Ecuador have clearly inscribed themselves in the defence of internationalism: "Our sovereignty as individuals is daily trodden under foot by capitalism's oppression and exploitation. And there is the alarming, widespread worsening of poverty, unemployment, falling wages. Therefore we can have nothing to do with the slogans that divide up the unity of the world proletariat."

Confronted with the call to struggle against the proletariat in uniform of the enemy nation, the comrades call, as did Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1914, for turning their guns on the national bourgeoisie: "For our Colombian brothers and sisters there is one enemy, the bourgeoisie of Uribe (President of Colombia) is the same as the bourgeoisie of Correa (President of Ecuador)".

In this case, the defence of internationalism has the added merit that the countries that are claiming to have been attacked (Ecuador) or questioned (Venezuela) by the Uribe government (backed by the USA), present themselves as "peoples'" governments, as "the socialism of the 21st century", saying that workers have reason to support their initiatives against US imperialism. Faced with this, the comrades have clearly shown what the reality is: "In none of these countries will we encounter a proletarian process of organisation. Rather they are avoided at all costs, since for these sectors proletarian organisation is an anachronism. The dominant ideology is the same: bourgeois".

Elements for discussion

In the analysis that this text makes of these events, their underlying causes and consequences, there are some elements that we think provide material for a discussion, which are questions about which the present proletarian elements and groups can reflect.

Is war a solution to the capitalist crisis?

The first question to ask is whether imperialist war has an economic rationality and can it help capitalism in general, or some countries in particular, to offload and ameliorate the weight of the economic crisis[1]. The text by the comrades from Ecuador rightly states that the 1st and 2nd world wars and the localised imperialist conflicts since are the ultimate expressions of the crisis of the capitalist system. They then say:

"as often happens with the tricks put in place by capitalist interests, war is a means for trying to absorb this crisis through blood and fire"

To consider whether war can absorb the crisis, first of all it is necessary to see what war we are talking about, because for the workers' movement the wars of the 19th century, the 20th century and now are not the same. In the 19th century war was able to carry out the function of extending and consolidating the world market, thus pushing forward the development of the productive forces. Therefore revolutionaries supported some of the wars that expressed these potentialities. This is why Marx on behalf of the General Council of the 1st International wrote to president Lincoln, to show its support for the North faced with the South's war of secession from the USA in 1864, or favoured Germany at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870[2].

The wars of the 20th century, begun by the 1st World War, expressed another dynamic, the stagnation of capitalism, the fight to the death between the different national capitals for the world market. Thus, the attitude of revolutionaries faced with these wars, as we have already said, was to denounce them and to struggle for the transformation of imperialist war into class war. These wars are the expression of the endless crisis of capitalism, as the Communist International said. It saw the 1st World War as the opening of the period of capitalism's decadence, of wars and revolutions. They did not expresses the alleviation of the crisis, but a step deeper into the abyss.

This problem was posed in depth by the French Communist Left in its 1945 report on the international situation:

"In the epoch of ascendant capitalism, wars (whether national, colonial or of imperial conquest) represented an upwards movement that ripened, strengthened and enlarged the capitalist system. Capitalist production used war as a continuation by other means of its political economy. Each war was justified and paid its way by the opening of a new field for greater expansion, assuring further capitalist development.

"In the epoch of decadent capital, war, like peace, expresses this decadence and greatly accelerates it.

"It would be wrong to see war as negative by definition, as a destructive shackle on the development of society, as opposed to peace, which would then appear as the normal and positive course of development of production and society. This would be to introduce a moral concept into an objective, economically determined process.

"War was the indispensable means by which capital opened up the possibilities for further development, at a time when such possibilities existed and, could only be opened up through violence. In the same way, the capitalist world, having historically exhausted all of the possibilities of development, finds in modern imperialist war the expression of its collapse. War today can only engulf the productive forces in an abyss, and accumulate ruin upon ruin, in an ever-accelerating rhythm, without opening up any possibility for the external development of production.

"Under capitalism, there exists no fundamental opposition between war and peace, but there is a difference between ascendant and decadent phases of capitalist society (and in the relation of war to peace), in the respective phases,. While in the first phase, war had the function of assuring the expansion of the market, and so of the production of the means of consumption, in the second phase, production is essential geared to the means of destruction, ie to war. The decadence of capitalist society is expressed most strikingly in the fact that, while in the ascendant period, wars had the function of stimulating economic development, in the decadent period economic activity is essentially restricted to the pursuit of war.

"This does not mean that was has become the aim of capitalist production, since this remains the production of surplus value, but that war becomes the permanent way of life in decadent capitalism." ( ‘Report on the International Situation', Gauche Communiste de France, International Review 59 page 17).

These wars of the period of decadence do not express the development of the productive forces, but their pure destruction, beginning firstly with labour power, the proletariat killed at the front, and the workers in the rearguard targeted both whilst as work in the factory and in their houses by the bombers, let alone the destruction of the productive apparatus.

If in the 1870 war between Germany and France, the main winner was Germany, whose development meant that by the end of the 19th century it had become a world power, this did not mean that France was impeded in its very important industrial development in the last decades of the 19th century, as can be seen by the organisation of the Universal Expositions of 1878, 1889 and 1900 in Paris.

In the First World War, by contrast, a third of the male population was killed or seriously injured, while European production fell by 30%; and all of this despite the theatre of military operations being relatively small compared to the 2nd World War. In that war the number of dead war was nearly four times more, some 50 million, with the considerable growth of victims amongst the civilian population as a result of the bombing of cities such as Hiroshima or Dresden. Entire nations were laid waste, such as Germany, with all their infrastructure destroyed. Of the "victorious" countries, the USA was only spared from similar destruction because it was thousands of kilometres from the front, whilst the "USSR" paid for its "victory" with 20 million dead and important material destruction. This in turn contributed to the economic backwardness that was at the root of its collapse as a world power in 1989.

The proliferation of local wars following the 2nd World War, proxy conflicts between the antagonistic imperialist blocs in Vietnam, Cambodia, the Middle East, and Africa, confirmed this, as have the wars following the collapse of the Russian bloc and the consequent disintegration of the opposing bloc, where the different powers, great and small, have pursued their own interests through a policy of everyman for himself[3].

On the other hand, contrary to what Rosa Luxembourg affirmed in her book The Accumulation of Capital (and this is one of the few criticisms we have of this book), the production and sale of armaments cannot serve as the stimulus for economic development. Unlike any other product, be they means of production or consumption, which are incorporated into production as constant and variable capital (replacing the worn out means of production, or labour power), the consumption of armaments simply means their disappearance. Therefore they do not contribute to the accumulation of capital, but its destruction.

Does the left of capital represent the interests of the middle classes?

The comrades write:

"Therefore is it not strange to see the en bloc pronouncements of the left of capital in favour of so-called "national sovereignty", "territorial inviolability", etc? No, the reality is that the leftists do not represent the interests of the proletariat but the layers that oscillate between the top and the bottom of society. They are always flirting with the most sickening nationalist tendencies".

First of all, this clearly states that the left of capital does not represents the interests of the proletariat; but what are the consequences of saying that they represent the interests of the middle layers?

The attitude of the proletariat towards these layers cannot be the same as towards the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is the enemy against which it struggles: the proletariat has to destroy the bourgeois state, and it can not have confidence in any of its expressions without being dragged onto the bourgeois terrain.

However, the question of the middle layers is much more complicated. First of all we do not think that there are really any parties that represent the intermediate strata. In the decadence of capitalism parties[4] are expressions of the whole of the bourgeoisie and tend to identify themselves as clients of the different layers of the bourgeoisie, which use, develop and perpetuate the prejudices of the middle layers and the petty-bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

On the other hand, the intermediate layers do not form a homogeneous social body but are distinguished by numerous strata which often have opposing interests. There is a part of these layers that moves towards the bourgeoisie. However there are others that are being proletarianised and whose conditions are close to those of the proletariat.

This part is not the enemy of the proletariat, although they resist losing their privileges and pose all sorts of obstacles to the revolutionary programme. The dynamic of social relations is pushing these layers towards the proletariat. Faced with this, the proletariat has to display patience and show tolerance, in order to try and convince them and win them to the revolutionary cause.

Although in many cases it does not appear to be the direct vehicle of the bourgeois state, the left of capital is an expression of bourgeois ideology, of the bourgeois conception of the working class. Its integration into the bourgeois state is the fruit of its treason to the workers' cause and all the moral degradation, cowardice, resentment and falsehood that this carries with it.

Against this, the life of the proletariat is expressed by the search for clarity, frankness, fraternity and a willingness to discuss. Therefore we hope that these comments serve to contribute to the internationalist discussion that is emerging within the ranks of the proletariat today.

Comrades in Ecuador, please accept our warm support.

Communist greetings.

The ICC, 13.3.08.

---

[1] On this question there are different concrete approaches. Some says that war allows the sale of the arms of the main producer countries (the great powers), which thus can counter-act the effects of the crisis; others says that the victorious countries can enjoy the economic benefits through taking slices of the economy of the defeated country, or the raw materials from its soil, etc. Both explanations have been raised in relation to the war in Iraq: Cheney and the Neo-Cons are the heads of military industries, and will thus amass profits, and the USA can have the oil from the Iraqi refineries. We are not going to enter into a discussion of these concrete questions here, but only take up the general analysis of imperialist war and crisis

 

[2] As Marx and Engels argued, the abolition of slavery, through the struggle of the North, meant a great impetus to the development of capitalism in the USA and at the world level; likewise, Germany's war against France could serve to push forward the formation of the German nation

[3] It is not the aim of this article to illustrate the destruction wrought by these wars, but to pose the general problem in order to stimulate the discussion. Those interested in concrete information about these military conflicts and there true "interests" can consult our pamphlet: Nation or Class, and the articles on our website through searching using the name of the conflict

[4] Here we are not talking about the party of the proletariat that is formed in the pre-revolutionary situation and on an international scale.

 

Five years after the USA, assisted by Britain and a few other countries, successfully invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in only three weeks, nothing is going according to plan. Of course we can read about an improvement in the security situation following the troop surge, about the ‘Sahwa' or Awakening in which Sunni forces in Anbar are being turned against al-Qaida - provided they are supplied with weapons that they can use for whatever purpose in the future. But events on the ground have well and truly drowned out any celebration of the original victory.

The USA remains mired in Iraq, and their overall commander, General Petraeus, has persuaded the politicians that troop levels should remain at 130,000 rather than be cut by the end of the year. So much for the success of the surge. Britain has similarly shelved plans to cut its troops.

At the beginning of March President Ahmadinejad's visit to Iraq made Iran the first regional power to make a state visit since the US invasion in 2003. He came offering $1 billion in loans, as well as trade, and calls for the US to leave. Such a diplomatic advantage going to a leader of the ‘axis of evil' adds further evidence that all is not well for the Coalition forces.

At the end of the month the push by Iraqi President Al-Maliki against the Mahdi army, with US and British air support, ended in humiliating failure. Many of his own police and security forces refused to fight or even sided with Sadr, who was able to announce a ‘cease-fire' on his own terms. This event has given rise to claim and counter-claim. What is clear is that this push against criminal gangs was aimed at Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army in Basra, which launched counter-offensives in Baghdad and elsewhere; and that despite al-Maliki's claims he would fight to the end the Iraqi administration was forced into some kind of negotiation in which Iran played a part.

US Ambassador Crocker claimed this showed the growing confidence of the Iraqi government "... in terms of decision, resolve and ability, they did it themselves and they got in the fight" (BBC news online). John McCain was much clearer "Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans... I am surprised he would take it on himself" (The Times 1.4.08). In other words this also shows the limits of US control of its puppet democracy.

Opportunity for USA's rivals

Nor should we see this as simply an Iranian victory. It is true that it has supplied some of the Mahdi army weapons, but Iran has much closer links to some of the militia who are less independent of the government, such as the Badr Brigades. Nevertheless, when the USA toppled Iraq this was of great interest to Iran. The neighbours were rival regional powers, each effectively cancelling out the other's ambitions. When the pro-western Shah was toppled, leaving the country in the hands of much less reliable Mullahs, the US used Iraq, under their ally Saddam Hussein, in a war lasting through the 1980s to weaken Iran. That was before the collapse of the USSR when the world was divided between US and Russian imperialist blocs, two fairly stable alliances lined up against each other, and America was simply defending its dominance in the area. When first the Warsaw Pact and then the USSR itself collapsed the USA was left as the only superpower, but its allies and clients in the ‘west' no longer needed its protection against the opposing bloc, and had to be convinced that there was a good reason not to go all out for their own interests even against America. That reason was Washington's enormous military superiority. Iraq now had a new use - as an American whipping boy to impose its authority over its allies and display its terrifying fire-power in the first Gulf war in 1991 and again in 2003.

In order to maintain its position the USA has been constrained to engage in repeated military adventures, and has needed to gain overwhelming victories, for as soon as it shows weakness other powers can see an opportunity to challenge its hegemony. Iran is a good example here: with the US bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, Tehran has the opportunity not just to arm rebel gangs in Iraq, or gain a minor diplomatic victory, but also to pursue its dream of obtaining nuclear weapons and rivalling Israel as a Middle Eastern power.

And there are far bigger fish involved. At the time of the first Gulf War under Bush Senior no-one dared to oppose the action, and powers such as Germany and Japan were made to pay for a war effort that was also aimed at warning them not to challenge America. By 2003 Germany and France were confident enough to oppose the second Gulf War openly. More recently there has been friction between the occupying powers in Afghanistan over the strategy to follow: the British trying to "reconcile" Taliban fighters as in Musa Qala, while the Americans "just want to kill them" (The Times 2.4.08).

Spreading chaos

All this manoeuvring, by both the US and its rivals, increases instability. In Iraq it is obvious: an unknown number of Iraqi civilians killed, probably in six figures, power cuts, and during the recent push against the Mahdi army a curfew in Baghdad that left the streets empty and the shops without any fresh fruit or vegetables, not to mention the factional disputes verging on civil war. The initial invasion, the arms supplied by Iran, Turkey's recent incursions in the North, all play their part.

But the chaos does not stop at the Iraqi border. As the US is seen to be faltering, its allies in the Middle East and beyond are also weakened: Israel has responded by attacking Lebanon and now Gaza to reinforce its position; Hamas and al Fatah are in open conflict; and further east Pakistan has been destabilised. A very, very dangerous situation in which Israel and Pakistan are already nuclear powers and Iran is on the way to being one.

Nationalism is part of the problem

There are always those who see something ‘revolutionary' in imperialist chaos. For instance Socialist Worker (issue 2095) claims "Basra uprising beats occupiers" and quotes the Association of Muslim Scholars calling for "all Iraqis to show unity and solidarity and prevent the threats against the people who oppose the occupation". But what is the basis for this opposition? As the article says "a popular nationalist movement led by the rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr", ie, nationalism, religious and factional. This movement may use and channel the very real discontent at the killings, destruction and privations of the occupation, but it is fully integrated into the very system of imperialist relations that has caused the problem in the first place.

The working class, whether in Britain or Iraq or elsewhere, cannot afford to be taken in by illusions in nationalism from any country or faction, of whatever size. Our inspiration comes from the solidarity of workers defending their own living conditions from Egypt to the USA, Dubai to Germany. Alex 5.4.08

 

Protests over the Chinese state's brutal treatment of the population of Tibet have dogged the passage of the Olympic torch from the moment it was lit. They seem likely to reach a climax on June 21 when the flame reaches Lhasa, the Tibetan capital.

In March demonstrations in Tibet turned to riots in which the Chinese government said that 19 died, the victims of Tibetan mobs, while the Tibetan government-in-exile say that 140 died, most of them victims of the security forces. There was also reporting of riots in other provinces that are home to significant Tibetan communities.

The Chinese blamed the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader, for inciting violence. The Communist Party Secretary in Tibet said "The Dalai Lama is a wolf wrapped in a habit, a monster with human face and animal's heart." An article in the Guangming Daily declared that "The Dalai Lama and his supporters, representatives of the feudal serf owners of old Tibet, have never done anything good for the Tibetan people in the past 50 years". Leftist supporters of Chinese state repression denied that there was any ‘national liberation' struggle going on in the region, insisting that the ‘secessionists' were backed by America and that the Dalai Lama was a paid stooge of US intelligence, using the build up to the Beijing Olympics to undermine Chinese integrity and stability.

In opposition to this the Free Tibet Campaign says in a Fact Sheet that "China's invasion by 40,000 troops in 1950 was an act of unprovoked aggression. [...] Some 1.2 million Tibetans are estimated to have been killed by the Chinese since 1950 [...] The influx of Chinese nationals has destabilised the economy" and that there are now "5 to 5.5 million Chinese to 4.5 million Tibetans". Meanwhile "The Indian Government reports that are three nuclear missile sites, and an estimated 300,000 troops stationed on Tibetan territory". This campaign also has a lot of support from famous celebrities, from Richard Gere's speech at the 1993 Academy Awards to Harrison Ford, Sharon Stone, U2 and REM.

Alongside the liberals and celebrity Buddhists there are leftists who do see a struggle for national independence. "The riots and protests that have erupted in Tibet this week are the product of decades of national oppression" says Socialist Worker (22/3/8). The SWP is disappointed that "economic growth has passed by most Tibetans. Chinese people and other ethnic minorities have taken most of the new jobs created - which is one reason why they were targeted during the recent rioting." Such remarks seem reminiscent of the ‘they come over here and take our jobs' school of thought...

A number of these diverse propaganda points are actually confirmed by reality. There is no doubt that the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet has been a long chronicle of barbarism. It is equally true that the Lamaist regime they toppled was based on a centuries-old system of exploitation. And it is no less the case that any imperialist power seeking to curtail China's own growing imperialist ambitions will want to encourage secessionist or oppositional movements in the areas it controls. Whether the CIA pays the Dalai Lama is not the point. American imperialism has often played the human rights card to get at other imperialisms: look at the whole period of the Cold War when the regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe were the target of its campaigns. It is also significant that the Indian government keeps a close eye on Tibet, because of the threat of its regional rival, Chinese imperialism.

So during the French President's recent state visit, the reason that Brown didn't favour a boycott of the Olympics, while Sarkozy didn't rule it out, wasn't because one was more humanitarian than the other, but because of different approaches to the best way to defend imperialist interests. The defence of ‘human rights' and opposition to ‘national oppression' are standard weapons of the most bloodthirsty ruling class in history. When they talk of their desire for peace, watch out for their preparations for war. Car 5/4/8

Forty years ago on 22 March 1968, at Nanterre, in the western suburbs of Paris, there began one of the major episodes of international history since the Second World War; what the media and French politicians usually call the ‘events of 68.' In itself, what happened that day was nothing exceptional: protesting against the arrest of a student of the extreme left from Nanterre suspected of being involved in an attack against the American Express offices in Paris during violent demonstrations against the Vietnam War, 300 of his comrades held a meeting in an amphitheatre and 142 of them decided to occupy a room of the University Council in the administrative building overnight. It wasn't the first time that the students of Nanterre had demonstrated their discontent. Thus, just a year before at this university, we'd already seen a fight between students and police over the free movement of students in the university residence - allowed to the girls, but forbidden to the boys. On March 16 1967, an association of 500 residents, the ARCUN, decreed the abolition of the domestic rule that, amongst other things, treated the students, even the older ones (older than 21 at this time), as minors. Following which, on March 21 1967, on the demand of the administration, the police had surrounded the girls' residence with the plan of arresting 150 boys who were found there and who were barricaded in on the top floor of the building. But, the following morning, the police themselves had been encircled by several thousand students and had finally received the order to leave without touching the student barricades. But these incidents, as well as other demonstrations of student anger, notably against the ‘Fouchet Plan' for university reform in the autumn of 1967, were short-lived. March 22 1968 was something else entirely. A few weeks later, a succession of events led not only to the strongest student mobilisation since the war, but above all the biggest strike in the history of the international workers' movement: more than 9 million workers on strike for almost a month.

For communists, contrary to the majority of speeches that were already being dished out, it wasn't the student agitation, as massive and ‘radical' as it was, which constituted the major fact of the ‘events of 68' in France. It was rather the workers' strike which, by far, occupied this place and which took on a considerable historical significance. We are going to treat this question in the columns of our press in other articles. Here, we want to limit ourselves to examining the students' struggles of this time and to drawing out their significance.

From March 22 to May 13 1968

Before leaving, the 142 occupants of the Council room decided, so as to maintain and develop the agitation, to constitute the March 22 Movement (M22). It was an informal movement, composed at the beginning of Trotskyists of the Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire (LCR) and some anarchists (including Daniel Cohn-Bendit), joined at the end of April by the Maoists of the Union des Jeunesses Communistes Marxistes-Leniniste (UJCML), and which brought together over some weeks, more than 1,200 participants. The walls of the university were covered with posters and graffiti: "Professors, you are old and so is your culture", "Let us live", "Take your dreams for reality". The M22 announced a day of ‘university criticism' for March 29, following similar action from German students. The dean decided to close the university until April 1 but the agitation restarted when the university reopened. In front of 1000 students, Cohn-Bendit declared: "We refuse to be the future cadres of capitalist exploitation". The majority of teachers reacted in a conservative fashion: on April 22, 18 of them, including those of the "left", demanded "measures and means so that the agitators can be unmasked and sanctioned". The dean adopted a whole series of repressive measures, notably giving free rein to the police in the passages and paths of the campus, while the press was unleashed against the "madness", the "small groups" and the "anarchists". The French Communist Party fell into line: April 26, Pierre Juqin, a member of the Central Committee, held a meeting in Nanterre: "The agitators are preventing the sons of workers from passing their exams". He couldn't finish and had to flee. In Humanity of March 3, Georges Marchais, number 2 in the Communist Party, said in his turn: "These false revolutionaries must be energetically unmasked because objectively they serve the interests of Gaullist power and the great capitalist monopolies".

On the campus at Nanterre, scuffles became more and more frequent between the students of the extreme-left and fascist groups of the Occident group, coming from Paris to ‘beat up the Bolshies'. Faced with this situation the dean decided on May 2 to again close the university, which was ringed by the police. The students of Nanterre decided that the following day they would hold a meeting in the courtyard of the Sorbonne in order to protest against the closure of their university and the disciplinary proceedings against 8 members of the M22, including Cohn-Bendit.

There were only 300 at the meeting: the majority of students were actively preparing for their end of year exams. However, the government, which wanted to finish with the agitation, decided to strike a blow and occupy the Latin Quarter and encircle the Sorbonne with police. The police entered the university, something which hadn't happened for centuries. The students, who had fallen back into the Sorbonne, obtained assurance that they would be able to leave without hindrance but, while the girls were able to go freely, the boys were systematically led into the prison vans, from which they escaped. Rapidly, hundreds of students assembled on the square of the Sorbonne and insulted the police. Tear gas began to rain down: the area was taken but the students, more and more numerous now, began to harass the groups of police and their wagons. The confrontations continued for four hours during the evening: 72 police were wounded and 400 demonstrators arrested. The following days, police completely surrounded the approaches to the Sorbonne while four students were sent to prison. This policy of firmness, far from stopping the agitation, gave it a massive character. From Monday May 6, confrontations with the forces of the police deployed around the Sorbonne alternated with more and more sustained demonstrations called for by the M22, the UNEF and the SNESUP (union of head teachers) and regrouped up to 45,000 participants to the cries of "Sorbonne to the students", "cops out of the Latin Quarter" and above all "free our comrades". The students were joined by a growing number of schoolchildren, teachers, workers and unemployed. The processions quickly crossed over the Seine and covered the Champs-Elysees, close to the Presidential Palace. The Internationale reverberated under the Arc de Triomphe where one usually heard La Marseillasie or the Last Post. The demonstrators also prevailed in some towns of the provinces. The government wanted to give a token of good will by reopening the university of Nanterre on May 10. That evening, tens of thousands of demonstrators were to be found in the Latin Quarter in front of the police surrounding the Sorbonne. At 2100 hours, some demonstrators began to build barricades (there were about sixty of them). At midnight, a delegation of 3 teachers and 3 students (including Cohn-Bendit) was received by the rector of the Academie de Paris but, while agreeing to reopen the Sorbonne, he could make no promises about freeing the students arrested on May 3. At two in the morning, the CRS led the assault on the barricades after spraying copious amounts of tear gas. The confrontations were extremely violent provoking hundreds of wounded on both sides. More than 500 demonstrators were arrested. In the Latin Quarter, numerous inhabitants demonstrated their sympathies by welcoming demonstrators into their homes and throwing water onto the street in order to protect them from the tear gas and offensive grenades. All these events, and notably the witnesses to the brutality of the forces of repression, were being followed on the radio, minute by minute, by hundreds of thousands of people. At six in the morning, ‘order reigned' in a Latin Quarter that seemed to have been swept by a tornado.

On Saturday May 11, indignation was immense in Paris and the whole of France. Processions formed spontaneously throughout the country, regrouping not only students but also hundreds of thousands of demonstrators of all origins, notably many young workers or parents of students. Everywhere universities were occupied; in the streets and squares, people discussed and condemned the attitude of the forces of repression.

Faced with this situation, the Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, announced in the evening that from Monday May 13 the police would be withdrawn from the Latin Quarter, that the Sorbonne would be reopened and the imprisoned students would be freed.

The same day, all the centres of the trade unions, including the CGT (which up until then had only denounced the ‘leftist' students), and even some police unions, called for a strike and demonstrations for May 13, so as to protest against the repression and against the policy of the government.

On May 13, every town in the country saw the most important demonstrations since World War II. The working class was massively present at the side of the students. One of the most used slogans was: "Ten years, that's enough!" with reference to the date of May 13 1958 which had seen the return of De Gaulle to power. At the end of the demonstrations, practically all the universities were occupied, not only by the students but also by many young workers. Everywhere, anyone could speak. Discussions were not limited to questions about universities and repression. They began to confront all the social problems: conditions of work, exploitation, the future of society.

On May 14 discussions continued in many firms. After the immense demonstrations the day before, with the enthusiasm and feelings of strength that emanated from them, it was difficult to carry on as if nothing had happened. In Nantes, the workers of Sud-Aviation, carried along by the youngest workers, a spontaneous strike broke out and they decided to occupy the factory. The working class began to take up the reins.

The student movement world-wide

Given the connection of events which led to the immense mobilisation of 13 May 1968, it's clear that it wasn't so much the action of the students which was responsible for the breadth of the movement but rather the action of the authorities themselves that continued to pour oil on the fire before beating a sorry retreat. In fact, the student's struggles in France, before reaching the scale of May 68, were much less massive and profound than those in other countries, notably the United States and Germany.

It was in the biggest world power, the United States, that from 1964 witnessed the most massive and significant movements of this period. More precisely, it was in Berkeley University, North California, that student protest took on a massive character for the first time. The demands that initially mobilised the students came from the ‘free speech movement' in favour of free political expression (notably against the Vietnam War and racial segregation) in the surrounds of the university. At first the bourgeoisie reacted with extreme repression, notably by sending police against the ‘sit-in', a peaceful occupation of the premises, making 800 arrests. Finally, at the beginning of 1965, the university authorities authorised political activities in the university which went on to become one of the principal centres of student protest in the United States. At the same time, it was with the slogan of "cleaning up the disorder at Berkeley" that Ronald Reagan was, against all expectations, elected Governor of California at the end of 1965. The movement developed massively and radicalised in the years following, around protest about racial segregation, for the defence of women's rights and above all against the war in Vietnam. At the same time as young Americans, above all students, fled abroad in numbers in order to avoid being sent to Vietnam, the majority of universities in the country were affected by anti-war movements. At the same time, there were also outbursts in the black ghettos of the major towns (the proportion of young blacks among soldiers being sent to Vietnam was much higher than the national average). From April 23 to April 30, 1968, Columbia University in New York was occupied in protest against the contribution of its departments to the activities of the Pentagon and in solidarity with the inhabitants of the neighbouring black ghetto of Harlem. It was one of the peaks of student protest in the United States, which saw its most violent moments at the end of August in Chicago, with real riots at the Democratic Party Convention.

Many other countries saw student revolts during the course of this period.

Japan: from 1965, students demonstrated against the Vietnam War, notably under the leadership of the Zengakuren, which organised formidable fights against the police. In 1968, they launched the slogan: "let's transform the Kanda (the university quarter of Tokyo) into the Latin Quarter".

Although the student movement in Britain was not on the same scale as France or the US there were expressions of it as early as October 1966 at the London School of Economics where students protested against the new director because of his links with the racist regimes of Rhodesia and South Africa. The LSE continued to be affected by protests, for example in March 1967 there was a five-day sit-in against disciplinary action that led to an experimental ‘free university' copying American examples. In December 1967 there were sit-ins at the Regent Street Polytechnic and the Holborn College of Law and Commerce, both demanding student representations in the institutions decision-making process. In May and June 1968 there were occupations at Essex, Hornsey College of Art, Hull, Bristol and Keele leading to further protests in Croydon, Birmingham, Liverpool, Guildford, and the Royal College of Arts. The most spectacular demonstrations (which involved a whole range of different people and different causes) were a series around the Vietnam War: in March and October 67, in March 68 and in the most massive and celebrated demonstration in October 1968, all of which involved violent clashes with the police with hundreds of injuries and arrests outside the American embassy in Grosvenor Square, London.

Italy: students mobilised in March in numerous universities, and notably in Rome, against the Vietnam War and similarly against the policies of the university authorities.

Spain: in March, the university of Madrid was closed ‘indefinitely' faced with student agitation against the war in Vietnam and the Francoist regime.

Germany: student agitation was already developing from 1967 against the war in Vietnam and that increased the influence of the extreme-left SDS movement, coming out of a break with the young Social Democrats. The movement then radicalised and took a mass character with the attack in Berlin against the main leader of the extreme-left, Rudi Dutschke, committed by a youngster who had been wound up and influenced by the hysterical campaigns unleashed by the press of the magnate Axel Springer. For several weeks, before attention was turned towards France, the student movement in Germany was a reference point for all of the movements that touched the majority of countries in Europe.

This list is obviously far from exhaustive. Many countries on the periphery of capitalism were equally affected by student movements during the course of 1968 (Brazil and Turkey, amongst others). We should however mention what happened in Mexico at the end of the summer, when the government decided on the bloody suppression of student demonstrations (several dozen killed, possibly hundreds, on October 2 at the Place of Three-Cultures, Tlatlolco, Mexico) so the Olympic Games could take place ‘in peace' from October 12.

What characterises all of these movements is clear: above all, the rejection of the war in Vietnam. But whereas the Stalinist parties, allies of the Hanoi and Moscow regimes, would have logically been found at their head, as was the case with the anti-war movements around the Korean War in the early 1950s, it was nowhere the case here. On the contrary, these parties had practically no influence and, quite often, they were in complete opposition to these movements.

This is one of the characteristics of the student movements of the end of the 1960s, and it reveals their profound significance. We are going to examine this further in the next article. Fabienne 23/2/8

This article is available as a leaflet to download and distribute here:

https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/April-24-leaflet.pdf [41]

---

On 24 April 250,000 teachers will be staging a one day strike against the government's latest pay offer. They will be joined by further education lecturers, civil servants, and council workers. Marches and rallies will be held in a large number of cities.

There are certainly any number of reasons for taking action, not only in these sectors, but right across the working class:

• below-inflation pay offers
• rising prices for basic necessities like food and fuel
• increasing unemployment, not least the 6,500 jobs under threat at the newly nationalised Northern Rock
• attacks on pensions and other benefits
• spiralling personal debts
• decline in services like health and education

All these and many other attacks on workers' living standards are being supervised or directly imposed not just by individual employers but by the state, whether in its national or local guise. Faced with a mounting economic crisis that is clearly global in scope, the national state is revealing itself more and more as the only force capable of organising the response required by the capitalist system: reducing labour costs to compete for markets and preserve profits. Therefore the state steps in to bail out failing banks in Britain and the US, forces public sector workers to accept ‘pay restraint', introduces cuts in health, welfare and education (in other words, reductions in the social wage), introduces new laws reducing pensions and lengthening our working lives. And when economic competition gives way to military competition, as in the Balkans, Afghanistan or Iraq, it's the state which diverts vast amounts of social wealth into building weapons and waging war.

These polices are not the result of evil individuals or of particular governmental parties. Governments of the right or the left carry out the same basic policies. In North America the Bush government extols free enterprise and presides over an economy in which 28 million need food stamps to survive. In South America, Chavez denounces Bush, talks about ‘21st century socialism' - and dispatches squads of ‘Bolivarian revolutionaries' to suppress striking steel workers.

Faced with this centralised, statified attack on their living and working conditions, workers everywhere have the same interests: to resist wage cuts and job cuts, to react against inroads on their social benefits. But they cannot do this by fighting separately, sector by sector, workplace by workplace. Faced with the power of the capitalist state, they need to form a power of their own, based on their unity and solidarity across all divisions into trade, union, or nationality.

After years of dispersal and disarray, workers are only just beginning to rediscover in practice what unity and solidarity mean. They need to take every opportunity to turn these general principles into practical action. If the unions are calling for strikes and demonstrations around issues of direct concern to them, as on April 24, workers should respond as massively as possible - go to the mass meetings, join the marches, take part in the pickets, discuss and exchange ideas with workers from other sectors and workplace.

Workers' unity cannot be organised through the unions

But beware: the trade unions, who present themselves as the representatives of the workers, in reality serve to keep us divided.

This is nowhere clearer than in the education sector. The strike on 24 April involves the NUT members in primary and secondary education. It doesn't involve teachers in sixth form colleges who have ‘different' employers. Neither does it involve teachers from other unions, such as the NAS/UWT which says the issue isn't pay, but workload. Nor does it involve thousands of education workers who aren't teachers, such as learning support assistants, site staff, cleaners, caterers etc, even though they have plenty to be aggrieved about. And though the NUT seems to be talking tough today, when many of these educational support workers came out on strike in 2006, the NUT told its members to cross their picket lines.

The same story can be repeated in the civil service, in the local authorities, on the tubes and railways, and any number of other industries where workers are divided up into different categories and unions. The state in Britain has long made it illegal for those who work for different employers to strike in solidarity with each other. By keeping workers in the framework of these laws, the unions do the work of the state on the shop floor. The same goes for the laws that forbid workers to decide on strike action in mass meetings. Union ballot rigmaroles tie workers' hands behind their backs and prevent them from making decisions as a collective force.

It follows that if we are to become such a force, we have to start to take the struggle into our hands, and not leave it in the hands of the union ‘specialists'. Council workers in Birmingham voted in mass meetings to take part in the strikes around April 24. It's a good example to follow: we need to hold meetings in every workplace where all workers, from all unions or none, can take part and take the decisions. And we need to insist that decisions taken in mass meetings are binding, not dependent on ballots or private meetings of union officials.

Unity at the workplace is inseparable from building unity with workers from other workplaces and other industries, whether we do it through sending delegations to their meetings, by joining their picket lines, or gathering together at rallies and demonstrations.

Calling on all workers to assemble, strike and demonstrate together for common demands is, naturally, ‘illegal' in the face of a state which wants to outlaw real class solidarity. This may seem daunting at first, too big a step to take. But it's in the very act of taking matters into our hands and uniting with other workers that we develop the confidence and courage to take the struggle even further.

And given the bleak prospects offered by the world capitalist system - a future of crisis, war, and ecological disaster - there's no doubt that the struggle has to go further. It has to go from the defence of our basic living conditions to questioning and challenging this entire social order. Amos 5/4/8

Inflation increasingly puts basic necessities out of reach of the world's poor. Used on the front page of World Revolution 314, May 2008. UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon has said that “the dramatic escalation in food prices worldwide has evolved into an unprecedented challenge of global proportions”. While the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that globally average food prices have risen 57% over the last year, this average is exceeded by certain staples. With rice up 74% over a year (217% over the last two years), wheat up 130% (136%), corn 31% (125%) and soybeans 87% ( 107%) we’re looking at absolute essentials for the majority of the world’s population. As we pointed out in WR 311 (‘Inflation meets recession’) in the 82 poorest countries, where 60 to 90% of the family budget is spent on food, anticipated rises in food prices mean that much of the population will suffer famine, and ultimately death. Already throughout the world 100,000 people every day die from starvation.

As the statistics accumulate, so does the other evidence of the growing hunger across the world. To take the examples that have been most publicised in the European media: the food riots, demonstrations and strikes that have occurred in Africa (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco and Senegal), Asia (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Yemen) and the Americas (Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, Mexico and Peru.)

In WR 313 (‘It’s a crisis of the whole system’) we referred to the record 28 million in the US who were anticipated to be claiming food stamps by November. This figure has had to be revised as the total had already reached 27.7m in January, and remember that only about 65% of those eligible make a claim. It’s true that the situation in the US is not the same as in the most devastated countries, but, if you bear in mind that, beyond the food stamps, there is a network of 200 regional food banks to about 30,000 churches and soup kitchens across the country, you can what the real extent of American ‘prosperity’ is.

Many explanations, but no capitalist solutions

The head of the UN’s World Food Programme, describing the crisis as a “silent tsunami” that threatened to plunge more than 100 million people into hunger, said “This is the new face of hunger -- the millions of people who were not in the urgent hunger category six months ago but now are.”

Alongside the admission of a crisis the bourgeoisie does have explanations, and even attempts at amelioration. The FAO points to low levels of world stocks following below-average harvests; crop failures; growing demand for subsidised grain-based biofuels; lower production levels in OECD countries; increased demand from countries like China and India; and climate change.

37 countries are listed by the FAO as being “in crisis requiring external assistance”. It distinguishes between three categories:

“Countries facing an exceptional shortfall in aggregate food production/supplies as a result of crop failure, natural disasters, interruption of imports, disruption of distribution, excessive post-harvest losses, or other supply bottlenecks.

Countries with widespread lack of access, where a majority of the population is considered to be unable to procure food from local markets, due to very low incomes, exceptionally high food prices, or the inability to circulate within the country.

Countries with severe localized food insecurity due to the influx of refugees, a concentration of internally displaced persons, or areas with combinations of crop failure and deep poverty.”

If you look through the factors that undermine the possibility of viable agriculture, it’s clear that war lies behind a number of them. The disruption of imports, distribution and circulation within a country, movements of refugees and internally displaced people can most often be put down to past or current conflicts. This is a circular question. When the head of the IMF warned of mass starvation and other terrible consequences if food prices carried on going up so quickly he said “As we know, learning from the past, those kinds of questions sometimes end in war.” In the short term capitalism can only briefly stop wars; in the long term it makes them more likely.

Of the other factors (crop failures, post-harvest losses, deep poverty etc), some can be put down to ‘natural’ disasters like drought and flood, which, whether attributed to climate change or not, capitalism has shown no sign of wanting or being able to deal with, or to social situations which are worsening with the deepening of the economic crisis across the globe, an inevitable result of capitalist production for profit.

It is no surprise that the FAO talks of ‘crisis’ and ‘external assistance’. It can only think it terms of responses to emergencies, short term action for something that has no long term solution within capitalism. It can only conceive of ‘external’ help, because, in the anarchy of capitalist production, the poorest countries stand no chance of getting out of their current position, relying on aid from the richest countries to ‘survive’.

When organisations like the FAO, IMF, World Bank, the WTO and all the rest meet together for crisis talks, they can only propose various forms of aid, subsidies and loans. There are sometimes campaigns for changes in production patterns, but they can only have the most minimal effect on the overall situation. 2008, for example, is the International Year of the Potato. The FAO enthuses over the nutritional qualities of the potato and how it has been neglected as a potential source of income. But no amount of diversification can solve the basic problem, any more than so-called ‘fair trade’ schemes, that still, after all, leave exploitation in place.

The fundamental reality with the rise in food prices, like the rise in fuel prices, is that they are a direct product of the economic crisis. It is not within capitalism’s powers to deal with the factors that cause the food crisis, as it is capitalism itself that generates all the problems. Don’t believe any ‘solution’ that leaves capitalist rule untouched. It has to be dismantled worldwide, and replaced by a different system of production where food and all life’s other necessities are produced and distributed on the basis of need, not sale and profit.

At the latest food summit in Berne, Ban Ki-moon warned of the “spectre of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale.” It is the spectre of increasing working class struggle that most disturbs the ruling class. Car 29/4/8

The 1st May local election results were a very bad setback for the Labour government, with only 24% of the vote, the lowest share since 1968, the loss of a number of councils in their core areas of support, and most spectacularly Boris Johnson's victory over Ken Livingstone in the London Mayoral election.

This fiasco is widely, and correctly, put down to the feel-bad effect of the economy since the credit crunch. Gordon Brown has tried to insist that the economy is basically sound and Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, has argued that investors overdo the "doom and gloom" of the markets. But there has been a whole media campaign blaming the economic problems on Gordon Brown's incompetence, while various Labour MPs have, rather belatedly, discovered that the loss of the 10p tax band announced a year ago when he was still chancellor will hurt many Labour voters on low incomes.

Fears about the effects of the credit crunch on the economy, and particularly jobs and living standards, are entirely justified. The housing bubble, an integral part of Britain's ‘growth' during Brown's chancellorship, burst loudly with the dramatic run on Northern Rock, the first on a British bank for well over a century. House prices have been estimated as 25-30% overpriced, or to put it another way, the price of a home for a first time buyer is now well over 5 times annual income whereas it was just under 4 times income at the end of the 1980s, immediately before the last fall in the housing market. Naturally house prices are now falling, down 0.6% in March, 1.8% in April, and 4% down from peak levels last summer according to building societies; but not all buyers have a mortgage and estate agents have noticed that overall sales are about 10% down on the peak of last summer (The Economist 12.4.08). The IMF has estimated that the credit crunch will cost nearly $1 trillion in write-downs and credit losses for financial institutions internationally.

The long and the short of it is that while more and more money is being made available to the banks - such as the £50 billion the Bank of England announced it will make available in bonds in exchange for mortgage security at the end of last month, and the bank base rate is falling - mortgages are rising on top of already unprecedented repayments: "Mortgage payments are making ever-larger dents in household income, rising from 12.5 per cent in 1997 to 17.6 per cent in May this year" (Independent 24.8.07). Of course, the actual payments for any household with a mortgage is much higher. And that is for those who can afford a mortgage. It is estimated that the effect of the crunch will be the loss of 40,000 city jobs; a third of estate agents may close, and a further 100,000 retail jobs may go.

Is it all down to poor government, or is there a more serious underlying problem in the economy?

But what about the soundness of the British economy?

Britain was not just the workshop of the world and imperialist top dog in the 19th Century, with a third of the land mass coloured pink (for the empire) on maps, it was also the world's banker. Financial services played an increasingly important part in Britain's economy, and their relative importance increased from the late 1800s as her competitors, especially USA and Germany, caught up and overtook her industrial production. Much of the world had conducted its trade in £s, the ‘Sterling area' including Portugal, Argentina and Scandinavia. Britain's huge financial sector was analysed by revolutionaries in the Italian communist left in the 1930s: "It is a fact that British finance has for a long time ceased to be interested in the industrial and agricultural sphere in the Metropolis, contenting itself with gleaning profits from merchants and colonies and from the capital exports derived from accumulation in industry. ... The structural particularities of finance capital constitute both a weakness and a strength: a weakness, because, due to its intimate links with the mechanisms of world trade, it suffered from their perturbations; a strength because, cut off from production, it retains a greater elasticity of action in periods of crisis" (‘The evolution of British imperialism', WR 312). The depth of Britain's continued decline was shown up very clearly with the sterling devaluation forced on the Labour government in 1967 by a run on the pound, which marked the final end of the last remnants of the Sterling area. The devaluation was also an important marker of the onset of the economic crisis internationally.

With British industry in even further decline since then, the underlying weakness of the economy is more pronounced and the strength and elasticity less effective, particularly in a crisis which is centred on banks and financial services. "Jim O'Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, who correctly forecast the collapse of the US property market, said that Britain was likely to be the worst hit of the world's economies in the fallout of the global credit crisis. Mr O'Neill said that Britain, with its heavy reliance on financial services, was ‘in the eye of the storm of a de-leveraging world economy' and that British homeowners would bear the brunt of the City's ensuing slowdown" (The Times 1.5.08). He also predicted that Britain's service sector would lose ground to the rest of Europe.

To understand the extent of the effect that this will have we need to see that the housing bubble was one of the main factors behind a huge increase in personal debt, rising to £1.35 trillion up from 1.25 in 2006, ie more than the GDP of 1.33 trillion (Grant Thornton predictions quoted in The Independent, 24 August last year). We need to add to this mountain of personal debt a public debt of 43.3% GDP (CIA World Factbook). Back in August the Bank of England was saying that this debt was a ‘social' rather than an ‘economic' problem - by which they meant it was a problem for the individuals who got into debt. But in fact it is a social problem for the ruling class as well because of the effect the bursting of the housing bubble will have on the working class as it is faced with rising mortgages, along with rising food and fuel prices, at a time of relative pay cuts and job losses. The working class will be forced to defend its living conditions.

Britain is due to break the Maastricht rules over its public debt, with new borrowing rising to more than 3% of GDP as the Treasury loses £16 billion in revenue over the next 2 years. Brussels estimates UK growth will be down to 1.7% this financial year and 1.6% next (far less than the Treasury forecast given for public consumption at the time of the budget).

Leaner and meaner

The ruling class has not remained inactive in the face of the decline in British industry, attempting to make production leaner and fitter, more competitive, particularly in the 1980s, the Reagan and Thatcher years. This was accompanied by the ideology of neo-liberalism, but we should not let that label fool us into thinking that it was just about ‘Tory policies' nor that it was about less state intervention. The rundown of the steel industry in 1979-80 was the result of the economic crisis of the time, in particular the overproduction of steel relative to the market and the fact that British Steel could not compete. Jim Callaghan's outgoing Labour government was just as aware of the need to cut steel jobs as Thatcher. And the rundown of the steel industry was not the result of privatisation. Privatisation was simply the best way for the state to run down the industry as it gave a false target for workers' anger - not the crisis of capitalism and the state, but a particular government and the new private boss. Such diversion tactics were particularly important given the militancy of the struggles in the 70s and 80s, which included the 1980 steel strike.

The next industry to fall was coal mining, which also had to be run down in the face of the militant struggle of workers in 1984. And this time there was a clearer feeling of solidarity from the rest of the working class, although it was usually channelled into set piece battles with the police. The final nail in the coffin of the coal industry came in 1992.

Of Britain's great industrial prowess in the 19th Century - coal, iron and steel, shipbuilding, textiles - almost nothing is left. The remnants of the steel industry, Corus, was sold off to an Indian capitalist. This part of the economy is not leaner and fitter, but emaciated and moribund.

But we are talking about a crisis-ridden capitalist system, not a complete collapse. There have been new industries in the 20th Century: cars, computers, services. The massive loss of jobs in the docks was due to containerisation, which gave a boost to global trade by cutting costs, allowing some production to be transferred to areas of the world where labour is significantly cheaper, such as China and India. But none of this has re-launched the economy since the 1980s. There have been waves of redundancies in the car industry and there will be more to come as it is acknowledged that it is about 20% overcapacity world wide. Each new hope for the economy has proved to be largely speculative and given rise to its own crash - the Asian tigers in 1997, then the internet bubble, and now the housing bubble. Each new industry only participates in a crisis-wracked world capitalist system and cannot escape the limits of its solvent market, based on who can pay for things and not what is needed by human beings.

This is confirmed by the levels of unemployment. Although unemployment of 1 million became normal in Britain in the 1920s, reflecting the decline in the economy and the weakness of the recovery after the First World War, even before the depression of the 1930s, the post war boom in the 1950s and 1960s created a great need for labour and the ideology that capitalism could create full employment. But unemployment gradually rose in the late 1960s and 1970s (before the massive redundancies in steel and coal), so that the length of the dole queues was a major plank of Tory electioneering in 1979. Thatcher was duly elected and continued to lengthen the dole queues to around 3 million, only getting the unemployment figures down by statistical manipulation and forcing many unemployed to claim incapacity benefit instead of unemployment for the most minor health problems - which allows them to be portrayed as malingerers today.

No government competent to run the economy

The latest outbreak of the economic crisis is exposing the shallowness of both the Thatcherite fix of the 80s and the Brownian ‘boom' of the last ten years. Gordon Brown has lost his shining image as the prudent chancellor who presided over a healthy economy. He is now being widely portrayed as the profligate who failed to save in the good years, and an incompetent not fit to be prime minister. Taking this flack is an essential part of his job - far better for the ruling class and their state that we blame Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling, and wonder whether Cameron and Osborne could do better, than that we start to question the future capitalism has to offer us. Alex 3.5.08

In WR 312 [45] and 313 [46] we published articles (for the first time in English) on the evolution of British imperialism, from Bilan, the theoretical organ of the Italian Communist Left. They first appeared in 1934-1935 and gave a marxist framework for understanding subsequent developments.

In this issue we are republishing the first part of a text on the evolution of Britain since the Second World War, written in 1978. It is in continuity with the earlier articles, in particular with the continuing conflict of interests between British and American imperialisms. It does talk of the "complete US hegemony" in the ‘special relationship' between the UK and the US, but also acknowledges the efforts of America to deal with "any independent actions that did not correspond to its own requirements".The most obvious example of this was British and French policy over Suez.

There are some expressions in the article which have not stood the test of time, or, rather, time has helped us understand reality more clearly. For example, the text says that Labour had become the ‘natural party of government'. In fact the years of the Thatcher/Major governments, during which the Labour party played an essential role in undermining the struggles of the working class, showed that the Labour party has become the central party of the British bourgeoisie, whether in government or opposition.

There are other formulations which there is no need to take up at present as future articles on British imperialism will look more deeply at the questions raised both by the Bilan articles and developments over the last 30 years.

---

An analysis of the current situation at any time - whether at the international level or in any one country - can never be a simple snapshot; connected events are only moments in a dynamic interplay of forces which develops over a period of time. Our previous analyses of the situation in Britain have been located within a view of its development through the period since 1967 when the sterling devaluation heralded the opening-up of the present open crisis of the world capitalist system. This text attempts to gain a broader perspective on the situation in Britain by examining its evolution since the outbreak of the Second World War.

The general significance of the period for Britain

1. The general significance of this period can be summarised by the following:

- Britain’s capacity to remain a global imperialist power was broken by the systematic efforts of the US during the Second World War and its aftermath. This was done in such a way as to bring Britain to a position of total economic and military subservience to the US in the constitution of the western bloc after the war.

- The mantle of the ‘natural party of government’ has been irreversibly transferred from the Conservative to the Labour Party. This correspondence of the Labour Party to the overall needs of British capital has not been a product merely of conjunctural circumstances in the past few years, but has been the true state of affairs during and since the last world war. Indeed, it is the periods in which government power has rested with the Conservatives that have been the product of conjunctural circumstances.

- The balance of forces between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has undergone a change of historic proportion. If the Second World War marked the bourgeoisie’s zenith and the proletariat’s nadir, the proletariat has now strengthened to the point where it not only stands as a barrier to a third global war, but is developing to go further and pose its own revolutionary solution to the historical crisis of capitalism. Although this shift of forces is an international one, its manifestations in Britain have had a profound effect on the situation.

These are the main themes of this text.

Britain and the formation of the US bloc

2. The Second World War changed the physiognomy of the world imperialist system of capital. It transformed the pre -1939 pattern of several competing ‘mini-blocs’ into two great global blocs each under the unassailable hegemony of its major national bourgeoisie, the US and Russia. The war was pursued not only militarily between the Allied and Axis powers, but economically among the Allies themselves, or rather between the US and each of the others. For Britain, its ‘war’ with the US was the crucial determinant of its post-war position.

3. The lynchpin of the British economy in the thirties was still the Empire which included outright colonies (such as India) as well as semi-colonies (such as China or Argentina). Its increasing importance as a primary source of wealth to the economy was irreplaceable and can be easily illustrated. With a base of 100 in 1924, the index of total national income had risen to nearly 110 in 1934 while the index of national income earned abroad had risen to nearly 140. In 1930 its level of investment abroad was higher than any other country in the world and 18% of the national wealth was derived from it. And throughout the thirties Britain retained the greatest share of world trade - in 1936 it was 15.4%.

In absolute and relative terms Britain’s foreign investments greatly exceeded those of the US... In 1929 Britain’s income from long-term investment abroad amounted to 1219 million gold dollars while for the US it was 876 million gold dollars. However, the giant US economy (whose national wealth in 1930 was 1760 billion marks compared to Britain’s 450 billion marks) had been expanding far faster than the British economy and its need for foreign markets was becoming more and more pressing, as can be seen for example in the relative growths of capital invested abroad. British capital invested abroad in 1902 was 62 billion francs (at pre-war parity) and this rose to 94 billion francs in 1930; the equivalent figures for the US were 2.6 billion francs in 1900 and 81 billion francs in 1930. With such an appetite for foreign markets the US could only lust for the Empire clutched so desperately by the British bourgeoisie for its markets and raw materials.

With increasing competition (especially from the US and Germany) the loss of the Empire would have been catastrophic. Yet, at the same time, the cost of maintaining it was enormous. Threats came from all sides: German and Japanese military expansion; colonial bourgeoisies fighting to enlarge their own position at Britain’s expense; pressure, particularly from the US, for ending Imperial Preferences and opening the markets up for their own economic expansion. Some sections of the British bourgeoisie had been arguing for years for a less onerous way of maintaining British advantages but they were fighting against very entrenched interests. Consequently, right up to the beginning of the war, and even well into its first year, the British bourgeoisie was markedly divided about what was the best course to follow.

The basic ‘choice’ was: to go to war or to avoid war. Of those who wished to go to war there was a small pro-German faction in the Conservative Party, but far larger factions of the bourgeoisie saw greater gains to be made by defeating Germany. These included the left wing of the Labour Party and the faction of the Conservative Party led by Churchill. However, other factions of the bourgeoisie saw that whichever side Britain chose, the war would certainly lead to the dismemberment of the Empire to the advantage either of Germany or the US. This latter view was the one held by the Chamberlain government and led to the policy of appeasement, epitomised by the action at Munich in 1938. Only by avoiding war could Britain escape becoming a dependency either of the US or Germany.

However, for global, historic reasons, war was inevitable and the only question was: who was Britain to be allied with and against whom? In trying to avoid the question Chamberlain took up the ridiculous role of a Canute, and the rest of the bourgeoisie has despised him for it ever since.

4. In the event, a combination of German interventions into Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, combined with the non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin, meant that further German expansion would be towards the west. The threat to Britain’s own shores was clear, and Chamberlain declared war on Germany. However, a period of indecision followed during which the British bourgeoisie was led by those who had wanted to avoid war while, on the other hand, the German bourgeoisie hoped that the situation could quieten in the west so that they could expand to the east - at the expense of Russia. This period was the ‘phoney war’ which ended with the advance of the German army through the Ardennes in May 1940 and the subsequent fall of France. These events precipitated the fall of Chamberlain and the rise to power of a coalition of forces under Churchill which was totally committed to finding the solution to British capital’s problems through the defeat of German expansionism. As it was clear that Britain’s productive capacity was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the war the British bourgeoisie was forced to ask the US for help.

5. The objectives of the US bourgeoisie’s policy in regard to the war were:

- to defeat Germany and Japan

- to prevent the rise of Russia in Europe

- to turn Britain and its Empire into dependencies of the US.

In pursuit of these goals the US bourgeoisie’s policies were engineered to secure victory at the least possible cost. ‘Least possible cost’ meant: bleeding its allies as much as possible for repayments for war matériel without destroying their commitment to the war effort; using the massive market created by the war to stimulate the US economy and absorb the unemployed back into the process of production; minimising domestic discontent with the war by ensuring that the brunt of the slaughter on the battlefields would be sustained by the armies of its allies.

During the early stages of the war the application of these policies hit the British economy harder than the German bombers could. Through the cash-and-carry system, British financial reserves were steadily depleted to pay for war matériel, fuel and food, a substantial proportion of which never even reached Britain because of the shipping losses sustained by the North Atlantic convoys. The US bourgeoisie was thus able to systematically weaken the British bourgeoisie’s resistance to the conditions put on the economic and military arrangements which followed; and so, when in 1941 the Lend-Lease arrangements came to replace the cash-and-carry system (which had cost British capital nearly 3.6 billion dollars) Britain had only 12 million dollars in uncommitted reserves left. In the Lend-Lease Master Agreements the US began a whole programme of schemes to force Britain to abolish Imperial Preference after the war, and to dismantle the Empire. And to ensure that Britain could not postpone all repayment until the end of the war, Reverse Lend-Lease was provided for in the summer of 1943. These were demands in kind placed by the US for raw materials, foodstuffs, military equipment and support for the US army in the European theatre of operations. On top of this, regular assessments of Britain’s reserves were made so that when the US government considered they were ‘too large’, immediate cash payments were demanded under the Lend-Lease arrangements.

The advantages gained by the US over Britain throughout the war were pressed home immediately the war ended. On VJ Day Truman terminated all Lend-Lease, with the account standing at 6 billion dollars due to the US from Britain. Although the US wrote off a substantial proportion, the sum outstanding was left sufficiently high to ensure a continued US domination of Britain’s economic options. This residual sum was 650 million dollars which was greater than British foreign currency reserves. In addition, the US refused to share the cost of amortising the sterling balances (worth nearly 14 billion dollars) built up as part of the allied war debt.

By the end of the war the US was well on its way to achieving its wartime goals regarding Britain and the Empire, though they were not fully accomplished for some years more. These goals became interwoven with the need to construct and consolidate its bloc against that being built up by Russia, particularly since, in the second half of the 1940s, the possibility of a third world war was very real.

6. The US did not intend to repeat its post-World War One mistakes where it had bankrupted Europe by forcing repayment of war debts and raising its tariff barriers. Its main objectives were to apply co-ordinated financial measures to the reconstruction of the countries in its bloc in such a way as to stimulate the US economy. The reconstruction of Europe and Japan would thus provide markets for US industry and agriculture, while making it possible for these countries to contribute to the military capacity of the bloc. These plans were set into motion even before the war finished - mainly through the Bretton Woods system (the IMF and World Bank).

However, in the context of this overall strategy, the US singled Britain out for special treatment. Since Churchill’s rearguard actions had resisted the US efforts to prise the Empire free from the grip of the British bourgeoisie, the US maintained the squeeze on the British economy. In return for the 3.75 billion dollar loan to offset the rigours of the end of Lend-Lease, the British government had to agree to help to impose the Bretton Woods plans on the rest of the bloc. It also had to make sterling convertible by mid-1947, which the US wanted in order to make Britain more vulnerable to calls on its reserves. (Indeed, this was too successful: when Britain lost 150 million dollars in gold and dollar reserves in one month, the US had to permit a suspension of convertibility.)

As the rivalry between the US and Russia became more intense, the US saw the need to accelerate the reconstruction process and to increase European military spending. The Marshall Plan provided the funds to do this between 1948-51 and in conjunction with this NATO was formed in 1949. Pressure was maintained on the British bourgeoisie throughout the 1940s to make a high contribution to this military force. So, while the US demobilised at a very high speed, Britain had to support substantial forces in Europe - indeed, Britain still had one million men at arms as late as 1948. In 1950 the US committed first its own and then other allied (including British) troops to the Korean War; it also demanded an enormous increase in the British military budget - to £4.7 billion that year. With German rearmament in 1950 the bill for the British army of occupation was taken from the German bourgeoisie and presented to the British bourgeoisie.

Several other measures were taken to keep up the economic pressures on British capital: for example, when the US gave the go-ahead to Japanese rearmament in 1951 it waived Japanese reparations to Britain; when Britain tried to waive its own debts to its colonies (created through non-payments for materials and services received during the war) the US blocked the move.

7. With greater or lesser degrees of success, successive British governments tried to defend the economy from the US bourgeoisie’s onslaughts on the home and colonial markets. They also tried to sustain Britain’s position as a global imperialist power.

But with the US cynically putting itself forward as the champion of anti-colonialism and national independence, war-drained Britain was completely unable to maintain its anachronistic colonial system. The war had given a huge impetus to national movements in the colonies - movements supported by Russia and America, both of whom had a vested interest in the dismemberment of the British Empire. The British withdrawals from India and Palestine were the most spectacular moments in the breaking-up of the Empire, and the Suez fiasco in 1956 marked the end of any illusions that Britain was still a ‘first class power’. The US made it quite clear that it would not sanction any independent actions that did not correspond to its own requirements. The British government was helpless against this position and had to withdraw, and in doing so acknowledged that it was unable to defend its trade routes and colonies.

The dismantling of the British Empire gathered speed and the sixties saw a steady trail of colonies lining up for their ‘independence’. The final withdrawal by British forces from ‘East of Suez’ overseen by the 1964 Wilson government was only the last formality in a process which had begun decades previously.

8. The major conclusions we can draw from the process of the formation of the bloc regarding Britain can be summarised as follows:

- The US bourgeoisie set out to reduce the British nation state to a secondary economic and military power. The main objective was to demolish the British Empire which was regarded as the main obstacle to American expansionism. By developing the appropriate policies and using its enormous economic and political power, it achieved this goal in the course of the war and the reconstruction which followed.

- Cash-and-carry and Lend-Lease were used to generate claims on British concessions and access to raw materials. By these means control of deposits of strategic materials such as oil, minerals and rubber was transferred from the British to the US bourgeoisie. A state of permanent financial indebtedness was also created and maintained.

- Post-war ‘aid’ was channelled into Europe in a manner which both stimulated the US economy and increased the military capacities of the western bloc. Thus Britain’s economic policies were dictated primarily by the needs of a permanent western war economy controlled by the US bourgeoisie.

- Although the reconstruction brought an apparent boom to the western economy, the benefits to the British economy were substantially tempered and carefully tailored by the US for its own interests. The loss of the Empire and the onset of the world economic crisis in the sixties thus found British capital in a very weak position, far less able than most other major economies (such as Germany, Japan or France) to face up to it.

- The ‘special relationship’ which the British bourgeoisie has so often claimed it has with the US bourgeoisie is simply one of complete US hegemony. In the reinforcement of the bloc which has taken place in recent years as a result of the heightening inter-imperialist antagonisms, Britain has consequently been the most compliant of the US’ major allies. Marlowe (Summer 1979)

 

400,000 workers were involved in strikes, demonstrations and rallies on 24 April. 250,000 teachers took part in their first national strike in 21 years. 100,000 civil servants were on strike. Of the 25,000 on strike in Birmingham it was the second day for council workers. It's true that the actions were well prepared in advance and run by the unions, and that different sectors of workers were mostly kept apart. Also, many teachers seemed content to follow the NUT slogan of ‘Fair pay for teachers', presumably under the illusion that employers would listen to reason rather than the language of economic constraints. But despite the degree of union control it was still possible to see that workers' real feelings were engaged. At root the workers who participated have felt the sting of the inflation that affects fuel, food and most other prices, seen the pay offers which amount to attacks on their living standards and wanted to do something to express their anger and desperation.

At the start of a 10,000 strong march of mainly teachers in London a man handing out union pennants was shouting that 100,000 civil service workers were striking in solidarity with the teachers. That wasn't the case, as unions like the NUT and PCS had both made a point of emphasising what was specific to teachers and civil servants. However, it did tap into the need all groups of workers have - to not feel as though you're on your own, to be part of a common struggle. Teachers who had seen BBC breakfast TV on the morning of the strikes would have witnessed a typical example of media balance: a non-striking teacher from the NAS/UWT saying how appalling it all was and a pupil saying how he wanted to be taught so he could pass his exams. Newspapers attacked teachers for being ‘unprofessional', telling them they should be grateful to have a job in the current climate. At times like that it's easy to feel isolated and worried if you're doing the right thing.

The workers at the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland were also attacked by the media and the government for their two day strike. We were told that the 1200 striking workers would cost the country £50 million a day, that it would bring chaos to the North Sea oil fields, put petrol prices up even more and deliver another blow to the whole economy. Ineos, the employer, said that the two days would mean the plant could be out of commission for a month. Papers in Scotland said it was outrageous for workers earning more than twice the average Scottish wage to expect to continue with their current pension arrangements. Ineos said that 650 workers would have to go if its pension plan was not allowed through.

In reality this was the first refinery strike in 73 years. The concern of Grangemouth workers was not just their own pensions but that in future the plan would mean that no new employees would be able to enter the scheme. These skilled workers are indeed better paid than many but, as a comment piece in the Herald, entitled ‘Militants' mantle may be forced on middle classes', put it: "we are going to see very much more of this kind of dispute in future. Workers in IT, media, financial services, energy, pharmaceuticals, who probably don't even think of themselves as ‘workers', are finding their living standards squeezed by inflation, mortgage rates, energy and petrol costs. Moreover, they are increasingly facing anonymous and intransigent bosses..."

There has been a fashion for pundits and academics to say that the working class has changed so much that it's no longer a useful way of characterising all the different people who work for wages. Against this just look at the position of Grangemouth, more or less midway between Glasgow and Edinburgh, still very much a population/industrial belt, despite the decline of traditional manufacturing industries in the area. You can tell people that they're not part of the working class, but that's not going to stop them struggling when their living conditions are attacked.

The refinery workers did not only have to contend with Ineos and the media. Grangemouth has been gradually run down over a period of time. In the 1980s there were 5000 workers there, but, under BP, the previous owner, and with great help from the union, the number of workers has been reduced to its current level. This is not the first time that unions have helped Ineos. When the firm took over a Runcorn chlorine plant, they imposed a similar pension scheme to that at Grangemouth, got rid of 600 workers and received £50 million from the government, all with the assistance of the unions, which later accepted the Ineos takeover of Grangemouth from BP, fully aware of the way the company operated. With the strike itself the union has worked hand in glove with the employer, more concerned with PR and respectability than the interests of the workers. And almost immediately after the strike the Unite union and Ineos met, discussed and quickly issued a joint statement that they had a plan which would be considered in a few days. To date there have been no details of what the plan involves.

With the worsening of capitalism's economic crisis it is no surprise that workers are more and more beginning to struggle, not only for themselves, but, as at Grangemouth, for workers still to be employed; not only in Britain but internationally. Along with these struggles there will continue to be attacks from the media and sabotage from the unions of any move towards the expression of workers' solidarity. The unions are particularly strong in Britain and at the moment workers still find themselves marching behind their banners. Increasingly, however, workers will begin to realise that it's only when they take over their own struggles that they become a force to be reckoned with. Car 1/5/8

Just a couple of years ago, China's President Hu Jintao promised a "peaceful rise" of his country onto the international arena. Many international observers and commentators were taken in by the Stalinist doublespeak from the military dictatorship of the People's Liberation Army and argued that China's economic ascension would make it a more reliable, responsible power for good in the world. Indeed, since the 1990s, with one or two notable exceptions, China has trod softly, softly. But the reality behind China's imperialist ‘peace' was underlined on 11 January 2007, when it shot down one of its own weather satellites 850 kilometres above the planet, directly positing a threat to American dependence on space-based capabilities around the world and triggering a new arms race. The aptly named Pentagon Strategy for Global Military Aggression had already singled out China as "having the greatest military potential to compete with the US and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional US advantage". The US military has since responded with its own anti-satellite tests and the Pentagon is assiduously following the recommendations of a 2001 Congressional Report advocating the development of "new military capabilities for operations to, from, in and through space" (co-author, Donald H. Rumsfeld).

There will be no peaceful development of China overall, no ‘force for peace and stability', but rather a development of good, old-fashioned militarism and imperialism. In the first place, the economic ‘miracle' of Chinese national capital is based on the ferocious exploitation of its working class and peasantry and on an export drive to a debt-sodden world economy. The economic colonisation that it is presently undertaking contains a strong geo-strategic element that projects Chinese power well beyond its borders. And while elements of this colonisation will provide some work for Chinese labour, unlike the colonisations of the 19th century, it will provide little economic stabilisation for its economy and even less reform or attenuation in the condition of its working class. Mao Zedong and his ideology are now a rather restricted taste but his dictum that "power grows out of the barrel of a gun" still holds good for Chinese, as well as imperialism in general.

This is even more the case within the post-89 world after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the free-for-all in military relations resulting from this descent into imperialist decomposition. No nation state can stand above it. After China resumed its threats against Taiwan and increasingly threatened Japan, both French and German diplomacy have been trying to overturn the arms embargo on the People's Liberation Army. Such developments show the contribution China is making to the deepening chaos in international relations. China has taken advantage of the new world disorder and the historic crisis of US imperialism in order to make its own imperialist thrust across the globe. It is profiting from the considerable weakening of the US at the imperialist level in order to develop its geo-strategic presence. Its appetites go well beyond the Taiwan Strait and a supposed ‘pacifist' Japan, which itself has rearmed and been ranked among the top five military powers in recent years, provoking a regional arms race with nuclear connotations.

China's policy to make Asia's seas its mare nostrum, keeping Japan at bay and excluding US military presence, is just one part of its project, which through Burma, Africa and Pakistan aims to extend its military power up to the Arabian Sea, on to the Persian Gulf and into the Middle East and Africa[1]. There have been press reports of China providing arms to the Taliban and its political reach extends to the USA's backyard of Latin America. It has also, along with Russia, taken advantage of certain US setbacks in the Russian ex-republics, strengthening relations with Uzbekistan for example. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recently stated that, in terms of purchasing power, China's defence budget is second only to the USA. The same Report expressed concern about China's increased strike capabilities and its intrusions into computer networks, including those of the US government.

To its south, China is largely underwriting the construction and development of an 1850 kilometre network of roads, rivers (blasting shallow sections of the Mekong) and ports, circumventing the natural defensive barriers of the foothills of the Himalayas. ‘Route 3', which directly connects Chinese Kunming to Thai Bangkok, also takes in the thinly inhabited upper reaches of Vietnam and Laos. As well as the markets and natural resources that it covets, the road is also an expression of the geo-strategic expansion of Chinese imperialism.

To its west, around India and Pakistan, important developments are also taking place within the framework of Chinese imperialism. As the United States and India enjoy an increasingly warmer relationship, Pakistan will look closer to China for military and technical assistance. China already supplies Pakistan with nuclear technology, including what many experts suspect was the blueprint for Pakistan's nuclear bomb. According to the Asian Studies department at the Brooking Institute: "The Pakistani nuclear programme is largely the result of Sino-Pakistani relations". Some news agency reports suggest that Chinese security agencies knew of the transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Iran, North Korea and Libya, with the former having long-standing ties with Abdul Quadeer Khan, the so-called ‘father' of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. One of the most significant recent projects of the two imperialisms is the construction of a major port complex at the naval base of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, giving China strategic access to the Persian Gulf and a naval outpost on the Indian Ocean.

China and the Nepali Maoists

Relations between China and India deteriorated after India gave refuge to the Dalai Lama in 1959 and after India's humiliating defeat in the 1962 war over a disputed border and Chinese aid to Pakistan. India still claims that China occupies 38,000 sq km of its territories and, for its part, Beijing still lays claim to the northeastern Indian province of Aranchal. It's in this context of inter-imperialist rivalries that the election of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), a group that the US administration has designated ‘terrorist', must be situated. The previous Nepali regime gave India pre-eminence in imperialist relations and this must now be called into question. "Chief Comrade" Prachanda of the CPN (Maoist), has already called for the scrapping of all major agreements with India, underlined the need for good relations with China and supports China over Tibet. Tibetan refugees in Nepal must be in danger, as in neighbouring Bhutan, where Chinese affiliated Maoists are also active. The Institute of Conflict Management in Delhi says that a surge in Maoist violence in India itself can be expected as it expects the new Nepali regime to provide them with training facilities and safe havens.

Every capitalist nation talks peace. Throughout the 20th century every capitalist nation extolled the virtues of ‘peace', ‘stability' and ‘good relations', but all, caught up in the ineluctable irrationality of imperialism, actively prepared for and fomented war. Particularly today, in the conditions of growing imperialist chaos, there's no ‘peaceful rise' to Chinese imperialism and its pawns, but preparations for and developments towards war. Baboon, 22.4.8

 

---

[1] For Chinese imperialism in Africa see WR 299 [47]

 

Poverty, uncertainty, the rising price of food and fuel - we are all feeling the pinch. Even the ruling class is getting worried about the global scale these problems have reached.

Every day, around the world, 100,000 people die of hunger. Taken as a whole, food prices have risen by 83% over the last three years. Grain prices have gone up by 181%. The USA itself has brought in ration cards for rice. Over the last 20 years, it was already clear that the famines in the Sahel, Ethiopia, or Dahfur, so often presented as natural disasters, were caused by the capitalist system itself; but they were relatively isolated. Now the price of basic foodstuffs has become intolerable for a growing part of the world population. The World Bank estimates that the populations of 33 countries are being hit by the disaster. "We are heading towards a very long period of riots, conflicts, uncontrollable waves of regional instability" declared Jean Ziegler, UN special reporter on the ‘right to nourishment' in an interview with Liberation (14.4.08). He also said that "even before the surge in prices...854 million people were gravely undernourished. We are facing a hecatomb". The World Bank also warned that "food price inflation is not a temporary phenomenon and levels will be higher than those of 2004 up until 2015". A large section of the world's population is facing the threat of dying of hunger in the next few months. And why is this? Because the capitalist system is inexorably sinking into economic crisis, which is what lies behind the rise in prices. And now that it's no longer viable to speculate on housing, it's raw materials and food in particular that are the target of the speculators, pushing prices up even higher.

Hunger riots spread across the planet

The first manifestation of this deepening crisis is the spread of hunger riots across the planet. Revolts have erupted in a number of countries. By saying no to misery that is either there already or fast approaching, large parts of humanity are seeking to defend themselves against this society. There have been hunger riots in many parts of Africa - Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Mauritius, Ethiopia, Senegal, but also in many other places: Haiti, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangaldesh....

In Haiti the demonstrators expressed their rage at the fact that, among other things, a 120lb bag of rice has gone from 35 to 70 dollars in a year. The head of state René Préval cynically declared: "Demonstrations and destructions won't pay for the increase in prices or resolve the country's problems. On the contrary, they can only increase poverty and prevent investment in the country". And all this not because there's not enough food, but because in a matter of weeks it has become too expensive for most people's miserable income. 80% of the population of Haiti live on less than two dollars a day. This is well below the official poverty line, which has now become a line between life and death

In Haiti as in other countries where there have been riots, the bourgeoisie only has one response for those protesting about their hunger: feed them with bullets. 200 killed in the repression of the riots in Burkina Faso in February, 100 in Cameroon, 5 in Haiti and two youngsters of 9 and 20 shot by the anti-riot forces in Egypt. Capitalism has nothing else to distribute to them. This is one of the proofs that this system is leading humanity into an impasse.

The revolt by a growing mass of the dispossessed throughout the world shows that they are not simply resigning themselves to their fate; and they are not alone. The same anger and militancy is mounting in the ranks of the workers all over the world in the face of spiralling prices for basic necessities and of poverty wages. Strikes and demonstrations have multiplied in numerous countries, both the developed ones and in the huge industrial basins of the poorest countries. Very often, the propaganda of the bourgeoisie tries to set the inhabitants of the North against those of the South, as though the former are ‘privileged' and the latter are not able to do anything. It's their way of making us feel guilty about the ravages of their own economic system. This tactic is beginning to wear out. The bourgeoisie has been shifting many of its enterprises to areas of the world where they can pay the workers next to nothing, but more and more of them are refusing to accept this frenzied exploitation. They are beginning to develop their own experience of the struggle. In a world based on competition between states, companies, exploiters of all kinds, we are told that the working class has also succumbed to the spirit of ‘every man for himself'. But it's not true. In most of these countries we have seen the development of a powerful feeling of solidarity among the workers.

The development of class solidarity is the only response to the failure of world capitalism

Over the last few years there has been a significant development of workers' struggles all over the world, both in the poorest countries at the peripheries of the system and the countries at its heart, especially in western Europe.

For more than two years, there have been a number of conflicts in Egypt, especially around the textile factory Gahzl al-Mahalla to the north of Cairo. The weakness of union control there has allowed the struggle to develop massively and give rise to radical demands. The official unions are recognised for what they are - an integral part of the state. The spirit of solidarity shown by these struggles in Egypt has been demonstrated by the fact that other sectors, such as the railway workers, tax employees, postal workers or university teachers in Cairo, Alexandria, and Mansoura have joined the struggle. All these strikes have given rise to similar demands: against the high cost of living, against humiliating wages, overpriced and insalubrious housing, etc.

In Iran, a powerful wave of strikes has shaken the country: in January bus drivers in Tehran were on strike. A hundred workers were arrested and two of the leaders of the movement are still in prison. On 18 February in Chouch in the south of the country, the workers of a sugar cane factory demonstrated in protest against the non-payment of wages in January and February. They had already been out on strike in September 2007 for the same reason. They had not been in a position to celebrate the end of the year festival with their families and children (new year in Iran is at the end of March). Non-payment of wages were the cause of numerous walk-outs or demonstrations throughout the country, notably by the workers of the Pachmineh Baft factory in Ghazvine in the west, the Mehrpouya textile factory in Isfahan in the centre, at Navard in Karadj in the west, telecommunication workers and employees of Sandoigh Nasouz in Tehran. In the north , in the Rasht region, the workers, especially in the textile sector, whose wages had not been paid for months, blocked the town's roads and went to demonstrate in front of the official buildings, waving placards saying ‘We are hungry'. In the nearby province of Gilan, workers have not been paid for 13 months. Similar strikes and demonstrations took place in Elam in the west and in a pharmaceutical factory in Tehran. Each time the government has responded with harsh repression. On 21 February, at Masjed Soleiman in the south, 800 striking workers were violently attacked by the state security forces and the secret police (VEVAK). On 14 April, after a strike had lasted three days, the police used a bulldozer to assault an occupied tyre factory in the region of Alborz in the north, in order to dislodge strikers who had built a shield of burning tyres around the factory to show their anger, again over the non-payment of wages. A thousand workers were arrested after violent clashes with the security forces.

Since the beginning of the year, in Vietnam, there have been 150 strikes in various enterprises. Recently 17,000 workers of a Nike shoe factory in the south of Vietnam came out for wage rise, demanding an increase of 200,000 dongs (8 euros), in response to the spiralling cost of consumer goods. They only obtained half of what they asked for, but, as they went back to work, clashes with the police took place and the factory had to close for three days. Ten thousand workers making toys in Danang also went on strike for a raise in bonuses and an increase in holiday during the Tet festival.

In Rumania, the workers of the Dacia Renault factory won wage rises of 100 euros (a 40% increase in their wages) after a strike lasting several weeks. And 4000 steel workers at Arcelor Mittal in Galati, in the east of the country, came out on indefinite strike. They wanted their wages doubled, a rise in weekend bonuses and an increase in benefits to the families of workers injured or killed at work. The management immediately conceded a wage rise of 12%. But the strike was suspended by the courts "for reasons of security and because of the risk of explosions at the site because certain furnaces had been reduced to minimal operations". These struggles at Dacia-Renault and Arcelor Mittal give the lie to all the propaganda about outsourcing and all the efforts of the bourgeoisie to divide the workers by national frontiers. They remind us of this simple truth: the working class suffers the same exploitation in all countries and therefore has the same struggle. There is only one working class across the planet.

In Poland, in January and February the workers of the Budryk coalmine in Ornontowice in Silesia struck for 6 days to demand parity with other mines in the country (all the mines have gone back to state control). It's the biggest strike in this sector since 1989 and it saw the occupation of the pits. This strike was supported by 2/3 of the population. The great strike of 1980 was held back and then openly opposed by the creation of Solidarnosc, applauded by the bourgeoisie in all the western countries. And now you had the same Solidarnosc union, and the ZZG union federation, working hand in hand with the bosses, and calling the strikers a "rabble". The wives of the miners went to demonstrate their support for the strike in Warsaw. A week after the return to work and because the management was clearly in no hurry to grant the wage increase, 900 workers threatened to come out again.

But the resistance of the workers can also be seen in countries in the heart of capitalism.

In this issue we have written separately about the recent strikes in Britain. In Germany, after the mobilisation of the workers in the Bochum region (especially at Opel) in support of the workers at Nokia threatened with redundancies[1], there was a series of walk-outs in the steel sector in February, resulting in a 5.4% increase in wages for the 93,000 workers. Since then the country has been through a wave of ‘hard' strikes, especially in the public sector in the week 3-7 March. The unions were obliged to launch a ‘warning strike' in public transport (regional trains and buses were halted, especially in Berlin where a 12% increase in wages was demanded), in the hospitals, childcare, the airports (Frankfurt, Munich, Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Hanover) and in a number of public offices. Under the pressure of the workers, the Verdi union threatened a massive and indefinite strike at the end of March or the beginning of April for a further 8% wage rise, whereas the management were only offering half that; it was also proposed to hold an indefinite strike on 2 May in the post, with a demand for a 7% wage rise, guaranteed jobs until 2011 and the dropping of plans to increase the working week by half an hour. In exchange for this extra half hour, the bosses were proposing a 5.5% wage increase and a vague promise about no redundancies. In Berlin, Verdi also called for a strike on 20 April in factories making buses, metro trains and trams as well as in the services that do the cleaning and supply fuel to public transport. The fact that the German working class has entered onto the scene, a working class which was hit with the full force of the counter-revolution in the 1920s following its insurrectionary movements between 1918 and 1923, and which has such a wealth of historical experience behind it, is a factor of considerable encouragement for the development of the class struggle worldwide.

Towards the unification of struggles

The most obvious thing about all these examples of class struggle from around the world is that workers are getting angry about similar issues. First and foremost, the general increase in prices and the low level of wages are making daily survival increasingly difficult. To this must be added unbearable working conditions, pensions disappearing into the distance and pretty miserable ones at that, growing problems of accessing healthcare, and so on. Some workers are already being reduced to famine, while everyone is seeing their living standards and security of employment diminishing.

In the last few years, the working class has come a long way. Not only has it returned to the path of struggle, but its struggles are becoming more and more simultaneous and extensive[2]. There is a profound link between the struggles at the edges of the system and those at its centre. The struggles in countries like France, Britain and Germany, where workers have a whole historic experience of the traps that the ruling class can lay, are key to the future internationalisation of the movement. But at the same time, the courageous battles fought by workers in the peripheries are an encouragement to the workers in the heart of the system. They show that even when workers live in conditions of extreme poverty and face the harshest repression, they are refusing to lie down and accept their lot. The feeling of dignity is one of the deepest moral values of the working class and gives us the confidence and strength to fight back. Map 25.4.08

---

[1] See ‘Workers' struggles in Germany: an accumulation of discontent [48] ', ICC Online.

 

[2] See the far from exhaustive list of recent struggles around the world in ‘One class, one struggle [49] ', ICC Online.

 

In the first part of this article [50] on the movement of May 68, we retraced its first stage: the mobilisation of the students. We showed that the agitation of the students in France, from 22 March 1968 up to the middle of May, was only an expression in this country of an international movement affecting almost all of the western countries, beginning in the United States where it opened up in 1964 at Berkeley University, California. We ended this article thus: "What characterises all of these movements is clear: above all, the rejection of the war in Vietnam. But whereas the Stalinist parties, allies of the Hanoi and Moscow regimes, would have logically been found at their head, as was the case with the anti-war movements around the Korean War in the early 1950s, it was nowhere the case here. On the contrary, these parties had practically no influence and, quite often, they were in complete opposition to these movements.

This is one of the characteristics of the student movements of the end of the 1960s, and it reveals their profound significance."

It is this significance that we are going to try to draw out now. And to do this, it is evidently necessary to recall the principal themes of the student mobilisation of this period.

Reasons to protest

As we've already noted, the opposition to the war undertaken by the United States in Vietnam was the most widespread and activating theme in all the western countries. It's certainly not by chance, evidently, that it's first of all in the United States that student revolt developed. American youth was confronted in a direct and immediate fashion by the question of war since it was it that was sent abroad to defend the ‘free world'. Tens of thousands of young Americans paid with their lives for the policies of their government, hundreds of thousands amongst them returned from Vietnam with wounds and handicaps, millions were marked for life because of the horror that they lived through. Outside of the horror that they found themselves in, and which is characteristic of all warfare, many among them were confronted with the question: what are we doing in Vietnam? Official speeches said that they were there to defend ‘democracy', the ‘free world' and ‘civilisation'. But the reality that they lived through contradicted these speeches in a flagrant fashion: the regime that they were charged with protecting, the one in Saigon, had nothing either ‘democratic' nor civilised about it: it was a dictatorial and particularly corrupt military regime. On the ground, American soldiers had difficulty understanding that they were defending ‘civilisation' when they were asked to act as barbarians, terrorising and massacring poor, unarmed peasants, women, children and the old included. But it wasn't just the soldiers there who felt revolted by the horrors of the war; it was also the case for a growing part of American youth. Not only were young men in fear of having to go to war and young women afraid of losing their companions; everyone became more and more informed by the returning ‘veterans' or simply through the television channels of the barbarity that the war represented[1]. The crying contradiction between government speeches on the ‘defence of democracy' and its actions in Vietnam fed a revolt against the authorities and the traditional values of the American bourgeoisie[2]. This revolt fed, in the first instance, the hippy movement, a pacifist and non-violent movement which raised the slogans ‘Flower Power' and ‘Make Love Not War'. It's probably not by chance if the first student movement of any scale took place at Berkeley University, in the suburbs of San Francisco which was the hippy Mecca. The themes, and above all the means, of this mobilisation still had some points in common with this movement: use of the non-violent ‘sit-in' in order to claim ‘Free Speech' for political propaganda within the University, notably for ‘civil rights' for blacks and to denounce the presence of the army on the campus and its efforts to enlist students. However, as in many other countries subsequently, and notably in France, 1968, the repression that was unleashed at Berkeley (800 arrests) constituted an important factor in the ‘radicalisation' of the movement. From 1967, with the foundation of the Youth International Party by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, who moved away from non-violence, the movement of revolt was given a ‘revolutionary' perspective against capitalism. The new ‘heroes' of the movement were no longer Bob Dylan or Joan Baez, but figures such as Che Guevara (who Rubin had met in 1964 in Havana). The ideology of this movement was more confused. It bore anarchist ingredients (the cult of liberty, notably sexual liberty, as well as the copious consumption of drugs) but also stalinist ingredients (Cuba and Albania were considered as exemplary). The means of action borrowed greatly from the anarchists, such as derision and provocation. Thus one of the first actions of the Hoffman-Rubin axis was to throw phoney banknotes around in the New York stock exchange, provoking a rush to grab them. Similarly, at the Democratic Convention of summer 68, it presented a pig, Pigasus, as candidate for President of the United States[3] at the same time as preparing for a violent confrontation with the police.

To sum up the principal characteristics of the movement of revolt that agitated the United States during the 1960s, you could say that it presented itself as a protest against the war in Vietnam, against racial discrimination, against inequality between the sexes and against the traditional values of America.

The majority of its protagonists showed themselves to be the rebellious children of the bourgeoisie; this movement had no proletarian class character. It wasn't by chance that one of its ‘theoreticians', the professor of philosophy Herbert Marcuse, considered that the working class had been ‘integrated' and that the forces of revolution against capitalism were to be found among other sectors such as the black victims of discrimination, the peasants of the Third World or rebellious intellectuals.

In the majority of other western countries, the movements that agitated the student world during the 60s showed a strong resemblance to those of the United States: rejection of American intervention in Vietnam, revolt against authority in general and in the universities in particular, against traditional morals, notably sexual morals. That is one of the reasons why the stalinist parties, symbols of authoritarianism, had no echo within these revolts whereas they were party to the denunciation of American intervention in Vietnam against the forces armed by the Soviet bloc and called themselves ‘anti-capitalist'. It is true that the image of the USSR had been greatly tarnished by the repression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and the portrait of Brezhnev wasn't a ‘pin-up'. The rebels of the 1960s preferred to display in their rooms posters of Ho Chi Minh (another old apparatchik, but more presentable and ‘heroic') and more still the romantic visage of Che Guevara (another Stalinist party member, but more ‘exotic') or Angela Davis (also a member of the US stalinist party, but who had the double advantage of being both black and a woman, a ‘good looker' like Che Guevara).

This form, both anti-Vietnam War and ‘libertarian', was especially prevalent in Germany. The main spokesman of the movement, Rudi Dutschke, came from the GDR, under Soviet tutelage where, as a very young person, he was opposed to the repression of the Hungarian Uprising. His ideological references were the ‘Young Marx' of the Frankfurt School (of which Marcuse was a part), and also The Situationist International (which included the group Subversive Aktion, which the SI's Berlin section was based on in 1962). The German ‘extra-parliamentary opposition' was, on the eve of May 1968 in France, the main point of reference for student rebellion in Europe.

Slogans on the walls

The themes and demands of the student movement that developed in France in 1968 were fundamentally the same. That said, during the course of the movement, references to the war in Vietnam were largely eclipsed by a whole series of slogans inspired by situationism and anarchism (even surrealism) that covered the walls ("The walls are the word").

The anarchist themes were evident in:

• The passion for destruction is a creative joy (Bakunin)
• It is forbidden to forbid
• Freedom is the crime that constrains all crime
• Elections - traps for idiots
• Insolence is the new arm of the revolution

They were completed by those that called for the ‘sexual revolution':

• Love one and all
• Unbutton your brain as often as your fly
• The more I make love, the more I want to make revolution. The more I make revolution, the more I want to make love.

The Situationist perspective was found in:

• Down with the consumer society
• Down with commodity society
• Abolish alienation
• Never work
• I take my desires for reality because I believe in the reality of my desires
• We don't want a world where the certainty of not dying of hunger is exchanged for the risk of dying of boredom
• Boredom is counter-revolutionary
• Live without dead time and play without hindrance
• Be realistic, demand the impossible.

There was also the theme of the generation gap. It was widespread in the United States and Germany and included some quite odious forms:

• Run comrade, the old world is behind you
• The young make love, the old make obscene gestures.

Similarly in France May 68, where barricades were regularly thrown up:

• Barricades close the street but open the way
• The outcome of all thought is a brick in the mouth of the CRS
• Under the pavement, the beach.

Finally, the great confusion that accompanied this period is well summed up by two slogans:

• There is no revolutionary thought, only revolutionary actions
• I have something to say, but I don't know what.

Class nature of the 60s student movements

These slogans, like the majority of others put forward in other countries, clearly indicate that the student movement of the 60s had no proletarian class nature, even if in several places (as in Italy and evidently in France) there was a will to establish a bridge with the struggles of the working class. This approach also manifested a certain condescension towards the workers, mixed with a fascination with these mythic beings, the blue collar proletarians, heroes of readers who had half digested some of the classics of marxism.

Fundamentally, the student movement of the 1960s was of a petty-bourgeois nature, one of its clearest aspects being the will to ‘change life immediately'.

The ‘revolutionary' radicalism of the avant-garde of this movement, including the cult of violence promoted by certain of its sectors, was also another illustration of its petty-bourgeois nature. In fact, the ‘revolutionary' preoccupations of the students of 1968 were incontestably sincere but were strongly marked by Third Worldism (Guevarism and Maoism), or else anti-fascism. It had a romantic vision of the revolution without the least idea of the real development of the movement of the working class that would lead it. In France, for the students who believed themselves ‘revolutionaries', the movement of May 68 was already The Revolution, and the barricades that went up day after day were presented as the inheritors of those of 1848 and of the Commune of 1871.

One of the components of the student movement of the 60s was the ‘conflict between generations', the very important cleavage between the new generation and those of its parents, which was the subject of all kinds of criticisms. In particular, given that this generation had worked hard to get out of its situation of poverty, even famine, resulting from the Second World War, it was reproached for only concerning itself with its material well being. From this came the success of fantasies about the ‘consumer society' and slogans such as "Never work!" Descended from a generation that had submitted to the full force of the counter-revolution, the youth of the 1960s reproached its parents for its conformism and its submission to the demands of capitalism. Reciprocally, many parents didn't understand and were loath to accept that their children despised the sacrifices that they had made in order to give them a better life than their own.

However, there existed a real economic element in the student revolt of the 60s. At this time, there was no real threat of unemployment or of problems of finding a job as is the case today. The principal concern that then affected student youth was that it would not be able to acquire the same social status as that of previous university graduates. In fact, the generation of 1968 was the first to be confronted, in a somewhat brutal manner, with the phenomenon of proletarianisation of the middle strata abundantly studied by sociologists at the time. This phenomenon had begun some years earlier, even before the open crisis had manifested itself, following a palpable increase in the number of university students. This increase came from the needs of the economy but also from the will of parents to provide their children with an economic situation superior to their own, and the possibility of doing so. It was, among other things, this ‘massification' of the student population which provoked a growing malaise with the authoritarian structures and practices inherited from a time when the universities were mainly frequented by the elite.

However, if the student movement that began in 1964 developed in a period of ‘prosperity' for capitalism, it was no longer the same from 1967 where the economic situation began to seriously degrade, strengthening the malaise of student youth. This is one of the reasons that allows us to understand why the movement of 1968 reached its heights. It is what allows us to explain why, in May 1968, the movement of the working class took the reins.

That is what we will look at in the next article. Fabienne 29 March 2008

---

[1] At the time of the Vietnam War, the American media was not so tightly controlled by the military authorities. This is an ‘error' that the American government corrected at the time of the wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

 

[2] Such a phenomenon wasn't seen following the Second World War: US soldiers had equally lived through hell, notably in the invasion of Europe in 1944. But their sacrifices were accepted by almost all of them and by the population, thanks to the authorities' exposure of the barbarity of the Nazi regime.

 

[3] At the beginning of the twentieth century, some French anarchists had presented an ass to the legislative elections.

 

Faced with all the conflicting arguments about the Russian revolution, it is difficult to steer an even course between the predominant view - that the revolution was a total disaster for humanity and inexorably led to the horrors of Stalinism - and the less fashionable but equally uncritical portrayals of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as superheroes who never made any errors. For our part, we follow the method of Rosa Luxemburg in her pamphlet The Russian Revolution: total solidarity with the October insurrection as the first step in the world revolution, but without the slightest hesitation to criticise the mistakes that were made by the Bolsheviks almost immediately after they came to power. What follows is the first section of an article originally published in International Review 99 [51] in 1999, 4th quarter. This section focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of Luxemburg's pamphlet.

Rosa Luxemburg and the Russian revolution

Marxism is first and foremost a critical method, since it is the product of a class which can only emancipate itself through the ruthless criticism of all existing conditions. A revolutionary organisation that fails to criticise its errors, to learn from its mistakes, inevitably exposes itself to the conservative and reactionary influences of the dominant ideology. And this is all the more true at a time of revolution, which by its very nature has to break new ground, enter an unknown landscape with little more than a compass of general principles to find its way. The revolutionary party is all the more necessary after the victorious insurrection, because it has the strongest grasp of this compass, which is based on the historical experience of the class and the scientific approach of marxism. But if it renounces the critical nature of this approach, it will both lose sight of these historical lessons and be unable to draw the new ones that derive from the groundbreaking events of the revolutionary process. As we shall see, one of the consequences of the Bolshevik party identifying itself with the Soviet state was that it increasingly lost this capacity to criticise itself and the general course of the revolution. But as long as it remained a proletarian party it continuously generated minorities who did continue to carry out this task. The heroic combat of these Bolshevik minorities will be the main focus of the next few articles. But we will begin by examining the contribution of a revolutionary who was not in the Bolshevik party: Rosa Luxemburg, who, in 1918, in the most trying of conditions, wrote her essay The Russian Revolution, which provides us with the best possible method for approaching the errors of the revolution: the sharpest criticism based on unflinching solidarity in the face of the assaults of the ruling class.

The Russian Revolution was written in prison, just prior to the outbreak of the revolution in Germany. At this stage, with the imperialist war still raging, it was extraordinarily difficult to obtain any accurate information about what was happening in Russia - not only because of the material obstacles to communication resulting from the war (not to mention Luxemburg's imprisonment), but above all because from the very start the bourgeoisie did everything it could to hide the truth of the Russian revolution behind a smokescreen of slander and bloodthirsty fabulation. The essay was not published in Luxemburg's lifetime; Paul Levi, on behalf of the Spartacus League, had already visited Rosa in prison to persuade her that, given all the vicious campaigns against the Russian revolution, publishing articles criticising the Bolsheviks would add grist to these campaigns. Luxemburg agreed with him, and so sent the essay to Levi with a note saying "I am writing this only for you and if I can convince you, then the effort isn't wasted" (Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, Pathfinder Press, p 366). The text was not published until 1922 - and by then Levi's motives for doing so were far from revolutionary (for Levi's growing break with communism, see the article on the March Action in Germany in International Review no.93).

Nevertheless, the method of criticism contained in The Russian Revolution is entirely in the right spirit. From the very start, Luxemburg staunchly defends the October revolution against the Kautskyite/ Menshevik theory that because Russia was such a backward country, it should have stopped short at the "democratic" stage, showing that only the Bolsheviks were able to uncover the real alternative: bourgeois counter-revolution or proletarian dictatorship. And she simultaneously refutes the social democratic argument that formal majorities have to be obtained before revolutionary policies can be applied. Against this deadening parliamentary logic she praises the revolutionary audacity of the Bolshevik vanguard: "As bred-in-the bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism, these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the homemade wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry out anything you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to revolution: first let's become a ‘majority'. The true dialectic of revolution, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority to revolutionary tactics, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority - that is the way the road runs.

Only a party which knows how to lead, that is, to advance things, wins support in stormy times. The determination with which, at the decisive moment, Lenin and his comrades offered the only solution which could advance things (‘all power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry') transformed them overnight from a persecuted, slandered, outlawed minority whose leaders had to hide like Marat in cellars, into the absolute master of the situation" (ibid, p 374-5).

And, like the Bolsheviks, Luxemburg was perfectly well aware that this bold policy of insurrection in Russia could only have any meaning as a first step towards the world proletarian revolution. This is the whole significance of the famous concluding words of her text: "theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problems of the realisation of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labour in the entire world. In Russia the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to ‘Bolshevism'" (ibid, p395).

And this solution was, in Luxemburg's mind, entirely concrete: it demanded that the German proletariat above all must fulfil its responsibility and come to the aid of the proletarian bastion in Russia by making the revolution itself. This process was under way even as she wrote, although her assessment, in this very essay, of the relative political immaturity of the German working class was also an insight into the tragic fate of this attempt.

Luxemburg was therefore well placed to develop the necessary criticisms of what she saw as the principal errors of the Bolsheviks: she judged them not from the detached heights of an "observer", but as a revolutionary comrade who recognised that these errors were first and foremost the product of the immense difficulties that isolation imposed on the Soviet power in Russia. Indeed, it is precisely these difficulties that required the real friends of the Russian revolution to approach it not with "uncritical apologetics" or a "revolutionary hurrah spirit", but with "penetrating and thoughtful criticism": "Dealing as we are with the very first experiment in proletarian dictatorship in world history (and one taking place at that under the harshest conceivable conditions, in the midst of the worldwide conflagration and chaos of the imperialist mass slaughter, caught in the coils of the most reactionary military power in Europe, and accompanied by the most complete failure on the part of the international working class), it would be a crazy idea to think that every last thing done or left undone in an experiment with the dictatorship of the proletariat under such abnormal conditions represented the very pinnacle of perfection" (ibid p 368-9).

Luxemburg's criticisms of the Bolsheviks were focussed on three main areas:

1. the land question

2. the national question

3. democracy and dictatorship.

 

1. The Bolsheviks had won peasant support for the October revolution by inviting them to seize the land from the big landowners. Luxemburg recognised that this was "an excellent tactical move" But she went on: "Unfortunately it had two sides to it; and the reverse side consisted in the fact that the direct seizure of the land by the peasants has in general nothing at all in common with socialist economy...Not only is it not a socialist measure, it even cuts off the way to such measures; it piles up insurmountable obstacles to the socialist transformation of agrarian relations" (ibid, pp375-376). Luxemburg points out that a socialist economic policy can only start from the collectivisation of large landed property. Fully cognisant of the difficulties facing the Bolsheviks, she does not criticise them for failing to implement this straight away. But she does say that by actively encouraging the peasants to divide the land up into innumerable small plots, the Bolsheviks were piling up problems for later on, creating a new stratum of small property owners who would be naturally hostile to any attempt to socialise the economy. This was certainly confirmed by experience: though prepared to support the Bolsheviks against the old Czarist regime, the "independent" peasants later became an increasingly conservative weight on the proletarian power. Luxemburg was also very accurate in her warning that the division of the land would favour the richer peasants at the expense of the poorer. But it has also to be said that in itself the collectivisation of the land would be no guarantee of the march towards socialism, any more than the collectivisation of industry; only the success of the revolution on a world scale could have secured that - just as it could have overcome the difficulties posed by the parcellisation of the land in Russia.

2. Luxemburg's most trenchant criticisms concern the question of "national self-determination". While recognising that the Bolsheviks' defence of the slogan of "the right of peoples to self-determination" was based on a legitimate concern to oppose all forms of national oppression and to win to the revolutionary cause the masses of those parts of the Czarist empire which had been under the yoke of Great Russian chauvinism, Luxemburg showed what this "right" meant in practise: the "new" national units which had opted for separation from the Russian Soviet republic systematically allied themselves with imperialism against the proletarian power: "While Lenin and his comrades clearly expected that, as champions of national freedom, even to the extent of ‘separation', they would turn Finland, the Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, the Caucasus etc into so many faithful allies of the Russian revolution, we have witnessed the opposite spectacle. One after another, these ‘nations' used the newly granted freedom to ally themselves with German imperialism against the Russian revolution as its mortal enemy, and, under German protection, to carry the banner of counter-revolution into Russia itself" (p 380). And she goes on to explain why it could not be otherwise, since in a capitalist class society, there is no such thing as the "nation" separate from the interests of the bourgeoisie, which would far rather subject itself to the domination of imperialism than make common cause with the revolutionary working class: "To be sure, in all these cases, it was really not the ‘people' who engaged in these reactionary policies, but only the bourgeois and petty bourgeois classes, who - in sharpest opposition to their own proletarian masses - perverted the ‘national right of self-determination' into an instrument of their counter-revolutionary class policies. But - and here we come to the very heart of the question - it is in this that the utopian, petty bourgeois character of this nationalistic slogan resides: that in the midst of the crude realities of class society and when class antagonisms are sharpened to the uttermost, it is simply converted into a means of bourgeois class rule. The Bolsheviks were to be taught to their own great hurt, and that of the revolution, that under the rule of capitalism there is no self-determination of peoples, that in a class society each class of the nation strives to ‘determine itself' in a different fashion, and that, for the bourgeois classes, the standpoint of national freedom is fully subordinated to that of class rule. The Finnish bourgeoisie like the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, were unanimous in preferring the violent rule of Germany to national freedom, if the latter should be bound up with Bolshevism" (ibid).

Furthermore, the Bolsheviks' confusion on this point (although it must be remembered that there was a minority in the Bolshevik party - in particular Piatakov - who fully agreed with Luxemburg's point of view on this question) was having a negative effect internationally since ‘national self-determination' was also the rallying cry of Woodrow Wilson and of all the big imperialist sharks who were seeking to use it to dislodge their imperialist rivals from the regions that they themselves coveted. And the whole history of the twentieth century has confirmed how easily the "rights of nations" has become no more than a cloak for the imperialist desires of the great powers and of their lesser emulators.

Luxemburg did not dismiss the problem of national sensitivities; she insisted that there could be no question of a proletarian regime ‘integrating' outlying countries through military force alone. But it was equally true that any concession made to the nationalist illusions of the masses in those regions could only tie them more closely to their exploiters. The proletariat, once it has assumed power in any region, can only win those masses to its cause through "the most compact union of revolutionary forces", through a "genuine international class policy" aimed at splitting the workers from their own bourgeoisie.

3. On "democracy and dictatorship" there are profoundly contradictory elements in Luxemburg's position. On the one hand there is no doubt that she falls into a real confusion between democracy in general and workers' democracy in particular - the democratic forms used in the framework and in the interest of the proletarian dictatorship. This is shown by her resolute defence of the Constituent Assembly, which the Soviet power dissolved in 1918, in perfect consistency with the fact that the very appearance of the latter had made the old bourgeois democratic forms entirely obsolete. And yet somehow Luxemburg sees this act as a threat to the life of the revolution. In a similar vein she is reluctant to accept that, in order to exclude the ruling class from political life, "suffrage" in a Soviet regime should be based primarily on the workplace collective rather than on the individual citizen's domicile (albeit her concern was also to ensure that the unemployed would not be excluded by this criterion, which was certainly not its intention). These inter-classist, democratic prejudices are in striking contrast to her argument that "national self-determination" can never express anything else than the "self-determination" of the bourgeoisie. The argument is identical as regards parliamentary institutions, which do not, whatever the appearance, express the interests of the "people" but of the capitalist ruling class. Luxemburg's views in this text are also totally at odds with the programme of the Spartacus League formulated soon after, since this document demands the dissolution of all municipal and national parliamentary type bodies and their replacement by councils of workers' and soldiers' delegates: we can only presume that Luxemburg's position on the Constituent Assembly - which also became the rallying cry of the counter-revolution in Germany - had evolved very rapidly in the heat of the revolutionary process.

But this does not mean that there is no validity to any of Luxemburg's criticisms of the Bolsheviks' approach to the question of workers' democracy. She was fully aware that in the extremely difficult situation facing the beleaguered Soviet power, there was a real danger that the political life of the working class would be subordinated to the necessity to bar the road to the counter-revolution. Given this situation, Luxemburg was right to be sensitive to any signs that the norms of workers' democracy were being violated. Her defence of the necessity for the widest possible debate within the proletarian camp, and against the forcible suppression of any proletarian political tendencies, was justified in light of the fact that the Bolsheviks, having assumed state power, were drifting towards a party monopoly that was to damage themselves as much as the life of the proletariat in general, particularly with the introduction of the Red Terror. Luxemburg did not at all oppose the notion of the proletarian dictatorship. But as she insisted "this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class - that is, must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people ( ibid, p 394).

Luxemburg was particularly prescient in warning of the danger of the political life of the Soviets being emptied out more and more as power became concentrated in the hands of the party: over the next three years, under the pressures of the civil war, this was to become one of the central dramas of the revolution. But whether Luxemburg was right or wrong in her specific criticisms, what inspires us above all is her approach to the problem, an approach that should have served as a guide to all subsequent analyses of the revolution and its demise: intransigent defence of its proletarian character, and thus criticism of its weaknesses and its eventual failure as a problem of the proletariat and for the proletariat. Unfortunately, all too often the name of Luxemburg has been used to pour scorn on the very memory of October - not only by those councilist currents who have claimed descent from the German left but who have lost sight of the real traditions of the working class; but also, and perhaps more importantly, by those bourgeois forces who in the name of "democratic socialism" use Luxemburg as a hammer against Lenin and Bolshevism. This has been the speciality of those who descend politically from the very forces who murdered Luxemburg in 1919 to save the skin of the bourgeoisie - the social democrats, particularly their left wing factions. For our part, we have every intention, in analysing the mistakes of the Bolsheviks and the degeneration of the Russian revolution, of remaining faithful to the real content of her method. CDW.

The second part of this article can be found here [52].

The word ‘pogrom' was most often used to describe mob attacks on Jews in mediaeval times, often fomented by the state authorities as a means of deflecting popular anger away from them and onto an easily recognisable scapegoat. The persistence of anti-Semitic pogroms in Czarist Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century was often pointed to as an example of the extremely backward nature of that regime.

Today, however, the spirit of the pogrom is probably more widespread than it has ever been. Only a few months ago, in Kenya, following a disputed general election result, supporters of government and opposition, who are divided along tribal lines, carried out gruesome massacres of ‘rival' ethnic groups in which hundreds of people lost their lives and many more were made homeless.

In May the most advanced country in Africa, South Africa, was convulsed by a whole series of attacks on immigrants in shanty towns in Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town and other cities. Zimbabweans, Mozambicans, Congolese and other immigrants were ‘necklaced' and hacked to death, their homes burned. Over 40 died in the violence and at least 15, 000 driven from their homes, often forced to seek refuge in churches and police stations.

"Yesterday we heard that this thing started in Warwick and in the (Durban) City centre. We heard that traders had their goods stolen and that people were being checked for their complexion; a man from Ntuzuma was stopped for being ‘too black'. Tensions are high in the city centre. Last night people were running in the streets in Umbilo looking for ‘amakwerkwere'. People in the tall flats were shouting down to them saying ‘There are Congolese here, come up!'". Statement by Abahlali baseMojondolo, an organisation based in the Durban shanty towns, on the xenophobic attacks (www.zabalaza.net [55]).

The justifications for these attacks were familiar: there are too many immigrants, they are coming here and taking our jobs. They are all criminals, drug dealers, muggers and thieves.

It is not hard to see that these horrible events are rooted in the extreme poverty faced by the majority of the population in South Africa, for whom ‘liberation' from apartheid has not brought much improvement in job prospects, wage levels, housing and social security. With more and more people, including both ‘native' South Africans and those fleeing war and terror in Congo or Zimbabwe, being pushed into insufferably cramped and unhealthy shanty towns, with the prices of basic necessities going through the roof, it is not difficult to stir up tensions between different ethnic groups.

But the pogroms have not been restricted to Africa, where poverty is perhaps at its most extreme. In Naples, in April, following reports that a young Roma girl had been accused of trying to kidnap a baby, local residents of the suburb of Ponticelli attacked two Roma squatter camps with Molotov cocktails, forcing their inhabitants to seek protection from local police. This was just the tip of the iceberg: racist parties have been gaining ground in Italy, where blaming immigrants from Romania, Albania and elsewhere for rising crime levels has become an easy route to election success. The anti-immigration Northern League and the ‘post-Fascist' Alleanza Nazionale made considerable gains in recent national elections pledging to tackle illegal immigration, while in Rome, Gianni Alemanno, also of the Alleanza Nazionale, was elected mayor on a pledge to expel 20,000 people.

In Britain, violent racist attacks are still mainly the work of small groups or isolated individuals. But for years now a pogrom atmosphere has been slowly building up as the right wing press increasingly leads with articles that blame immigrants for ‘taking our jobs' and ‘sponging off the welfare state', while the official parties vie with each other to prove that they are the most committed to reducing immigration and the toughest on Islamic terrorism, which is invariably linked to the immigration issue. A particularly widespread element of this campaign is the lament for the so-called ‘white working class' which, we are told, is being made to feel a ‘stranger in its own country'. This is meat and drink to groups like the BNP, who claim that the Labour party has lost touch with its roots in the ‘white working class'.

The danger facing the working class

For the working class, there is nothing more shameful than a pogrom. It is the absolute negation of everything that the workers' movement has stood for from the beginning: the unity of all workers against exploitation, regardless of colour, country, or religion. That yesterday's victims of apartheid in South Africa should single out people who are "too black", that proletarians in Italy whose forebears suffered under fascism should be drawn into attacks on a hate figure as old as the Jew - the ‘gypsy': these are terrible testimony to the power of the exploiter's ideology in the minds of the exploited. They point to a very real danger facing the working class and the oppressed masses all over the world: that faced with the evident collapse of the capitalist social system, the proletariat, rather than uniting its forces against the dominant order, will be divided into an infinite number of ethnic and national groups, tribal or local gangs, and driven into fratricidal violence which leaves the real sources of poverty and misery untouched. If this happens, there will be nothing to prevent capitalism from plunging into the ultimate depths of barbarism and self-destruction.

So what is the alternative?

In South Africa, spokesmen for the church and the state, like Archbishop Tutu, President Mbeki and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela have condemned the pogroms, arguing that this is a terrible blot on South Africa's reputation in the world, even saying that those who commit such crimes are not ‘real South Africans'. But the answer to an openly racist version of nationalism is not a kinder, more human version of nationalism, because both varieties serve to obscure the only perspective that can really provide an answer to divisions among the poor and the oppressed: the development of class solidarity in the struggle for class demands. And if, in a moment of terrible danger, immigrants fleeing persecution have had little choice but to throw themselves on the mercy of the local police, they can have no illusion that the police force can offer them any real protection, since on another day it is precisely the police who are harassing immigrants and the inhabitants of the shanty towns and reinforcing the bosses' law and order. The only real defence for workers lies in uniting with other workers, whether in the workplace or in the working class neighbourhoods, whether ‘immigrant' or ‘native', whether black or white, whether in fighting against attacks on jobs and wages or against repression by police and racist gangs.

The old slogan of the workers' movement - ‘workers of the world unite' - is often ridiculed today, when every opportunity is seized upon to argue that working class solidarity is a forlorn and outdated hope. But the working class was being written off in the 1960s, when it had allegedly been bought off by the ‘consumer society'. The events in France in 1968 - the biggest mass strike in history - provided the most eloquent response to that argument. And today when workers' struggles are again slowly but surely taking on a massive character, from France to Egypt and from Vietnam to the USA, when time and time again so many of these struggles have reasserted the need for solidarity and put it into practice[1], the hope of a proletarian alternative, with its perspective of fighting for a society without nations or borders, is by no means forlorn. In fact it is the only real hope for the future of humanity, while the promises of the bourgeois politicians, whether openly racist or falsely humanistic, serve only to mask the utter bankruptcy of the system they defend. Amos 6.6.08

---

[1] For a more detailed account of some of these struggles, see our website: ‘Workers' struggles multiply all over the world' (WR 314), ‘One class, one struggle' (ICC online), ‘Against the world wide attacks of crisis-ridden capitalism: one working class, one class struggle!' (IR 132)

 

Things have been so difficult for Gordon Brown recently you could almost feel sorry for him. The agony began on May 1 with the victory of Boris Johnson over Ken Livingstone in the London Mayoral elections, at the same time as Labour's worst council election results across England and Wales for forty years. Further salt was rubbed in Labour's wounds on the 22 May when, despite the ‘by-election bonanza' (a raise in personal allowances for all basic rate tax payers costing an estimated £2.7 billion), they spectacularly lost the Crewe & Nantwich by-election to the Conservatives, the Tories' first by-election win over Labour in 30 years with a swing of 17.6%. This would mean a landslide for Cameron & Co if repeated at a general election. According to the latest polls the Tories are at least 14% ahead of Labour. While Labour fortunes have collapsed around Brown, he has also had to deal with the fallout surrounding Cherie Blair's sensationalist biography, and discontent within the parliamentary party over the abolition of the 10p starting rate of tax, fuel duty and the 42 day detention plan. Things do indeed look gloomy for Gordon.

One man's loss is another man's gain

The press has had a field day with Labour's decline. "Is this the beginning of the end for Brown?" (The Observer 25.5.08); "Brown facing meltdown as Labour crash in Crewe" (The Guardian 23.5.08); "Labour chiefs tell Brown: appoint a leader-in-waiting" (The Observer 25.5.08); "PM isolated as ministers decide: Brown can't win" (The Guardian 24.5.08). The first Tory by-election win in 30 years "is uncomfortable, because the last Tory win, in Ilford North, came in 1978, a warning that the Callaghan government's time was running out and the Thatcher era was coming" (Ibid). But "although many fear the party is heading for a general election defeat, there seems little appetite for an early attempt to force Gordon Brown to stand down" (The Independent 3.6.08).

Smiling faces have emerged, left and right, from the ‘gloom' of Labour's defeat. The Tories have already announced that, "New Labour is dead" (The Guardian 25.5.08). For Cameron the Crewe & Nantwich by-election signalled a turning point on the road to electoral success: "Labour ran the most negative, the most backward-looking, the most xenophobic, the most class war [sic] sort of campaign they could have done and it completely backfired" (Ibid). For the Socialist Workers Party "Gordon Brown has reaped what New Labour sowed".

This is the stuff politics is made of; it's the familiar rough and tumble of any democracy, one man's loss is another man's gain, and so on. It's the essentially harmless ‘banter' of government, which oils the wheels of commerce and the state, isn't it? No! Internationally the more sophisticated national bourgeoisies have developed ideological tools to try and mask the reality of the capitalist system. The myth of the ‘free and democratic press' and ‘open government' are just two examples of this phenomenon. The endless ‘political' chatter is just the latest attempt to create a smokescreen that hides the reality of decomposing capital from the working class. An attempt to hide the crisis in the business and economic pages far away from the ‘real' news of parliamentary gossip and sleaze. But, as the crisis begins to bite, there is a danger that workers can be drawn into the politics of the ‘lesser evil'.

As internationally capitalism's crisis continues to deepen no one in government or the city really believes that the Tories, the Liberal Democrats or indeed the BNP or Respect could manage the economy any better than Labour, but it is essential that the illusion that it can be managed is maintained. The ‘game' of politics must continue. At least Brown himself understands the situation, blaming Labour's results on "difficult economic circumstances". Circumstances so difficult that the British bourgeoisie has no perspective for resolving them other than attacking the working class and increasing state intervention in the financial markets.

It's the economy, stupid

Politicians would do well to remember the phrase used by the Clinton camp against George Bush Snr in the 1992 US election: it's the economy, stupid! They could easily be its next victim. The state of the economy is central and things are not looking good for the bourgeoisie at home or abroad. The IMF have predicted that "the government faces another six months of economic pain" believing that "interest rates cannot be cut from their current 5% unless a tight hold is kept on pay, taxes rise more than expected or the credit crunch curbs domestic demand. It urged the Bank of England to be ready to raise rates if wage rises put pressure on inflation" (The Guardian 24.5.08). With the collapse of the housing market, increasing food and fuel bills and uncertainty over jobs, workers will begin to look for an alternative to the crisis. They won't find an alternative vision in bourgeois politics, where the choice is always between tweedledum or tweedledee, but in working class struggle and its perspective for a real alternative, communism. Kino 6.6.08

After a six-year campaign the TUC and the CBI, with government prompting, have recently agreed that 1.4 million temporary and agency workers should, after 12 weeks, have equal rights with full-time and permanent workers. Dave Prentis, the TUC President, said that "This is good news for agency workers, particularly those in workplaces where low pay, long hours and exploitation are the norm" and that "The abuse of temporary agency workers is a shameful relic of another age".

In a report for the TUC on ‘vulnerable workers' there was shock that "employment practices attacked as exploitative in the 19th century are still common today". It highlighted "extreme abuse of the rights of migrant workers, including levels of exploitation and control that meet the international legal definition of forced labour." It gave the examples of "employers illegally retaining workers' passports, threats or actual physical violence to workers and debt bondage - where a worker is forced to pay off debts accrued by inflated accommodation and food costs and is not therefore paid for their work."

Speaking of an earlier study, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said "Too many unscrupulous bosses are getting rich by exploiting migrant workers", but "Unions are working hard to recruit migrant workers to protect them from rogue employers who seek to deny their workers a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." After all, "exploitation is not necessary for the operation of the British economy".

We work in order to live

The "good news" for agency and temporary workers is something that the TUC hope to bring to other ‘vulnerable workers' (migrant workers, home workers, informal workers, younger workers, unpaid family workers etc). By acquiring the rights of permanent workers it is implied that they will no longer be so shamefully exploited.

With the growth of part-time, temporary, illegal and other precarious forms of employment there are an increasing number of people who find themselves in insecure, hyper-pressurised or otherwise dodgy working situations. ‘Exploited' is a word commonly used to describe workers who work in the worst conditions. From a marxist understanding of the relationship of the working class to its capitalist employers, all wage labour - no matter what conditions it takes place in, whether it's done with extreme reluctance or is the fulfilment of a childhood dream, whether it's down a mine, in a factory, shop or comfortable air-conditioned office - it's all exploitation.

For workers to be able to use their labour power, in exchange for wages, they need to be able to function at various levels, depending on the job. However, every worker needs food, sleep, clothing and some sort of shelter. These are the basics. The wages that you receive are intended to ensure that you will be ready for work on every day you're needed. If employers provide food, accommodation, somewhere to sleep, healthcare, training etc, it's so that you can work for them.

Whether bought with your wages, or provided by an employer/state, everything that enables you to reproduce your labour power helps your availability for work. Fundamentally we all work to live. We work for the necessities that keep us alive. Things like holidays are something that employers know are essential if workers are not to get completely burnt out. You might have a car, where your grandparents might not have, but, with the decline in public transport and the necessity to carry children or shopping about, it is by no means a luxury any more. You might ‘own' your own home, but in reality you will have this absolutely massive debt (with the fancy name of mortgage) that you will spend decades paying off, and comes with the assumption that you will be in reasonably well-paid employment for most of your working life. At root the resources invested in the working class are to ensure we can continue to work. Anything beyond the basics, then you're lucky that your employer maybe wants to keep you on for the foreseeable future - but we are all dispensable.

Wage labour works for capital

Having said that, let's return to our valuable labour power. For a certain amount of the time you will be working just to reproduce your labour power. However, at a certain point, the work you are doing is beyond the value of what is required to keep you functioning. This surplus value comes from labour time workers put in for free, and it goes to the exploiting class. Whether we call them bosses, the bourgeoisie or the capitalist class, they are the ruling class in capitalist society and the surplus value from unpaid labour-time is theirs to do with what they will. Some might wear smart suits and hang out in Mayfair or Manhattan, while others wear less fashionable suits, combat jackets or tunics and call themselves ‘Communists' in Beijing, Havana or Pyongyang: what they have in common is their relationship to surplus value. They are the exploiting class that pays the wages and the working class is the exploited class that creates all value.

Of the surplus value, after a part that's invested in new machinery, raw materials etc, (as Bukharin wrote in 1919 in The ABC of Communism) "Part goes to the capitalist himself, in the form of entrepreneur's profit; part goes to the landowner; in the form of taxes, part enters the coffers of the capitalist state; other portions accrue to merchants, traders and shopkeepers, are spent upon churches and in brothels, support actors, artists, bourgeois scribblers, and so on. Upon surplus value live all the parasites who are bred by the capitalist system".

This is the secret of all wage labour. "The fact that capitalist production is precisely the extraction, realisation and accumulation of this stolen labour makes it by definition, by nature, a system of class exploitation in full continuity with slavery and feudalism. It's not a question of whether the worker works for 8, 10 or 18 hours a day, whether his working environment is pleasant or hellish, whether his wages are high or low. These factors influence the rate of exploitation, but not the fact of exploitation. Exploitation is not an accidental by-product of capitalist society, the product of individual greedy bosses. It is the fundamental mechanism of capitalist production and the latter could not be conceived without it" (chapter 7 of ICC publication Communism: not a nice idea but a material necessity).

So, when Brendan Barber makes remarks on ‘rogue employers' and commends the unions' campaigns, we follow the ideas of Marx in Wages, Price and Profit when he said that "Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!'" we should have "the revolutionary watchword ‘Abolition of the wages system'", as it is the only thing that corresponds to the interests of the working class. This is revolutionary because it requires the destruction of the state by the working class, the overturn of the capital/wage labour relationship, and the building of a communist society where everyone contributes according to their abilities, and receives according to their needs. Car 1/6/8

In response to rising fuel costs there have been many dramatic and well-publicised actions across Europe. Truckers came to London in convoys, blocked a main road and went to lobby Downing Street. Welsh hauliers threatened to blockade ports and refineries. In the Netherlands a huge truck was parked outside parliament and hauliers across the country wanted drivers to beep their car horns in solidarity.

In France truckers drove go-slow convoys to block major roads. Farmers and taxi-drivers have blockaded fuel depots with their tractors and cars, and fisherman blockaded a number of ports.

Fishing fleets from Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain have not gone to sea for varying lengths of time, in protest at fuel costs and static fish prices. In Madrid fishermen gave out 20 tons of free fish.

Across Europe there have also been protests by farmers at the low cost of milk, which have involved feeding milk to calves and using it as fertiliser.

The often spectacular stunts have been given much coverage in the media throughout Europe. Unlike the minimal reporting that workers' struggles get, these campaigns found a prominent place in news bulletins and plenty of pictures in the papers. In some respects the message was simple: everyone knows that the cost of petrol is rocketing up, and it's even worse for these people because their very livelihood depends on it. With fish and milk prices staying relatively low, you can see incomes declining in the face of growing inflation.

A motley crew

When workers demonstrate or go on strike, because their wages are falling further behind increasing inflation, or because of attacks on jobs, pensions or working conditions, there's not so much space available in the media, particularly if workers are giving an example that will inspire others. When hauliers, fisherman or taxi-drivers take action the only people who can emulate them are those who already have their own lorry, boat or cab. All the actions mentioned above are from groups of people who have a distinct position within capitalism.

In contrast to the capitalist class, that employs millions, and owns factories, plant, office blocks, technology, and transport etc, and the working class, that only has its labour power to sell, there are many intermediate social strata that are neither one nor the other.

These strata between the working class and the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, will maybe own property (farm, shop, studio, workshop etc) or vehicles (boats, lorries, taxis). Typically they will be self-employed, and possibly employ small numbers. They do work, but unlike the working class they own their own means of production. They do own property, but don't live mainly off the surplus value from wage labour.

The petty bourgeoisie is in a conflicted position "Through the small amount of capital it owns, it shares in the conditions of existence of the bourgeoisie; through the insecurity of its existence, in the conditions of the proletariat" (Engels, ‘The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party'). Farming, for example, shows a wide range of different social positions, from the mega agribusiness that's run like any industrial corporation to the tenant farmer living in a tied cottage. In between are those with big ambitions to take on more workers and those who are worried about losing their farms. Some ‘farmers' also have to work for wages for part of the year; among the truckers, others are former proletarians pushed into becoming ‘owner-drivers' in order to deprive them of many of benefits that accrue to employees or to disperse class solidarity. At this level the line between the petty bourgeoisie and the working class gets quite blurred.

In general, however, the intermediate strata are "eternally tossed about between the hope of entering the ranks of the wealthier class, and the fear of being reduced to the state of proletarians or even paupers" (Engels, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany). The petty bourgeoisie is a politically unstable class - not that you can really describe such a motley aggregate of individuals as a class - that follows the lead of either of the two main classes in capitalist society. It can follow but can't act as an independent force.

If you look at the 1917 Russian Revolution you can see how many from intermediate strata were inspired by the working class struggle, even to the point of creating forms of organisation based on the example of the workers' councils. In the 1930s, however, with the working class having been defeated, it was clear that the petty bourgeoisie was one of the mainstays of fascism.

Working class struggle provides a perspective

The actions taken over the rise in oil prices show that the petty bourgeoisie are feeling the pinch. The campaign has caused some governments to juggle with taxes and subsidies, and others to do nothing. What's important is that under the pressure of a deteriorating economic situation some from the intermediate strata want to do something. It has tended to be dramatic, and very reliant on getting a positive response from government, but at least they have acted, rather than just passively accepting things getting worse.

Over the last five years the struggle of the working class internationally has been slowly developing, with questions of solidarity being posed on many occasions. At the moment this struggle is not widespread enough to have a major impact on those outside the working class. However, as it develops, the working class will be able to show that it has not only forms of struggle to offer, but a perspective for a different sort of society. The petty bourgeoisie tend very much to accept the ideology of the ruling capitalist class, but in their recent actions they have shown a response to the growing economic crisis that is hitting all sectors of the population without prejudice. In the future, when the working class shows signs of organising its struggles more massively, and in an increasingly more united manner, then significant numbers from the intermediate strata can begin to recognise the social force that can take on the system that impoverishes them. Car 2/6/8

More than a month after Cyclone Nargis hit Burma, as many as 2½ million people were still utterly destitute, with no homes, (often no villages), severely limited access to food, water or medicines, and no prospect of the situation changing soon. Officially nearly 80,000 were dead and 60,000 missing, but the shocking indifference of the Burmese state to what had happened to the millions caught in the mud and mire means that the real figures could be almost anything, certainly much more.

The military clique of Than Shwe, at the heart of the Burmese state, was an easy target for governments around the world. These hardline ‘Stalino-Buddhists' said they would accept foreign aid, but not foreign rescue workers. They showed little interest in the plight of the population, being far more concerned at getting constitutional amendments ratified by a referendum that clocked up 93% in favour. After less than four weeks they started evicting families from relief camps, because they didn't want them to become permanent, even though there was nowhere obvious for them to go after the tents were taken away. They continued to harass opposition figures. They used refugees to build labour camps. They kept for themselves some of what little aid was allowed through.

All such criticisms were true, except that in the mouths of leading figures from some of the major imperialist powers they were used as grounds to threaten a ‘humanitarian' invasion of the country. The French foreign minister suggested using the UN's "responsibility to protect" as a cover for the ‘international community' to go into the country without clearing it with the Burmese state. He cited the availability of nearby French, Indian and British warships. The fact that the US has substantial forces in Thailand, as well as the aircraft carriers Kitty Hawk and Nimitz, and other warships, was a more direct way of making the same threat. It was clear that the US wanted to act on its own and not bother with the UN route.

There are some leftists who think that the Burmese state is defensible - some even describe it as a ‘deformed workers' state'! In the rest of the political spectrum the Stalinist nature of the military leaders is cited as the reason for their callous behaviour. Others have said that they are paranoid or just mad. After all Than Shwe did order that the capital be moved from Rangoon and built in Naypyidaw partly on the advice of astrologers.

The reality is more prosaic. That Burmese capitalism is more overtly repressive, and the military more prominent in the state apparatus than many others, is a reflection of its great economic weakness. But neither this, nor some of the more bizarre habits of its leaders, stop it from being a society based on capitalist exploitation.

China shows its ‘better self'?

Another country with a Stalinist state, China, has also recently suffered a catastrophic disaster, the earthquake in the Sichuan province which affected more than 15 million people, and in which more then 70,000 died.

The contrast with the situation in Burma was dramatic. There was a massive mobilisation by the state, including 130,000 troops. For a period of time there was a lot of open reporting in the Chinese media on what was happening. President Hu Jintao expressed his thanks for all the international aid, and for help from rescue teams from South Korea, Singapore, Russia, Japan and even Taiwan. The government said it would crack down on any corruption linked to relief supplies. With at least 3 million homes destroyed and another 12 million damaged there are 5 million homeless - the state hopes to get a million temporary housing units up within 3 months.

Countries in the west have also praised, rather than criticised the actions of the Chinese capitalist state: "This represents a model for other countries to follow"(US Assistant Secretary of State David Kramer), "A nation confronts a tragedy and finds its better self"(a Time magazine front cover), "Quake reveals softer side to China" (BBC website headline).

This lack of criticism might seem surprising. After all, there have been many protests throughout Sichuan at the evidence of a lot of substandard construction work. This becomes even more obvious when you compare the hundreds of schools that collapsed, killing thousands of children, with the government buildings that are still standing. There are also a nuclear research reactor, two nuclear fuel production sites and two nuclear weapon facilities (of which we know little) in the earthquake zone, and a number of hastily constructed dams which are already at risk of collapse, an eventuality that could result in disastrous floods.

A key difference between Burma and China is that the latter is an enormous investment market for the most developed countries and the former is negligible. What would be the point of ruffling Chinese feathers when the Beijing Olympics, that great festival of commerce, is just round the corner? And alongside the purely economic considerations are the ‘diplomatic' issues - in other words the efforts of the different imperialist powers to increase their influence with the Chinese ruling class, and their own conflicts with China over their positions in Asia and the Pacific. Despite competition between the US, France, Germany, Russia, and others over the spoils of this region, they seem to be agreed for the moment that it's in everyone's interest not to use the earthquake to provoke further disorder in the world imperialist chessboard.

In any case, the real humanitarian credentials of those who criticise the Burmese junta for its appalling response to the cyclone are easily unmasked. It is not so easy to erase the memory of how the richest and most powerful state in the world, the USA, effectively abandoned millions of its most deprived citizens to hunger, thirst and disease in the wake of Hurricane Katrina[1].

Car 4/6/08

 

---

 

[1] See Internationalism ‘Hurricane Katrina: A Capitalist-made Crisis [60] '

 

Faced with all the lies about the events of May 68, it is necessary for revolutionaries to re-establish the truth, to draw the real lessons of these events and prevent them being buried under an avalanche of flowers and wreaths.

That's what we have begun to do in publishing the two previous articles that retraced the first component of the ‘events of 68', the student revolt. We are turning here to the essential component of the events: the movement of the working class.

In the first article of the series we concluded: "May 14, discussions continued in many firms. After the immense demonstrations of the previous evening (in solidarity with the student victims of repression), with the enthusiasm and feeling of strength that came out of them, it was difficult to go back to work as if nothing had happened. In Nantes, the workers of Sud-Aviation, led by the youngest among them, unleashed a spontaneous strike and decided to occupy the factory".

This is point at which we take up the story.

The extension of the strike

In Nantes, it was the young workers, the same age as the students, who launched the movement; their reasoning was simple: "if the students, who can't pressurise with strikes, have the strength to knock back the government, the workers can also make it retreat". For their part, the students of the town came to show solidarity with the workers, mingling with the pickets: fraternisation. Here, it was clear that the campaigns of the PCF and the CGT warning against "leftist provocateurs in the pay of the bosses and the Interior Ministry" had only a feeble impact.

In total, there were 3100 strikers on the evening of May 14.

May 15, the movement reached the Renault factory at Cléon, in Normandy as well as two other factories in the region: total strike, unlimited occupation, locking up the management and the red flag on the gates. At the end of the day, there are 11,000 strikers.

May 16, the other Renault factories join the movement: the red flag at Flins, Sandouville, le Mans and Billancourt. That evening there were only 75,000 strikers in total, but Renault joining the struggle is a signal: it's the biggest factory in France (35,000 workers) and for a long time the saying was: "When Renault sneezes, France catches a cold".

On 17 May 215,000 were on strike: the strike was beginning to spread across France, especially in the provinces. It was a totally spontaneous movement; the unions were just following it. Everywhere, the young workers were at the forefront. There were numerous cases of fraternisation between students and young workers: the latter went to the occupied faculties and invited the students to come and eat at their canteens.

There were no specific demands. It was just a general feeling of being fed up. On the walls of a factory in Normandy it said "Time to live and with dignity!" On that day, afraid of being outflanked from below and also by the CFDT which was much more involved in the early strikes, the CGT called for the extension of the strike. It had ‘jumped on the bandwagon' as was said at the time. Its communiqué wasn't known about till the next day.

On the 18 May, a million workers were on strike by midday, even before the CGT line was known about. By the evening it was 2 million. By Monday 20 May there were 4 million on strike and 6 and a half million the day after that.

On 22 May, there were 8 million workers on indefinite strike. It was the biggest strike in the history of the international workers' movement. It was much more massive than the two previous benchmarks: the May 1926 General Strike in Britain (which lasted a week) and the May-June strikes in France in 1936.

All sectors were involved: industry, transport, energy, post and telecommunications, education, administration (several ministries were completely paralysed), the media (national TV was on strike, with workers denouncing the censorship imposed on them), research labs, etc. Even the undertakers were out (it was a bad idea to die in May 68!). Even professional sports people joined the movement: the red flag flew over the building of the Fédération Française de Football. The artists didn't want to be left out and the Cannes Festival was interrupted on the initiative of the film directors.

During this period the occupied faculties (as well as other public buildings, like the Odéon Theatre in Paris) became places of permanent political discussion. Many workers, especially the younger ones but not only them, took part in these discussions. Some workers asked those who defended the idea of revolution to come and argue their point of view in the occupied factories. In Toulouse, the small nucleus which went on to form the ICC's section in France was invited to expound its ideas about workers' councils in the occupied JOB factory. And the most significant thing was that this invitation came from militants of the CGT and the PCF. The latter had to negotiate for an hour with the permanent officials of the CGT, who had come from the big Sud-Aviation factory to ‘reinforce' the JOB strike picket, to get authorisation to allow the ‘leftists' to enter the factory. For more than six hours, workers and revolutionaries, sitting on rolls of cardboard, discussed the revolution, the history of the workers movement, soviets, and even the betrayals...of the PCF and the CGT.

Many discussions also took place in the street, on the pavements (the weather was good all over France in May 68!). They arose spontaneously; everyone had something to say (‘We talk and we listen' as one slogan had it). Everywhere there was an atmosphere of festival, except in the rich neighbourhoods where fear and hatred were building up

All over France, in the neighbourhoods and in or around certain big enterprises, ‘Action Committees' were formed. Within them there were discussions about how to wage the struggle, about the revolutionary perspective. They were generally animated by leftist or anarchist groups but many more were brought together outside of these organisations. At ORTF, the state radio and television station, an Action Committee was created by Michel Drucker, and the hard-to-describe Thierry Rolland was also part of it.

The reaction of the bourgeoisie

Faced with such a situation, the ruling class underwent a period of disarray, expressed in muddled and ineffective initiatives.

Thus, on May 22, the National Assembly, dominated by the right, discussed (before rejecting it) a motion of censure tabled by the left two weeks earlier: the official institutions of the French Republic seemed to live in another world. It's the same for the government that took the decision to forbid the return of Cohn-Bendit who had been to Germany. This decision only increased discontent: May 24 saw multiple demonstrations, notably denouncing the prohibition of Cohn-Bendit: "Frontiers mean fuck all!" "We are all German Jews!" Despite the cordon sanitaire of the CGT against the "adventurers" and "provocateurs" (that's to say the ‘radical' students) many young workers join up with the demonstrations.

In the evening, the President of the Republic, General de Gaulle, gave a speech: he proposed a referendum so that the French could pronounce on "participation" (a sort of capital and labour association). He couldn't have been further from reality. This speech fully revealed the disarray of the government and the bourgeoisie in general [1].

In the street, demonstrators listened to the speech on portable radios, anger still mounting: "His speech is shafting us!" Confrontations and barricades were mounted throughout the night in Paris and several provincial towns. There were numerous windows broken, some cars burnt, which had the effect of turning part of public opinion against the students who were seen as "hooligans". It's probable, moreover, that among the demonstrators were mixed in Gaullist militias or plain clothes police in order to ‘stir things up' and frighten the population. It is clear that a number of students thought they were ‘making a revolution' by throwing up barricades and burning cars, symbols of the ‘consumer society'. But above all these acts expressed the anger of the demonstrators, students and young workers, in the face of the risible and provocative responses of the authorities to the biggest strike in history. An illustration of the anger against the system was the setting alight of that symbol of capitalism, the Paris Bourse.

It was only the following day that the bourgeoisie finally took effective initiatives: on Saturday May 25 the Ministry of Labour (Rue de Grenelle) opened negotiations between unions, bosses and government.

Straightaway, the bosses were ready to give much more than the unions imagined: it's clear that the bourgeoisie was afraid. The Prime Minister, Pompidou presided: on Sunday morning he had an hour-long one to one session with Seguy, boss of the CGT: the two main people responsible for the maintenance of social order in France needed to discuss without witnesses the means to re-establish this order [2].

The night of May 26/27 the "Grenelle Accords" were concluded:

- 7% wage increases for all from June 1st, then 3% from October 1st;

- increase of the minimum wage in the region of 25%;

- reduction of patients' contributions from 30% to 25% (health expenses not paid for by Social Security);

- union recognition within the firm;

- a series of vague promises of negotiations, notably on the length of the working day (which was 47 hours a week on average).

Given the importance and strength of the movement, it was a real provocation:

- the 10% would be wiped out by inflation (which was quite serious during this period);

- nothing on safeguards against inflation in the wage packet;

- nothing concrete on reduction of the working week; they talked about aiming at "the progressive return to 40 hours" (already officially obtained in 1936!); in the time scale proposed by the government it will take... 40 years!;

- the only workers who would gain significantly were the poorest workers (dividing the working class by pushing them back to work) and the unions, rewarded for their role as saboteurs.

On Monday May 27 the "Grenelle Accords" were unanimously rejected by the workers' assemblies.

At Renault Billancourt, the unions organised a grand ‘show' amply covered by television and radio: coming out of negotiations, Seguy said to journalists: "The return to work won't be long" and he hoped that the workers at Billancourt would give the example. However, 10,000 of them, meeting at dawn, decided to continue the movement even before the arrival of the union leaders.

Benoit Frachon, ‘historic' leader of the CGT (who had been present at the negotiations of 1936) declared: "The Grenelle accords will bring millions of workers a comfort that they couldn't have hoped for": this was greeted by a deadly silence!

Andre Jeanson, of the CDFT, expressed satisfaction with the initial vote in favour of continuing the strike and talked of solidarity of the workers with the students in struggle, bringing the house down.

Seguy, finally, presented "an objective account" of what "had been gained at Grenelle": whistles then general booing for several minutes. Seguy then made an about turn: "If I judge from what I hear, you will not let it happen": applause but in the crowd you could hear remarks like "He's fucking us about".

The best proof of the rejection of the "Grenelle Accords": the number of strikers increased still more on May 27 to reach 9 million.

This same day at the Charléty Stadium in Paris, a big meeting took place called by the student union UNEF, the CDFT (which went one better than the CGT) and the leftist groups. The tone of the speeches was very revolutionary: it was a question of giving an outlet to growing discontent against the CGT and the French Communist Party. Aside from the leftists there was the presence of social democratic politicians like Mendes-France (old boss of the 50s government). Cohn-Bendit made an appearance (he'd already been at the Sorbonne the night before).

May 28 was the day the parties of the left began their games:

In the morning, François Mitterand, President of the Left Democratic and Socialist Federation (which brought together the Socialist Party, the Radical Party and divers small groups of the left) held a press conference: considering that there was a vacancy for power, he announced his candidature for the Presidency of the Republic. In the afternoon, Waldeck-Rochet, boss of the PCF, proposed a government with "Communist participation": it was important for them not to allow the social democrats to exploit the situation solely for their own benefit. This was relayed the next day, May 29, through a large demonstration called by the CGT demanding a "popular government". The right immediately cried "a communist plot".

This same day, we had the ‘disappearance' of General de Gaulle. There were rumours that he had withdrawn but, in fact, he went to Germany to make sure of the support of the army through General Massu who commanded the occupation troops in Germany.

May 30 constituted a decisive day in the bourgeoisie taking the situation in hand. De Gaulle made a new speech: "In the present circumstances, I will not withdraw (...) I am today dissolving the National Assembly..."

At the same time in Paris, an enormous demonstration in support of De Gaulle took place on the Champs-Élysées. It mobilised those from the posh and wealthy districts and rural areas, thanks to army trucks. The ‘people' came, the wealthy, the well-heeled, and the bourgeois; representatives of religious institutions, high level bureaucrats imbued with their ‘superiority', small businessmen trembling for their shop windows, old combatants embittered by attacks on the French flag, veterans of French Algeria and the OAS, young members of the fascist group Occident, the old nostalgic for Vichy (who, however, detested de Gaulle); this whole, beautiful world came to proclaim its hatred for the working class and its ‘love of order'. In the crowd, alongside the old combatants of ‘Free France', you could hear chants like "Cohn-Bendit to Dachau!".`

But the ‘party of order' couldn't be reduced to those who demonstrated on the Champs- Élysées. The same day, the CGT called for negotiations branch by branch in order to "ameliorate the acquisitions of Grenelle": it was the tactic of dividing the movement so as to finish it off.

The return to work

Elsewhere, from this date (it was a Thursday), the return to work began to take place, but slowly because on June 6 there were still six million on strike. The return to work was made in a dispersed fashion:

- May 31: steel in Lorraine, textiles in the north,

- June 4: weapons manufacture, insurance,

- June 5: electrical supply, coal mines,

- June 6: post, telecommunications, transport (in Paris, the CGT pushed the return to work: in each depot the union leaders announced that other depots had returned to work, which was not true);

- June 7: primary teachers;

- June 10: the police forces occupy the Renault factory at Flins: a student charged by the police falls into the Seine and drowns;

- June 11: intervention of the CRS at the Peugeot factory at Sochaux (second largest in France); 2 workers are killed.

We then see new demonstrations of violence throughout France: "They have killed our comrades!" At Sochaux, facing the determined resistance of the workers, the CRS evacuated the factory: work only resumed 10 days later.

Fearing that the indignation would only re-launch the strike (3 million still remained on strike), the unions (with the CGT at their head) and the parties of the left led by the PCF, insistently called for a return to work "so that the elections can take place and complete the victory of the working class". The Communist Party daily, l'Humanité, headlined: "Strong with their victory, millions of workers go back to work".

The systematic appeal for a strike by the unions from May 20 now has its explanation: they had to control the movement in order to provoke the return of the less combative sectors and demoralise the others.

Waldeck-Rochet, in his speeches on the electoral campaign declared that: "The Communist Party is the party of order". And, little by little, bourgeois order returned:

- June 12: secondary teachers return;

- June 14: Air France and merchant marine;

- June 16: the Sorbonne is occupied by the police;

- June 17: chaotic return at Renault Billancourt;

- June 18: de Gaulle frees the leaders of the OAS who were still in prison;

- June 23: first round of the legislative elections with gains for the right;

- June 24: return to work at the Citroën Javel factory (Krasucki, number two of the CGT, spoke at an assembly calling for an end to the strike);

- June 26: Usinor Dunkirk goes back;

- June 30: second round of the elections with a historic victory for the right.

One of the last firms to go back to work was the ORTF on July 12: numerous journalists didn't want to return to the restrictions and censorship that they submitted to before from the government. After the return, many of them would be sacked. Order returned throughout, including with the news items that the state judged useful to broadcast to the population.

Thus, the greatest strike in history ended in defeat, contrary to the affirmations of the CGT and of the PCF. A crushing defeat sanctioned by the return in force of the parties and of the ‘authorities' that had vilified the movement. But the workers' movement has known for a long time that: "The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding unions of the workers" (Communist Manifesto). Also, beyond their immediate defeat, the workers in France, in 1968, gained a great victory, not for themselves but for the whole of the world proletariat. That is what we are going to look at in the next part of this article where we are going to try to show the fundamental causes, as well as the world and historic stakes, of France's ‘merry month of May'. Fabienne (27.4.2008)

---

[1] The day after the speech, municipal employees of many districts announced that they would refuse to organise a referendum. Similarly, the authorities couldn't print the voting forms: the national print works was on strike and private printers (who weren't) refused to do it: their bosses didn't want supplementary problems with the workers.

 

[2] Later it was learnt that Chirac, Secretary of State for Social Affairs, had also met (in an attic!) Krasucki, number two of the CGT.

 

The ICC had a stall and hosted a meeting at the ‘May 68 and all that' event at Conway Hall in May. The event was a very mixed affair. There was a strong presence of those we refer to as leftists - political tendencies that talk about socialism and revolution but actually defend the interests of capitalism. This was evident in a couple of the meetings we attended. One called ‘Stopping the war in 1968 and 2008' wanted to glorify the North Vietnamese struggle, in reality part of the series of proxy wars that went on between the US and Russian imperialist blocs, and draw parallels with the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq today. In other words, these advocates of ‘Stop the War' actually want to continue the war on the side of the ‘resistance' just as they campaigned for the Russian bloc and the Vietnamese Stalinists in the 60s. A meeting on ‘Prague and May 68' concentrated on the conflicts within the CP and intelligentsia, without mention of either the working class or Czech state capitalism. In these meetings the working class and its struggle hardly even got the walk-on part that they are relegated to in the media coverage of the May 68 events.

Other meetings we attended were of a different character, such as the one on the influence of surrealism and situationism in 1968, or the meeting held by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, an organisation which is also highly critical of the leftists, even if they too are weighed down with a classical bourgeois position on parliament. In this case, their idea that class consciousness can be measured (at least in part) by how many people vote for ‘socialist candidates' prevents them from seeing the essential role that mass strike movements like the one in May 68 plays in the development of a revolutionary understanding within the working class.

The ICC meeting ‘May 68: the return of the working class after 40 years of counter-revolution' took this view as its point of departure. Rejecting the false lessons of those who say the working class was merely interested in wages while the students were the only ones who had any revolutionary ideas, we have to see how the events of May 68 are rooted in history.

The students were certainly in conflict with the state and the brutal repression handed out to them lit the fuse of a more general movement; but it was the massive entry of the working class into the arena that transformed the situation. With nearly 10 million involved it was the biggest working class strike in history, paralysing French capital. Workers were discussing everywhere - in the factories, in the universities, on the pavement. The French events also proved to be only the first in a series of movements: the Italian ‘Hot Autumn' of 1969 and the Argentine uprising in the same year; Poland in 1970; waves of radical strikes in Spain in 1972; dockers' and miners' strikes in Britain in 72 and 74, to name just some of the main struggles. This showed that something very profound was going on at the basis of society. As the title of our meeting proposes, it marked the historic revival of the world working class after the crushing defeat of its first revolutionary efforts in 1917-23. By 1968 the first signs of the economic crisis, supposedly banished from capitalism for ever, was met by the struggle of a new generation of workers who had not been crushed by fascism, Stalinism, and the fraud of ‘democracy' and had not lived through the worst moments of imperialist war.

This was just the beginning of a series of movements in the class struggle that is still going on today, despite all the difficulties the working class has faced in the last 40 years, and that is why it is still important to discuss the struggles of 1968 today, not just as an exercise in nostalgia for the older generation, but in order to pass on the lessons of those struggles to the new generation of workers going into struggle today. With this perspective it is fitting that, in spite of the fact that there was a large majority of the older generation at the event overall, all but one of the people who were attending an ICC meeting for the first time were young. However, the discussion was started by the only member of the older generation not there to support the ICC. He raised the key questions of the nature of the defeats suffered by the working class.

For this contributor, not all defeats are the same. During the Civil War in Spain they said ‘better Vienna than Berlin' (i.e. better the doomed uprising of Viennese workers in 1934 than the passive response to Hitler coming to power in 1933) because it is better to go down fighting than to capitulate, and this gives a positive aspect to some defeats. For the ICC the worst defeats are those in which the working class is fighting for interests that are not its own, such as the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War, when the workers were enrolled for imperialist conflicts under the banner of bourgeois ‘democracy'. Similarly, the defeat of the revolutionary wave was not obvious, above all in Russia, as the Bolsheviks started with the aim of leading the workers to revolution but became part of the counter-revolution, and this has allowed the bourgeoisie to paint the most brutal state capitalism in ‘proletarian' colours. The consequences of this form of defeat are still haunting the working class today.

The discussion on the perspective for the class struggle took up the question of the movements going on in the world today. Could the massive and militant struggles in Egypt, for example, lead to a revolution there? The perspective for the development of the class struggle needs to be looked at internationally, and in terms of the balance of force between the working class and the ruling class. When workers go into struggle in countries such as Egypt or Bangladesh they are faced immediately with direct conflict with the state, since the ruling class lacks credible shock absorbers such as trade unions, and so they have to form assemblies, knowing that the unions are on the bosses' side. It is possible for an insurrection to break out in a country like Egypt, but it would still need to spread internationally, and particularly to those areas where the working class is strongest and most concentrated, for it to lead to working class revolution - this is why the Bolsheviks looked to the development of the revolutionary wave and particularly the German revolution. This does not lessen the significance of struggles in the third world, which are an important part of an international development and an inspiration to workers everywhere.

A young ICC supporter from France pointed to the dynamic of struggles there today - the students in 2006 struggling against the CPE, the students and railworkers and others last year - which are responding to generalised attacks on living standards. Sarkozy, like all political leaders, wants to bury the hopes raised by 1968 once and for all, but has been unable to do so. In fact, while 1968 led to the open and widespread discussion of revolution again, today, after 40 years of capitalist crisis, there is a deeper level of class consciousness shown in the discussions in the assemblies during the movement against the CPE and in the attempts of students (themselves much more part of the proletariat than those of 68) to link with workers, and of workers in struggle to link with other industries and with the students. This shows that the perspective of struggle opened 40 years ago is still open.

At the end of an ICC meeting we asked everyone, particularly those who had not spoken, to make any comments on the discussion. The general feeling was that they had come to learn about the events of the past, an illustration of the questioning attitude that is also a vital sign of the slow and painful development of class consciousness. Alex 4.6.08

Since August 2007, with the collapse of the ‘sub-prime' loans, we have seen further convulsions in the world capitalist economy. Bad news is followed by worse news: rates of inflation are spiralling (in the USA, 2007 was the worst year since 1990); unemployment is rising; the banks have announced billion dollar losses, the stock exchanges have gone down and down; the indicators for growth in 2008 have been revised downwards several times.... These ‘economic' phenomena have a very real and tragic impact on workers' lives: losing your job, losing your home, seeing your pension ebbing away. All this is very powerfully affecting millions of anonymous human beings whose feelings and concerns don't make the headlines.

What stage have we reached in the historic evolution of capitalism?

Faced with a new eruption of the crisis, what do the experts tell us? There's an answer for every taste: there are the catastrophists who see the apocalypse round the corner; there are the optimists who say that it's all down to speculation, but the real economy is doing well. However, the most common explanation is that we are looking at a ‘cyclical' crisis like so many others that capitalism has been through in its history. Therefore, they advise, we should remain calm and go with the wind, because we will soon be sailing in the calmer seas of prosperity...

This ‘explanation' uses as its model, like a yellowing photograph, a picture of what happened in the 19th century, but which is no longer applicable to the real conditions of capitalism in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The 19th century was the epoch of capitalism's ascent and outward expansion across the whole world. Periodically, however, it was shaken by crises, as the Communist Manifesto highlighted:

"In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity - the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them".

This periodic entry of capitalist society into a phase of collapse had two main causes, which are still present today. First, the tendency towards overproduction, as described in the Manifesto, resulting in hunger, poverty and unemployment, not because there was a shortage of goods (as had been the case with previous societies) but on the contrary because of an excess of production, because there was too much industry, two much commerce, too many resources! Secondly, because capitalism functions in an anarchic way through ferocious competition which pits one enterprise against another. This results in a constant repetition of moments of uncontrolled disorder. However, because there were still new territories to be conquered for wage labour and commodity production, sooner or later it was possible to overcome these moments thanks to a new expansion of production that extended and deepened capitalist relations of production, especially in the central countries of Europe and in North America. In this epoch, the moments of crisis were like the beating of a healthy heart and periods of want were soon replaced by new periods of prosperity. But even at that point Marx saw these periodic crises as something more than an eternal cycle, which would always give rise to new phases of growth. He saw them as expressions of the profound contradictions which lay at the roots of the capitalist system and which would ultimately lead to its ruin.

At the beginning of the 20th century, capitalism had reached its peak. It had spread across the whole planet. The greater part of the globe was dominated by wage labour and commodity production relations. It thus entered into its period of decadence:

"At the origin of this decadence, as with the other economic systems, lies the growing conflict between the development of the productive forces and the relations of production. Concretely, in the case of capitalism, whose development had been conditioned by the conquest of extra-capitalist markets, the First World War constituted the first significant manifestation of its decadence. With the end of the colonial and economic conquest of the world by the capitalist metropoles, the latter were forced to confront each other in the dispute for each other's markets. From then on, capitalism entered into a new period of its history, defined by the Communist International in 1919 as the epoch of wars and revolutions" (Resolution on the international situation, 17th ICC congress, 2007).

The essential features of this period are, on the one hand, the outbreak of imperialist wars, expression of the deadly struggle between different capitalist states to extend their influence at the expense of others, of the battle to control a world market which has become increasingly narrow and could no longer provide a sufficient outlet for such an abundance of rivals; on the other hand, there is a growing tendency towards overproduction, so that economic convulsions pile on top of each other. In other words, what characterises the 20th and 21st centuries is that the tendency towards overproduction - which in the 19th century was temporary and could easily be overcome - has become chronic, subjecting the world economy to a semi-permanent risk of instability and destruction. Meanwhile competition - a congenital trait of capitalism - became extreme and, crashing up against the limits of a world market which constantly verged on saturation, lost its role as a stimulant for the expansion of the system, so that its negative side as a factor of chaos and conflict came to the fore. The world war of 1914-18 and the Depression that began in 1929 were the two most spectacular manifestations of the new epoch. The first resulted in 20 million deaths and untold suffering, inflicting the most terrible moral and psychological trauma on entire generations. The second was a brutal collapse leading to unemployment rates of 20-30% and atrocious poverty among the workers of the so-called ‘rich' countries, the USA in particular.

The new situation of capitalism on the economic and imperialist level led to important changes on the political level. In order to ensure the cohesion of a society facing chronic overproduction and violent imperialist conflicts, the state, ultimate bastion of the system, intervened massively in all aspects of social life and above all the most sensitive: the economy, war, and the class struggle. All countries headed towards a state capitalism that took on two basic forms: the one falsely labelled ‘socialist' (a more or less complete statification of the economy) and those defined as ‘liberal', based on a more or less open association between the classical private bourgeoisie and the state bureaucracy.

This brief summary of the general characteristics of the present historical epoch can help us situate the present crisis, analysing it in a considered way and avoiding both alarmist catastrophism and all the optimist demagogy about the ‘cyclical' crisis.

40 years of crisis

After the Second World War, capitalism, at least in the big metropoles, entered a more or less long period of prosperity. The aim of this article is not to analyse the causes of this, but what is certain is that this phase (contrary to all the sermons of the governments, trade unionists, economists and even some people who called themselves ‘marxists', telling us that capitalism had definitively overcome its economic crises) began to come to an end in 1967, first with the devaluation of the Pound, then the Dollar Crisis of 1971 and the so-called ‘oil crisis' of 1973. With the recession of 1974-75, a new stage was reached and the convulsions got worse. Summarising very rapidly, we can mention: the inflationary crisis of 1979 which hit the main industrialised countries, the debt crisis of 1982, the Wall Street crash in 1987 followed by the recession of 1989, the new recession of 1992-93 which caused disarray in all the European currencies, the crises of the Asian ‘tigers' and ‘dragons' in 1997 and the crisis of the ‘new economy' in 2001. Can this succession of shocks be explained by grafting on the formula of the ‘cyclical crisis'? No, a thousand times no! The incurable sickness of capitalism is the result of the dramatic lack of solvent markets, a problem that has not ceased to sharpen throughout the 20th century and which reappeared violently in 1967. But unlike in 1929, capitalism today has been able to face up to this situation armed with the weapon of massive state intervention, allowing it to ‘go with' the crisis in order to avoid an uncontrolled collapse.

What is the main tool used by the state to try to rein in the runaway horse of the crisis, enabling it to soften, delay, avoid - at least in the central countries - its most catastrophic effects? Experience has shown us that this tool is the systematic resort to credit. Thanks to debts that have reached colossal proportions in a relatively short span of time, the capitalist states have created an artificial market that has offered an outlet to mounting overproduction. For 40 years, the world economy has managed to avoid disaster through increasingly massive doses of debt. Debt to capitalism is what heroin is to an addict. The drug of debt has made sure that capitalism has managed to stay standing, albeit leaning on the arm of the state, whether ‘liberal' or ‘socialist'. The drug gives it moments of euphoria where it feels that it is living in the best of all possible worlds, but more and more frequently it is plunged into periods of convulsion and crisis, such as the one we entered in August 2007. As the dose increases, the drug has less and less effect on the addict. He needs a bigger and bigger dose to achieve a high that gets weaker and weaker. This is what has happened to capitalism today! After 40 years of injecting the credit drug into its raddled veins, the world capitalist economy is finding it harder and harder to get into new periods of euphoria.

This is what is happening now. Last August we were told that everything had gone back to normal thanks to the loans injected by the central banks into the financial organisations. Since then, they have injected no less than five hundred billion euros in three months, without this having significant effect. The ineffectiveness of these measures ended up sowing panic and January 2008 began with a general fall in the world's stock markets. In order to stop the bloodletting, in the USA government and opposition joined hands with the Federal Reserve to announce, on 17 January, the miracle remedy - an $800 dollar cheque to all households. However, such a measure, which had been very effective in 1991, led to a new fall in the stock market on 21 January - as grave a decline as the debacle of 1987. On the same day, the FED urgently reduced the rate of interest by three quarters of a point, the biggest reduction since 1984. But on 23rd January the world's stock exchanges, except for Wall Street, went through another plunge. What is the cause of this continuing slide, despite all the credits pumped in by the central states, using all the resources available to them: the loans to banks between August and November, reductions in interest rates, fiscal reductions? The banks, used on a massive scale by the state as a way of drawing companies and households into a spiral of debts, now find themselves in a pitiful state, beginning with the really big ones like Citigroup, and are announcing a series of enormous losses. There is much talk of a phenomenon which can further aggravate the situation: a number of insurance companies, which specialise in reimbursing banks for their ‘bad' credit linked to subprime mortgages, seem to be having a hard time keeping this up. But there is an even more worrying problem that is shaking the world economy like a tsunami: the resurgence of inflation. During the 1970s, inflation made life extremely difficult for anyone on a modest income, and it is now returning with a vengeance. This shows that the resort to credit and state capitalist measures did not eliminate it, but simply put it off to the future. There is a real fear that it will start to reach runaway levels and that the gigantic loans to the central banks, the fiscal reductions and cuts in interest rates, will drive it even faster without getting production going again. The general fear is that the world economy is entering into a phase of so-called ‘stagflation', in other words a dangerous combination of recession and inflation, which for the working class and the majority of the population would mean a new flood of redundancies and a growing difficulty in meeting the rising costs of basic necessities. To which we can add - and this is just one example - 2 million American households unable to pay their mortgages.

Like a drug, the desperate resort to credit little by little undermines the foundations of the economy. From this brief analysis of the situation in recent months, we can see that we are facing the most serious convulsions of world capitalism in these 40 years of crisis. And it is by looking at the last 40 years, rather than at the last few months as the economic ‘experts' do, that we will gain a much clearer picture of the real direction of the world economy. We will return to this in a second article, where we will show how the bourgeoisie has no choice but to push the most brutal effects of the crisis onto the backs of the workers; and we will try to provide an answer to the question: is there a way out of the crisis?

Translated from Accion Proletaria 199, January-March 2008, the ICC's publication in Spain.

It took the authorities 5 weeks before the results of the Zimbabwean presidential election were officially revealed. ZANU-PF had lost control of parliament for the first time in the 28 years since ‘independence' and Robert Mugabe had already been told he'd lost the presidency outright. A run-off between Mugabe and the MDC's Morgan Tsvangirai is due on 27 June.

In a report from the International Crisis Group, (they have lots of inside sources in Zimbabwe and South Africa), it is claimed that the Zimbabwean military have told Mugabe they can guarantee electoral victory. Certainly banning any MDC rallies for reasons of ‘security' shows the way the state is thinking. There has also been the suggestion that there might be either a pre-emptive military coup before the run-off, or after, if Tsvangirai wins.

Across Zimbabwe there has been a campaign of state intimidation and violence with arrests, beatings, torture and murder. The MDC claims more than 50 of its members have been killed and more than 25,000 driven out of their homes. The government has banned all aid agencies from helping the 4 million people who are dependent on them for food. Soldiers have been told that they must vote for Mugabe or leave the army.

Imperialist interest in Zimbabwe

All this is happening against a background of the Zimbabwean economy going through the floor. Whether inflation is running at 100,000% or 1,000,000%, it's a disaster, like the 80% unemployment rate. The once productive grain and tobacco farms have either been wrecked or neglected. Zimbabwe's involvement in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1998 and 2002 was ruinous. It's true that Zimbabwe has many natural resources, such as platinum, copper, nickel, coal, tin, gold and diamonds, but mines have been closing as costs have risen and operations have become more difficult with an infrastructure that is falling apart and with the sheer scale of the economic crisis.

Mugabe always says that the MDC is a tool of US and British imperialism, who he blames for ruining the Zimbabwean economy and causing instability. Of course Mugabe is trying to divert attention from the extraordinarily irrational, corrupt and economically devastating policies of the ZANU regime. And Mugabe's recent suspension of the activities of aid agencies in Zimbabwe - accused of campaigning on behalf of the MDC - will no doubt result in further starvation and neglect for the mass of the population. But he's not inventing the fact that the US and Britain have been backing the opposition. Indeed Tsvangirai has been praised throughout the west so enthusiastically that he's had to start playing it down, and has been trying to build up support in the region with meetings with the leaders of nearby countries. As for British and American capitalism, it should go without saying that they want to protect and expand their interests throughout Africa, and that specifically includes Zimbabwe. But they're not the only forces interested in gaining an influence in the country.

For a start, South African President Thabo Mbeki apparently has a strong personal dislike for Tsvangirai and has only ever considered a reformed ZANU-PF government with just a token opposition representation. But the South African ruling class is not united, as ANC leader Jacob Zuma has not only been critical of Mugabe but ensured ANC support for the MDC. As another example, Tsvangirai accused the South African government of playing a role in facilitating the delivery of weapons to land-locked Zimbabwe from a Chinese ship, the COSATU unions (part of the SA government and with connections with MDC-linked unions in Zimbabwe) ensured that when it docked in Durban workers refused to unload it.

Apart from the interests of Britain, the US, China and South Africa in Zimbabwe, leaders of neighbouring countries seem at present to be opting for the status quo, although it's clear they all know that South African imperialism will have a major say in anything that happens. Mbeki has already, according to the Washington Post, told Bush to "butt out" of Zimbabwe.

No national liberation

Although there has been much praise for Tsvangirai, the forces of the opposition are very divided, as would be expected in the face of such a catastrophic economic situation where no ‘solution' is credible.

In 2005 the MDC went through a bitter split, and although the factions got back together in time for the elections they are not the force they were. Of those who voted for them a great number must have been for just ‘anything but Mugabe'. In terms of being able to mobilise strikes and demonstrations the MDC has a long history of calling for actions that turn out to be damp squibs. It is significant that the MDC was formed as a political party in 1999, the year after the last major wave of riots and strikes against the effects of the economic crisis.

An estimated 3 million Zimbabweans have not stuck around to see if the MDC can bring in a better future and have escaped to South Africa. The recent wave of anti-foreigner violence there has presented them with an impossible choice (see front page article in this issue). They ran away from poverty and violence, to be greeted with violence and poverty. Post-apartheid South Africa still means exploitation and oppression for the majority of the population.

In Zimbabwe ZANU-PF's original coming to power was no liberation either. The Justice Minister accused Tsvangirai of endangering the gains of the revolution. This is a country where, in 2005, 700,000 people lost their homes when Mugabe had tens of thousands of shanty dwellings and illegal street stalls destroyed because he thought they were an embarrassment.

Yet the myth of ‘liberation' still has a hold on people. The Zim­babwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights, which has recorded hundreds of incidents of violence and torture following the elections, said"the vicious and cowardly attacks by so-called war veterans on women, children and the elderly shames the memory of all true heroes of the liberation struggle". These war veterans fought for ZANU-PF to take over the Rhodesian capitalist state. The name of the country changed, but its capitalist and imperialist nature did not. Whether Mugabe is replaced or not, the conflict between his supporters and his opponents will continue. As elsewhere in Africa, capitalism only offers war, poverty, hunger and disease. The only real form of liberation that can be fought for is in the international struggle of the working class, which will have to destroy every capitalist state in the world. Car 6/6/8

This article is available as a leaflet to download and distribute here:

https://en.internationalism.org/files/en/wr316-united-struggle-needed.pdf [65]

---

 

Hundreds of thousands of council workers are striking on 16 and 17 July demanding a 6% pay rise, following the example of teachers and civil servants on 24 April, and Shell tanker drivers last month. They will undoubtedly be followed by other workers, with signs of discontent among health service workers, civil servants and shop workers.

Price rises leave workers no choice but struggle. The last 5 years – years in which the economy was supposed to be doing so well – have left the average household 15% worse off, according to a new report by Ernst and Young, with energy bills up 110%, housing costs up 45%, petrol up 29% since 2003. We are now faced with a dramatic worsening in the situation since the housing bubble started to burst last year. It is the very basics of food, fuel and housing where prices are rising fastest. In the last year 4 million households have been forced to resort to expensive short term loans or credit cards to pay their mortgages, and defaults and repossessions are likely to exceed those of the early 1990s before long.

Recession is going hand in hand with inflation. The service sector, which accounts for about 80% of jobs, shrank in May; jobs are going in the financial and construction industries. In early July 2000 construction jobs went in 48 hours and Barratt announced 1,000 redundancies or 15% of the workforce. Official unemployment went up to 1.64 million, 5.3%, in April but it is common knowledge that this fails to take account of millions forced to claim incapacity benefit, or off benefits altogether.

Meanwhile, the rate of growth in earnings has not just failed to keep pace with inflation – it has slowed right down. This is exactly what the ruling class want. Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, has said that employees should not respond to the loss of spending power by demanding pay increases as that would fuel inflation. We are told that we mustn’t return to the stagflation and wage demands of the 1970s. In other words, workers should pay for the crisis, because stagflation is here whether or not we struggle for increased pay.

Much has been made of the poor handling of the situation by the Brown government but the economic crisis is not just something for Britain, it’s worldwide; and it’s not just Brown or King who will try and force us to accept cuts in our living standards. This is the role of the whole state machine, and not just in this country but internationally as all workers from the USA to China, France to Venezuela, face the same attacks.

How can we fight back?

All workers have the same interest in resisting attacks on living and working conditions, but faced with a centralised attack by the state it is impossible to do so if we remain divided sector by sector. It’s the same fight whether we look at postal workers last year, teachers on April 24, Shell tanker drivers last month or council workers this time. Workers recognise this every time they show solidarity. Council workers in Birmingham voted in mass meetings to support the April 24 demonstrations and strikes. In the postal workers’ strike van drivers refused to cross picket lines, and there were wildcat strikes to defend them when they were disciplined. Similarly drivers from other companies refused to cross the Shell tanker drivers’ picket lines. This solidarity so worried both bosses and unions that they negotiated a hasty deal in both cases.

Yet the struggles are weakened by being divided up. When the teachers and civil servants struck on April 24 it was billed as ‘fight-back Thursday’ for the whole public sector, but even in schools the workers remained divided – NUT members divided from NAS members, teachers in sixth form colleges divided from teachers in other schools, teachers striking in April, other workers in the same schools striking in July. We can only respond to this by refusing to be bound by union divisions, by showing solidarity on the picket lines as in the postal and tanker drivers’ strikes, and by discussing with other workers.

Workers in France showed the same tendency to struggle together last November when rail-workers and students went and spoke in each others’ meetings, even if the unions didn’t like it, and demonstrated together. And in 2006 it was the fact that students were starting to get together with workers that persuaded the French government to withdraw the CPE, an attack on young workers’ working conditions. Back in 1980 Polish workers went on a mass strike in response to price rises, all workers together, shutting down the country, and forcing a withdrawal of the price rises, even if they had to be brought in more slowly later on.

Solidarity cannot be organised through the unions

From The Times to The Socialist papers are speculating on a summer of discontent. Unite has joined Unison in calling its council workers out on strike, adding another 40,000 to the 600,000 who will stop work. The PCS union has sent a letter of solidarity. Unison has talked of reopening the NHS 3 year pay deal in new circumstances, and PCS is calling for a similar deal in the Department of Work and Pensions. Doesn’t this seem to show union militancy? And what about Unite’s merger with the American steelworkers’ union? Doesn’t that show that unions can organise international solidarity better than any ordinary workers on their own?

This all shows that unions are aware of discontent within the working class and the need to respond to it, but they do this in order to control struggle and not to encourage it. This time round the NUT will tell teachers to cross picket lines of learning support, cleaning and catering staff, just as Unison expected its members to cross picket lines in April. As for the PCS letter of solidarity, it is an illusion, a substitute for the real solidarity that the state has made illegal by outlawing workers striking in support of others making similar demands of other employers. The unions keep workers divided by enforcing these laws on the shop floor. The international union merger will not escape this logic, will not do anything to unite workers internationally.

Workers can only develop the force to resist the attacks on them if they unite with other workers, first and foremost by coming together across all divisions of union or job, to discuss how to resist the attacks on them. This means taking the struggle into our own hands, and not leaving it to the union ‘specialists’, so all workers can participate in deciding how to run the struggle. It also means uniting with other workers struggling against the same attacks in other workplaces and industries by sending delegations to other mass meetings or picket lines or demonstrations. Although this is illegal, and seems a huge step, it is the only way workers can have the strength to defend themselves, and to take the struggle further.

This is the only perspective that will enable us to really defend our living standards, and to develop the confidence to question the future that the capitalist system, with its economic crisis, its wars and its ecological disasters, has in store for us.

International Communist Current, 5.7.08

At the beginning of June, 641 Shell tanker drivers struck for four days to increase their pay levels. This strike occupied the media headlines for several days, and some petrol stations ran out of fuel. It was settled with a 14% increase over two years (9% this year and 5% next). The Unite union and media made a lot of noise about the size of this award but it was only 0.7% more than the original offer (7.3% this year and 6% next). This strike, though only involving a few hundred workers and being resolved quickly, was an important expression of the developing wave of class struggle.

From the beginning of the strike workers from other haulage firms expressed their solidarity though respecting the picket lines or joining in their protests "Last night striking drivers at the Stanlow refinery in Cheshire were joined by about 15 BP drivers who refused to start work.

In Plymouth, union leaders said the strike action had been joined by drivers from every company and fuel supplies in Devon and Cornwall could start to run dry by tonight. Up to 25% of BP's petrol deliveries are believed to have been impeded, and some drivers for Wincanton, a firm which distributes fuel to 3,700 Total and Chevron filling stations, have refused to work out of solidarity with the strikers.

The Wincanton (a large haulage firm) drivers joined Shell drivers in protests at Cardiff, Plymouth and Avonmouth, leaving tankers stranded behind picket lines." (The Guardian, 14.6.08).

This solidarity took on a new dimension on the third day of the strike (16th June), when workers from other haulage firms joined the Shell workers picketing the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland in protest at the suspension of 11 Scottish Fuel drivers for refusing to cross picket lines. This was potentially a very explosive situation, given that the struggle was taking on a demand beyond those of the Shell tanker drivers - the defence of workers from Scottish Fuels. A demand that if not resolved could have drawn in more and more drivers and potentially other workers into the struggle. The Grangemouth refinery workers had struck in April over pensions, the first strike for 73 years and would have been aware of what was happening at the gates. Not surprisingly the bosses and unions moved rapidly to stop this by reinstating the suspended workers. Unite dismissed the workers' determined defence of their comrades as a "misunderstanding". For the working class it was an example of the power of proletarian solidarity.

It should not be forgotten that such action is illegal, as was that by the Wincanton and other workers who joined the struggle. However, we did not hear a word about this in the media. Why? They did not want to highlight the fact these workers were not only showing solidarity but also were not intimidated by laws brought in to stop such expressions of solidarity. Such defiance could inspire other workers.

So-called independent drivers, those with their own rigs or hired as sub-contractors, also showed solidarity by not crossing picket lines. This was no easy action for them because they could lose money, possibly contracts and future sub-contracting work. Most of these drivers are former employed drivers or see no real difference between themselves and Shell and other drivers, and were willing to put solidarity first, despite the risks.

This solidarity by other workers meant that Unite was not able to keep the Shell drivers isolated from the rest of the class with their ‘own' demands against ‘their' boss. Instead other drivers saw the Shell drivers' strike as part of their common struggle because they are under the same attacks. It also threatened to explode into wider solidarity movements as the situation at Grangemouth showed. Thus, despite the unions and bosses stitching together a deal little different to the one the workers had rejected, the Shell and other workers came away from the struggle with a greater sense of their own ability to struggle and above all of the importance of solidarity. In this sense it was an invaluable gain for the whole working class.  Phil  4.7.08

On 12 June 2008 the European Union was once again thrown into crisis with the Irish electorate rejecting the Treaty of Lisbon in a referendum. The Treaty was itself a recycled version of the European Constitution which French and Dutch voters had rejected in similar referendums in 2005. The apparent paralysis at the heart of the EU is symptomatic of the increasing pressure on the bourgeoisie as they attempt to deal with the remorseless decline of the capitalist system.

The stakes for the Irish bourgeoisie

As a relatively minor player on the world stage, it is difficult to appreciate that the Republic of Ireland has an imperialist orientation. Like all minor powers, it tends to be at the mercy of the larger states and its choices generally run along the lines of which imperialist gangster it will seek protection from. Ireland’s official policy of ‘neutrality’ is an effort to avoid the worst ravages of imperialist conflict but in practice Ireland has always been more ‘neutral’ towards some powers than others.

This basic strategy of playing one power against the other is demonstrated clearly in World War II, when Ireland discreetly supported Britain against Germany. Today, Ireland’s policy in Europe springs from the same fundamental interests. Too weak to compete either militarily or economically against the rest of the world, the Irish bourgeoisie can only pursue its interests in ‘partnership’ with other powers. For these reasons, preserving the EU is a priority for the Irish bourgeoisie and accordingly, the majority campaigned for a ‘yes’ vote.

However, like all bourgeoisies, there is a minority that dreams of a more ‘independent’ line, or which would prefer closer ties with the US than with Europe. The nationalists of Sinn Fein are the classic representatives of this tendency but they were also accompanied by the lobby group Libertas that has connections with the US military. There are fears among some factions of the American bourgeoisie that the Lisbon treaty (which foresees the appearance of a common European defence policy) will undermine NATO.

Democracy: A trap for workers

The No-vote is unquestionably an embarrassment for the Irish bourgeoisie but what should the attitude to workers be towards such spectacles?

Democracy in modern capitalism is an enormous deception aimed at the working masses. Today, no matter which capitalist is in power, the slow collapse of the system forces all of them to attack the working class. Because of this, workers gain no benefit from backing this or that faction vying for power. The real interest of workers is to fight for their own class demands and ultimately to eliminate the rule of the entire bourgeoisie and seize power for themselves, through their own organs – the workers’ councils. Participation in the electoral circus is at best a waste of time, but more importantly it is an instrument that binds the working class to the capitalist state by serving up the illusion that workers really do have some kind of choice in this society.

It is true that referendums are not about choosing a government, but the fundamental framework in which they operate is the same. The questions they pose inevitably demand workers choose between the views of one capitalist faction or another. They offer no means by which the working class can express its own political interests in contradistinction to those of their exploiters.

The Workers Solidarity Movement: anarchists in the circus

One of several groups to support the ‘no’ campaign in the Referendum is the anarchist Workers Solidarity Movement Their leaflet (https://www.wsm.ie/voteno [66]) called for workers to “Vote No – Organise For Real Social Change”. The leaflet states “this treaty asks us to support changes in the EU to make money transfers and trade relations between them easier. Why should we give them the thumbs up when they couldn’t care less about us? Vote ‘No’ to their restructuring. But a vote ‘No’ is worth little on its own if things are not changed at home. The EU must change but so too must Irish society”. The leaflet goes on to say “through its commitment to liberalisation, this treaty is endorsing the passing of more of our public services in to private hands. This is robbery. It is maintaining, reinforcing, and expanding the undemocratic structures of Ireland today on to a European level”.

Why, indeed, should workers endorse the policies of the Irish bourgeoisie or the wider EU? The WSM’s endorsement of the ‘no’ campaign effectively means  they are “giving the thumbs up” to another faction of the bourgeoisie, the Euro-sceptics. What does the working class have in common with the nationalist Sinn Fein or the arms dealers of Libertas, apparently backed by the US military? Nothing! They are enemies of the working class and the proletariat has no more interest in supporting them than it does the majority of the bourgeoisie who favour the treaty. And because workers have no interest in supporting either side there is nothing to be gained by voting in this or any other referendum or election.

As for public services, they may currently be part of the state, but that state is a capitalist state: the executive committee of the ruling class.  Transferring them to private hands (i.e. another capitalist) certainly isn’t equivalent to ‘robbery’ against the working class. This is because the working class does not own these so-called ‘public services’. To paraphrase Marx, you cannot take from the proletariat what it does not have! This is simply a transfer of ownership from one part of the bourgeoisie to another. Now, undoubtedly, privatisation is usually accompanied with attacks on working conditions – as is the case with a transfer from private to state hands. Workers should certainly fight these attacks but not by getting involved in arguments about which capitalist should own what company or service!

Lastly, the talk about changing ‘Irish society’ reveals the incipient nationalism behind the WSM’s vision. The workers’ struggle does not aim to change the society of any one nation. Workers have no country – their struggle will abolish ‘Irish society’ along with all national societies as part of the creation of a global, integrated human society.

The WSM makes the same fundamental arguments as the Trotskyists on these questions: state capitalism is nicer than private capitalism, ‘national’ capitalism better than ‘global’ capitalism, etc. They also perpetuate the myth that workers have some sort of say in capitalist society either through state ownership or the democratic circus.

Certainly, workers should “organise for real social change”. But they must organise themselves in struggle, not through the ballot box, and defend their real interests against the whole bourgeoisie, not lining up with this or that faction of it.  DG 2/7/8   

Calling for a no-vote alongside the defenders of ‘Irish independence' is not the only example of the WSM's nationalist tendencies. They also support so-called ‘anti-imperialist' struggles (which in Ireland means tailending Republicanism) and even for the nationalisation of Ireland's natural resources. Even though they argue that this is just a tactic and that their ultimate goal is social revolution, the latter still has a very Irish tinge to it: "The WSM believes that the natural resources of Ireland should be ultimately collectively owned and managed by the population of Ireland. This can only come about through a social revolution abolishing capitalism and the state".  So even after a social revolution the "population of Ireland" will still be a collective proprietor. So much for a world without borders. Meanwhile, however:

"The WSM believes that a natural resources campaign, if broad based, could be a positive step forward in the long-term project of building a radical social movement and indeed in the short-term as it will supplement Shell to Sea.

The WSM endorses the idea of a campaign if it incorporates the following points

a) The Natural Resources of Ireland (oil, gas, wind/wave power, water) should not be owned or controlled by business interests.
b) These resources should be used for the benefit of all of the people in Ireland.
c) These resources must be used in a sustainable way, so that future generations and the environment of Ireland are not put at risk.
d) The acceptance of direct action as a legitimate tactic.

e) The campaign is organised on a democratic and delegate basis.

f) The campaign is not set up as a rival or competitor to Shell to Sea.

g) Within its first year it is capable of being more than a small publicity campaign."
‘Perspectives of the WSM' updated November 2007: https://www.wsm.ie/story/454 [69]

There could hardly be a more evident expression of ‘anarcho-Trotskyism' - anarchism as a thin disguise for the politics of the capitalist left.   Amos 5/7/8

When Labour pushed through the legislation extending detention without charge from 28 to 42 days, the air was full of the usual talk about basic freedoms and the preservation of civil liberties that has accompanied counter-terrorist bills over the years. Conservative MP David Davis decided that all the propaganda about habeas corpus, Magna Carta and the rest could do with more sustained exposure and resigned so he could fight a by-election on the question.

Initially there was speculation that he'd got a screw loose, but pretty soon a wide range of figures, from right to left, rallied round in his defence. The fascist BNP said it would not stand in the election as it agreed with what Mr Davis said about changing the detention law. The Libdems and many Labour MPs said they backed him on this particular matter. Left-winger Tony Benn supported Davis, who returned the compliment by praising one of Benn's speeches as "astonishingly wise and insightful".

A Trotskyist group, the Socialist Equality Party, is also standing in the by-election. Fully participating in the electoral circus, they claim to be different to the other parties. They say (all quotes from World Socialist Web Site) that "None of the official parties can genuinely defend democratic rights", which means they all have the same goals, but reckon that they're the ones for the job. They denounce Labour's "attempts to justify the overturning of the historic foundations of British law" and insist that "The cornerstone of democracy is the safeguarding of the individual citizen from arbitrary action by the state". None of these remarks would sound strange coming from the mouths of Davis or any of his supporters.

In the pages of World Revolution we have over the years covered the various repressive measures brought into law by the capitalist state. However, we've also tried to get over the fact that the legislation will not only be used against the ‘terrorist' threat, but also against the working class and revolutionary militants; and that this strengthening of the state is inevitably justified by a propaganda barrage about democracy and freedom. The ruling class uses this ideological cover to try and obscure the real nature of the state that imposes all the repressive measures.

You can read about the extent of CCTV surveillance, the DNA database, or the latest repressive laws in the pages of WR, or from David Davis or the SEP. The difference is that the SEP, like Davis and Benn, says "This latest measure stands at the apex of a mountain of anti-democratic legislation", whereas the marxist approach of the ICC shows that repression and democracy go hand in hand as weapons against the working class. The historic foundations of British law are based on the defence of the interests of the ruling class. When the Romans ruled Britain the law defended the interests of a slave-owning class, not of the slaves. In feudal times the law defended the interests of the lords and king, not the serfs and villeins. In capitalism bourgeois law serves the interests of the ruling bourgeoisie, not the working class.

There are certainly different ideological weapons used to buttress the rule of particular classes. Feudalism used the church and religion where modern capitalism uses the media and democracy, but they are both forms of class rule. There is, however, a key difference between feudalism, within which the bourgeoisie could gradually develop as an exploiting class until it was in position to dominate the state and overhaul it for its own purposes, and capitalism, where the working class is an exploited class and, rather than taking over the state of its exploiters, will have to destroy it.

Democracy and repressive law are not capitalism's only weapons. The history of Northern Ireland, for example, shows what the state is capable of. Internment, interrogation using sensory deprivation techniques and other methods that prefigured the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, the manipulation of terrorist groups and a shoot-to-kill policy were all used by British democracy. The Stockwell shooting of 2005 shows that the British mainland is not going to be immune to the repressive armoury developed on the other side of the Irish Sea.

David Davis, a supporter of the previous 28-day detention rule, may not sound very convincing to everyone as an opponent of 42. More to the point, the whole campaign over rights and freedoms is a smokescreen to hide the shared interests of government and opposition, of Right and Left. When the working class struggles it finds the law against it at every turn. By law you can't stage a spontaneous demonstration, as you have to give the police at least 6 days advance notice. If you strike in solidarity with workers in a different sector of the economy, or in a different company, it's illegal. The destruction of capitalist rule is also not approved of in bourgeois law. Don't trust anyone who asks you to fight over changes to the law rather than the defence of working class interests. Those interests certainly include the fight against repression, but the working class has its own methods in the struggle against arrests, deportations, or other forms of state violence.  Car 30/6/8

The announcement of a ‘merger' between the British Unite union and the United Steelworkers of America to form the "world's first global union", a 3-million strong Workers Uniting, was accompanied by extravagant claims. "This union is crucial for challenging the growing power of global capital," declared Leo W. Gerard, president of the USW, a union that already has members in Canada and the Caribbean: "Globalisation has given financiers license to exploit workers in developing countries at the expense of our members in the developed world. Only global solidarity among workers can overcome this sort of global exploitation wherever it occurs."

"Our mission is to advance the interests of millions of workers throughout the world," proclaimed Derek Simpson from Unite, "The political and economic power of multinational companies is formidable. They are able to play one nation's workers off against another to maximise profits. They do the same with governments, hence the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us. With this agreement, we can finally begin the process of closing that gap."

The two unions have already cooperated on trying to save jobs, not only in the US and Britain but also in Canada and Ireland. "The new union plans to set up operations in Colombia to help protect union members there from violence, in Liberia to aid rubber workers, and in India to help impoverished shipbuilding workers" (New York Times 3/7/8). They are encouraging unions from Poland to Australia to join them.

The media has been unsurprisingly cynical about the motivations behind the deal. Union membership has declined enormously since the 1970s and size is equated with influence. Unite itself was formed from the merger of the T&GWU and Amicus, which, in its turn, was the amalgamation of a whole range of unions. As for the USW's membership, only 20% are in the steel industry, with the rest in a variety of sectors such as mining, oil, paper, health care and security. Bigger is supposed to be more impressive.

More interestingly, some commentators have pointed to the protectionist tradition in American unions. The USW campaigned for a complete ban on steel imports that was supported by President Bush and led to a ban on British steel being exported to America. Other unions in the US were furious at a Pentagon contract given to a European consortium led by Airbus for refuelling tankers, and are still fighting for Boeing to get the job.

When it comes down to it, unions, regardless of any ‘internationalist' rhetoric, are national entities, acting in a national framework. Richard Hyman, professor of industrial relations at the London School of Economics was quoted in the New Statesman (2/7/8) as saying that unions "represent distinctive, national interests. In many industries, there is an underlying international competition in terms of investment and so on. If one is then trying to bargain, competing interests will come to the fore." Therefore each union's fundamental loyalty is to the economy of the country in which they function.

 Protectionism is not only alive in the US; it's a widespread and growing tendency. Whenever jobs are outsourced or relocated, unions don't talk of workers internationally, just of those in the country where they operate. When British industry suffers through global competition, British unions stick up for it.

Unions internationally against the class struggle

But it's not just nationalist loyalty that belies the ‘internationalist' rhetoric. What's more important is the way that unions in every country behave in the face of workers' struggles. Whenever you hear of an ‘unofficial' or ‘wildcat' strike you know it's not been sanctioned by the union but also that it's probably been actively opposed. It's not difficult to see why unofficial strikes happen in countries like Vietnam (where there have been hundreds of illegal strikes this year) or Egypt (where there's been a strike movement throughout the last 18 months) because the unions there are so obviously bureaucratic and part of the state. But the example of Poland in 1980-81 shows that when workers go beyond the official unions, even in a massive movement, they can still be taken in by illusions in ‘free trade unions'. Solidarnosc was the main force to undermine the workers' struggle before the imposition of martial rule in December 1981.

Workers Uniting talk of helping rubber workers in Liberia. American unions have already done more then enough there. Rubber is very important for the Liberian economy, and Firestone (now a subsidiary of Bridgestone) is Liberia's largest employer. During a strike in 2006 angry workers took over the offices of the Firestone Agriculture Workers Union of Liberia (FAWUL), holding a meeting to change the union leadership. In April 2007, during a strike in which police attacked and arrested strikers, workers set up roadblocks. They were attacked by the police and United Nations forces. After fighting broke out, tear gas was used to disperse the workers. Further strikes, during which workers were beaten, intimidated and several killed, led to an election (‘observed' by the USW and the AFL-CIO union federation) in which the FAWUL was transformed from being a ‘company' union to a ‘free union'. Initially this was not accepted by the management, but after strikes, beatings, firings and appeals to the Liberian Supreme Court, the union was finally recognised by the company. And what have workers gained? The leader of another Liberian union said how grateful they were for the intervention of the USW and AFL-CIO. Yes, now they will be relying on the big unions that are used to working hand in glove with big corporations. Because of that, in the fight between Firestone and its employees, workers have temporarily lost the initiative.

And the thousands of workers killed in Colombia, or the steelworkers of India can also only expect union activity to undermine and sabotage their struggles.

In contrast, the ruling class knows very well how much it needs the unions. French President Sarkozy wrote in Le Monde (April 18) "I would like to pay my respects to the trade unions.... One cannot govern a country without responsible trade union forces." Currently the French bourgeoisie (like many others) is concerned that unions are being increasingly discredited. A presidential adviser told Le Monde that they wanted to prevent "a weakening of the trade unions and the appearance of uncontrolled movements".

Workers most definitely have the greatest need for the international unity of their struggles, but this can only come from appreciating the united interests of workers across the globe, interests that go against the states and corporations that so much rely on the work of the unions. The reason that the USW and Unite have tried to make out they're ‘tackling global capital' is to give themselves some credibility with the working class. It is fitting that the deal is going to finally be signed off in Las Vegas, the home of many tacky shows with gangsters working behind the scenes.

The workers of the world can unite, but only if they overcome the union obstacle and take struggles into their own hands.   Car 5/7/8

 

In the majority of the numerous books and television programmes on May 1968 that have occupied the media recently, the international character of the student movement that affected France during the course of this month has been underlined. Everyone knows, as we've also underlined in our preceding articles[1], that the students in France were not the first to mobilise massively; that they had, in a manner of speaking, ‘jumped on the bandwagon' of a movement that began in the American universities in Autumn 1964. From the United States, this movement affected the majority of the western countries, and in Germany 1967 it went through its most spectacular developments, making the students of this country the reference point for other European countries. However, the same journalists or historians who are happy to underline the international breadth of student protest in the 60s in general don't say a word about the workers' struggles that unfolded all over the world during this period. Evidently, they couldn't simply ignore the immense strike that was so obviously the most important aspect of the ‘events' of 68 in France: it would be difficult for them to blot out the greatest strike in the history of the workers' movement. But, if they talk about it, this movement of the proletariat is seen as a sort of ‘French exception'.

In reality, and perhaps even more than the student movement, the movement of the working class in France was an integral part of an international movement and one can only really understand it in this international context. That's what we are going to bring out, among other things, in the present article.

France was no exception

It's true that in May 68 in France there existed a situation that wasn't found in any other country, except in a very marginal fashion: a massive movement of the working class developing from a student mobilisation. It is clear that the student mobilisation, the repression that it suffered - and which fed it - and the final retreat of the government after the ‘night of the barricades' of May 10/11, played a role, not only in unleashing the movement, but also in the breadth of the workers' strike. That said, if the proletariat of France entered such a movement, it was surely not ‘to do the same as the students', but because of the profound and generalised discontent that existed within the class, and also because it had the political strength to engage in the fight.

This fact is not in general hidden in the books and TV programmes dealing with May 68: it's often recalled that, from 1967, workers undertook important struggles, the characteristics of which broke with those of the preceding period. In particular, whereas the very limited strikes and union days of action did not arouse any great enthusiasm, we saw some very hard, very determined struggles facing a violent repression from the bosses and the state, and with the unions being outflanked on several occasions. Thus, from the beginning of 1967, important confrontations occurred at Bordeaux (the Dassault aviation factory), at Besançon and in the Lyonnaise region (occupation and strike at Rhoda, strike at Berliet leading to a lock-out and to the occupation of the factory by the CRS), in the mines of Lorraine, in the naval dockyards of Saint-Nazaire (which was paralysed by a general strike on April 11).

It was in Caen, Normandy, that the working class engaged in one of the most important combats before May 68. On January 20 1968, the unions at Saviem (trucking) launched the order for an hour-and-a-half strike; but the workers, judging this action insufficient, spontaneously struck on the 23rd. Two days later, at four in the morning, the CRS dispersed the strike picket, allowing the management and ‘scabs' to enter the factory. The strikers decided to go to the town centre where workers from other factories also on strike joined them. At eight in the morning, 5000 people peacefully converged on the central square: the police charged them brutally, even firing on them. On January 26, workers from all sectors of the town (including teachers) as well as numerous students, demonstrated their solidarity: a meeting in the central square brought together 7,000 people by 6 o'clock. At the end of the meeting the police charged in order to evacuate the square but were surprised by the resistance of the workers. The confrontations lasted through the night; there were 200 wounded and dozens of arrests. Six young demonstrators, all workers, got prison sentences of 15 days to 3 months. But far from the working class retreating, this repression only provoked the extension of the struggle: January 30 saw 15,000 on strike in Caen. On February 2nd, the authorities and the bosses were obliged to retreat, calling off the repression and increasing wages by 3 to 4%. The following day, work restarted but, under the impulsion of the younger workers, walkouts continued at Saviem for a month.

Saint-Nazaire in April 67 and Caen in January 68 were not the only towns to be hit by general strikes of the whole working population. It was also the case with towns of lesser importance such as Redon in March and Honfleur in April. These massive strikes of all the exploited of one town prefigured what would happen in mid-May in the whole country.

You couldn't say that the storm of May 1968 had broken out from a clear, blue sky. The student movement had set the land on fire, but it was ready to burst into flames.

Obviously the ‘specialists', notably the sociologists, tried to show the causes of this French ‘exception'. They talked in particular about the raised tempo of industrial development of France during the 1960s, transforming this old agricultural country into a modern industrial power. This fact explained the presence and the role of an important number of young workers in the factories who were often ill-adjusted. These young workers, frequently coming from a rural milieu, weren't unionised and found the barracks discipline of the factory difficult. They also generally received derisory wages even when they had professional certificates. This situation helps us to understand why it was the youngest sectors of the working class who were the first to engage in combat, and equally why the majority of the important movements that preceded May 68 took place in the west of France, a rural region relatively lately industrialised. However, these explanations by the sociologists fail to explain why it wasn't only the young workers that entered into struggle in May 68 but the very great majority of the working class of all ages.

The international significance of the May 68 strike in France

In fact, behind a movement of such breadth and depth as May 68, there were much more profound causes that went beyond, very far beyond, the framework of France. If the whole of the working class of this country launched itself into a general strike, it's because all its sectors had begun to be hit by the economic crisis which, in 1968, was only at its inception, a crisis that wasn't ‘French' but of the whole capitalist world. It's the effects in France of this world economic crisis (growth of unemployment, freezing of wages, intensification of production targets and attacks on social security) that to a large extent explains the workers' combativity in this country from 1967:

"In all the industrial countries of Europe and the USA, unemployment is developing and the economic prospects are becoming gloomy. Britain, despite a multiplication of measures to safeguard equilibrium, was finally forced to devalue of the pound in 1967, dragging along behind it devaluations in a whole series of countries. The Wilson government proclaimed a programme of exceptional austerity: massive reductions of public spending... wage freeze, reduction of consumption and imports, efforts to increase exports. On January 1st 1968, it was the turn of Johnson (US president) to raise the alarm and announce indispensably severe measures in order to safeguard economic equilibrium. In March, a financial crisis of the dollar broke out. The economic press became more pessimistic each day, more and more evoking the spectre of the 1929 crisis (...) May 1968 appears in all its significance for having been one of the most important reactions of the mass of workers against a deteriorating situation in the world economy" (Revolution Internationale [old series] no. 2, Spring 1969).

In fact, particular circumstances saw the proletariat in France leading the first widespread battle against the growing attacks launched by capitalism in crisis. But, quite quickly, other national sectors of the working class entered the struggle in their turn. From the same causes come the same effects.

At the other end of the world, in Argentina, May 1969, there took place what is remembered as the ‘Cordobazo'. On May 29, following a whole series of mobilisations in the workers' districts against the violent attacks and repression by the military junta, the workers of Cordoba had completely overrun the forces of the police and the army (even though they were equipped with tanks) and were masters of the town (the second largest in the country). The state was only able to ‘re-establish order' the following day thanks to massive troop deployments.

In Italy, at the same time, there was a movement of workers' struggles, the most important since the Second World War. Strikes began to multiply at Fiat in Turin, first of all in the principle factory of the town, Fiat-Mirafiori, spreading to other factories of the group in Turin and the surrounding areas. On July 3 1969, at the time of a union day of action against an increase in rents, workers' processions, joined by those of students, converged toward the Mirafiori factory. Violent scuffles broke out with the police. They lasted practically the whole night and spread to other areas of the town.

From the end of August, when the workers returned from holidays, strikes took off again at Fiat, but also at Pirelli (tyres) in Milan and in many other firms.

However, the Italian bourgeoisie, learning from the experience of May 68, wasn't taken aback as the French bourgeoisie was a year earlier. It was absolutely necessary for it to prevent the profound social discontent from turning into a generalised conflagration. It's for that reason that its union apparatus took advantage of the expiry of collective contracts, notably in steel, chemicals and building, in order to develop its manoeuvres aimed at dispersing the struggles and fixing the workers on the objective of a ‘good contract' in their respective sectors. The unions used the tactic of so-called ‘linked' strikes: one day metal workers on strike, another for chemical workers, yet another for those in building. Some ‘general strikes' were called but by province or even by town, against the cost of living and the raising of rents. At the level of the workplace, the unions advocated rolling strikes, one factory after another, with the pretext of causing as much damage as possible to the bosses with the least cost to the workers. At the same time, the unions did what was necessary to take control of a base that tended to escape them: whereas, in many firms, the workers, discontented with traditional union structures, elected workshop delegates, these latter were institutionalised under the form of ‘factory councils' presented as ‘rank and file organs' of a unitary trade union that the three confederations, CGIL, CISL and UIL said they wanted to construct together. After several months in which the workers' combativity exhausted itself in a succession of ‘days of action' by sectors and ‘general strikes' by province or town, collective contracts of sectors were signed successively between the beginning of November and the end of December. And it was a little before the signature of the last contract, the most important since it concerned the private steel sector, the avant-garde of the movement, that a bomb exploded on November 12 in a bank in Milan, killing 16 people. The attack was attributed to anarchists (one of them, Guiseppe Pinelli, died in the custody of the Milanese police) but it was learned much later that it could be traced to certain sectors of the state apparatus. The secret structures of the bourgeois state had lent a strong hand to the unions in order to sow confusion in the ranks of the working class at the same time as strengthening the means of state repression.

The proletariat of Italy wasn't alone in mobilising during autumn 69. On a lesser, but still significant scale, German workers came into struggle when in September wildcat strikes broke out against the signing of agreements by the unions for ‘wage moderation'. The workers were supposed to be ‘realistic' faced with the degradation of the German economy, which, despite the post-war ‘miracle', wasn't spared the difficulties of world capitalism that had started to develop after 1967 (the year that the German economy saw its first recession since the war).

This awakening of the proletariat in Germany, even if it was quite tentative, had a particular significance. On one hand, this was the most important and most concentrated sector of the working class in Europe. But above all, this proletariat had in the past, and will have in the future, a position of prime importance within the world working class. It was in Germany that the fate of the international revolutionary wave was played out, which, from October 1917 in Russia had threatened capitalist domination throughout the world. The defeat suffered by the German workers during their revolutionary attempts between 1918 and 1923 opened the door to the most terrible counter-revolution of its history. And it was where the revolution went furthest, Russia and Germany, that this counter-revolution took the deepest and most barbarous forms: Stalinism and Nazism.

The immense strike of May 68 in France, then the Hot Autumn in Italy, gave proof that the world proletariat was coming out of this period of counter-revolution. It was confirmed by the German workers' struggle of September 1969, and on a still more significant scale, by the struggle of the Polish workers on the Baltic during winter 1970-71, which obliged the authorities, after a brutal initial repression (300 deaths), to step back and abandon the price increases of basic goods that had provoked the workers' anger. The Stalinist regimes constituted the purest incarnation of the counter-revolution: it was in the name of ‘socialism' and of the ‘interests of the working class' that the latter suffered the worst terrors of all. The ‘hot' winter of the Polish workers proved that here, where the counter-revolution maintained its heaviest weight, i.e. in the ‘socialist' regimes, the class struggle was back on the agenda.

We can't enumerate all the workers' struggles that, after 1968, confirmed this fundamental change of the balance of forces between bourgeoisie and proletariat at a world level. We will only give two examples, those of Spain and Britain.

In Spain, despite the ferocious repression exercised by the Francoist regime, workers' combativity expressed itself in a massive fashion during the year 1974. The town of Pamplona, in Navarre, saw a number of strike days per worker higher than that of the French workers of 1968. All industrial regions were hit (Madrid, Asturias, Basque Country) but it was in the immense workers' concentrations of Barcelona that strikes took their greatest extension, touching all the firms in the region, with exemplary manifestations of workers' solidarity (often, a strike unfolded in one factory solely in solidarity with the workers of other factories).

The example of the proletariat in Britain is equally very significant since this was the oldest proletariat in the world. Throughout the 1970s, it led massive conflicts against exploitation (with 29 million strike days in 1979, workers in Britain are in second place statistically behind workers in France in 1968). This combativity even obliged the British bourgeoisie to twice change Prime Minister: in April 1976 (Callaghan replaced Wilson) and, at the beginning of 1979 (Callaghan was toppled by Parliament).

Thus, the fundamental historical significance of May 1968 is neither found in ‘French specificities', nor in the student revolt, nor in a ‘moral revolution' that we are told about today. It is in the emergence of the world proletariat from the counter-revolution and its entry into a new historic period of confrontations against capitalist order. In this period, proletarian political currents, that previously had been eliminated or reduced to silence by the counter-revolution, began to develop - including the ICC.

That is what we will look at in the next article.   Fabienne (1/6/8)

---

[1]  ‘May 68: the student movement in France and the world' (1 and 2), ‘May 68: the awakening of the working class', respectively in numbers 313, 314 and 315 of World Revolution.

 

May 68 was the high point of situationism, a current that combined a critique of the ‘spectacle' of capitalist culture with a certain number of revolutionary political positions. Slogans/graffiti of the hour, such as ‘under the pavement, the beach' and ‘all power to the imagination', caught the atmosphere of the May events, the feeling of sudden liberation from the deadening routine and atomisation of capitalist society, and they clearly reflected the influence of situationist ideas, as did the widespread call for action committees outside the unions and the occupation of the factories and universities. The situationists were by no means the only revolutionary current involved in formulating and disseminating those proposals, and their actual impact has almost certainly been exaggerated by themselves and their descendents, but no one can deny that this was their hour of glory.

However, situationism has been in decline ever since, even if it still has still left many remnants and retrospective admirers. The Situationist International itself was dissolved in 1972. Today situationism as a current of thought is largely kept alive by individual ‘pro-situs' who seem to be characterised above all by their total incapacity to work with other apparently like-minded individuals.

The ‘1968 and all that event' in London on May 10 this year, organised by a mixed bag of leftists and anarchists, gave us at least two examples of the survival of situationist discourse.

Outside Conway Hall was a stall manned by a member of the Principia Dialectica group/website. He was giving out a leaflet denouncing the whole event, entitled ‘Let the Dead Bury their Dead':

"If you go inside you will see a corpse, and mummies embalming this corpse. We were kindly invited to this mass but we have refused to take part. However we are here - outside, as their bad conscience".

The situationists have always been good at denunciations. Who can forget their ‘Shake in your shoes bureaucrats - the international power of the workers' councils will soon wipe you out' telegram to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in 1968?

But Principia Dialectica's stance on 10 May was not based on any effort to draw a class line against those representatives of the counter-revolution who were certainly involved in organising this event. Their main criticism was that the participants were nostalgic for an idealised past, dreaming vainly of remaking Russia 1917 or Spain 1936. And while they see the SI as the most advanced group in the movement of May 68, they insist that that it is necessary to go beyond the SI "which had based its cause on the revolutionary Subject of history", in other words the working class:

"It is easy to be done with the corpses that May 68 has already ridiculed and who today act as guarantors of the ‘spirit of May' (from the good democrat Left to the ex-Maoists, and right up to the anarchists). It is more difficult to be done with the May 68 which lives still, although fossilised: the one that says never work ever. It is even more difficult, in fact, because this old critique still shines. But let's repeat it, it shines with the light of dead stars. Never work ever: to really be done with work, one must be rid of the idea of the proletariat as revolutionary subject of history. The class struggle is an integral part of the capitalist dynamic: it is not a matter of a struggle between the dominant class and the revolutionary class, but between different interests (although differently powerful) within capitalism".

‘Never work ever' was always the Situationists' most stupid slogan, the one that revealed most clearly the ingredient of petty bourgeois artistic elitism that helped to make up the situationist pie. Dialectica Principia have gone a step further, elevating this lumpen-aristocratic boast into the basis for a definite abandonment of the notion of the class struggle and the proletarian revolution.

A healthier expression of the attempt to find what remains relevant in situationism today could be found at the meeting on surrealism and situationism in the May 68 events. Introduced in an amiable if stream of consciousness style by one of the event organisers, the meeting gave rise to various interesting threads of discussion that could not be followed up for lack of time.

The presentation showed, among other things, that the situationists were strongly influenced by the surrealists of the 1920s and 30s. This seemed to be rather hard to accept for one member of the audience, who argued that Andre Breton, one of the leading surrealists, was an ‘authoritarian' and indeed a Stalinist. One of the ICC comrades present at the meeting attempted to set the record straight on this: Breton and the majority of the surrealists were quite consistent opponents of Stalinism, siding with Trotsky and the Left Opposition at a time when the latter was not the real corpse that Trotskyism is today; and at least one of the surrealists, Benjamin Peret developed political positions that went well beyond Trotskyism (towards the positions of the communist left, in fact).

Concerning the ‘legacy' of situationism, we pointed out that in 1968 the situationists, influenced by the politics of Castoriadis and the Socialisme ou Barbarie group, interpreted the explosion of May 1968 as definite proof that the revolution of our times will not, as ‘traditional' Marxists had always argued, be precipitated by an economic crisis, but by a revolt against the boredom and alienation of the capitalist spectacle. After 40 years of deepening economic crisis, such a view is no longer tenable, and it points to a fatal flaw in the situationists' theoretical arsenal.

This provoked a number of responses from people who argued that the situationist critique of the spectacle was more relevant than ever in the epoch of reality TV and the cult of the celebrity. The meeting ended at this point, so we can only reply to this here: it's certainly true that capitalist culture has more and more a become an arid spectacle to be passively consumed by the masses, and that it functions as a means of social control, diverting our discontents into false communities and irrational mythologies. However, just as Rome in its decline resorted to ‘bread and circuses' to keep the plebs and proles in their place, so the rottenness of capitalist culture today is an expression of something rotten at the very basis of society, of the fact that capitalist social relations have become a fundamental obstacle to the realisation of humanity's needs. Without this materialist analysis of the foundations of social life, cultural critiques are doomed to remain one-sided and can end up as little more than ephemeral intellectual fashions.   Amos 30/6/08

The Labour Party and the leftists who support them constantly express their concern about the rise of the BNP, racism and the plight of immigrants. Anti-racism and anti-fascism are strong and enduring features of capitalist democracy and, as such, con-tricks on the working class.

One of the most racist organisations of the capitalist state, as ‘institutionally racist' as the police force, is the Labour Party. "British jobs for British people" is the war cry of Prime Minister Brown. Talk of the ‘white working class' is used by Labour to Party outdo the BNP. The Labour Party crows about being tough on immigrants and shows it has nothing to learn from the BNP.

Just recently France and Britain jointly rejected proposals for a general amnesty for illegal immigrants. For the British state it would ‘send out the wrong signal'. In France they organised a partial amnesty promising papers for residence, which turned out to be a cynical trap. The paperless migrant workers that came forward were jailed and deported, with only a few receiving any sort of residential security. Campaigns round amnesties always fall into the framework of the ruling class.

In Britain, illegal immigrants are characterised as ‘spongers', job-stealers and linked to terrorism. There have been small but significant fights by elements of the working class against the policy of terror and forced expulsion towards immigrants by the British state.

On the so-called ‘sink estate' of Kingsway, Glasgow, the residents welcomed immigrants from Iraq, Pakistan, Algeria, Congo and Uganda amongst others, saying that the immigrants brought a completely different and positive atmosphere to the demoralised community (Guardian 13.6.8). After watching Home Office thugs coming to remove immigrant families before dawn and one man jumping out of the window to escape them, a retired shop worker said "It was like watching the Gestapo - men with armour going into a flat with battering rams. I've never seen people living in fear like it" (Ibid). She got together with other residents of the estate organising daily dawn patrols, hassling the immigration vans with the large crowds that formed, setting up codes warning the immigrants and helping them escape or hiding them in their homes. Virtually the whole estate was involved and they kept this up for two years, forcing the Home Office to abandon its forced removals. Those involved in the struggle pointed out the positive effects it had on them. According to the newspaper similar events have taken place in predominantly working class communities in Manchester, Sheffield, Bristol and elsewhere, where there has been a general welcome, solidarity and organised fights for immigrants against the repressive forces of the state.

There is always the danger of these structures for defence being integrated into the state apparatus, or into in a campaign that just wants to change the law on deportations. But the basic issue here, against all the vitriol and hatred from the ruling class, is the demonstration of basic working class solidarity.  

Baboon, 23/6/8

The number of British soldiers killed in the intervention in Afghanistan has passed the 110 mark. The figure for Iraq is more than 175. The government says that these deaths are not in vain and the army is fighting for a good cause - to establish democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cleary, the government felt that this needed to be underlined, because the military interventions do appear to be futile.

At the beginning the intervention in Afghanistan did not appear not to be headed towards a quagmire, because the Taliban, very sensibly, simply ran away rather than trying to face the full force of American military might. However, the influence of the Kabul ‘government' does not extend far into Afghanistan - and the relations of the government to its ostensible political allies in some parts of the country can be fraught with difficulties. The US and Britain have been unable to make headway, for instance, in controlling the production of the opium poppy - the basis of the international heroin trade. And there are large regions of the country that are not under the control of the US, Britain or the Kabul government at all - it is in those regions that the fighting is concentrated.

However, the principal objective of the military intervention in Afghanistan is not to create a stable society - though it would certainly ease the difficulties of the occupying powers if they could. All the countries involved are there because of the strategic significance of the territory of Afghanistan. They are there for the same reasons the British invaded Afghanistan in the nineteenth century. Control of Afghanistan is critical to the control of Asia, just as control of Iraq is critical to control of the Gulf. Even the French bourgeoisie have, after making a major re-appraisal of their strategic posture, decided that they should be involved in Afghanistan. This is surprising considering their previous attitude to American adventures in the region.

So there is every reason to take the British bourgeoisie seriously when they say they are going to stay in Afghanistan despite the difficulties of the fighting. But there is a real problem facing the British bourgeoisie and that is that the perspective of ‘great power' interventions in the third world is becoming more and more expensive at a time of increased economic stringency. With 4000 troops in Iraq and soon more than 8000 in Afghanistan, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup has said that the armed forces are "stretched beyond the capabilities we have" and "We are not structured or resourced to do two of these things on this scale on an enduring basis but we have been doing it on an enduring basis for years." This follows Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, who has been saying that Britain should withdraw from Iraq since he was appointed in 2006. He has also said "I want an army in five years time and ten years time. Don't let's break it on this one". When the coffers of the state treasury are empty, it is difficult to maintain commitments like the presence in Afghanistan and Iraq

The British bourgeoisie have a long record of being forced to cut back on military commitments because of economic constraints. They had to leave Greece after the Second World War, for example, and ask the Americans to step in. They had to retreat from ‘East of Suez' because of economic difficulties in the 1960s. The economic difficulties of the present phase of the economic crisis are certainly no less severe. Overseas military interventions greatly exacerbate economic problems. The British bourgeoisie will be confronted with difficult choices of priorities and will have to further review their capacity to maintain costly overseas adventures in the face of a rapidly deteriorating economic situation.   Hardin 5/7/8

Price rises of 30-50% of food prices and energy in industrial countries are confronting many workers, in particular the unemployed and ‘working poor', with problems of making ends meet. But the doubling or so of basic food stuffs in the peripheral countries poses a deadlier threat. Since more than one billion people live with less than $1 a day, and since many of them have to spend up to 90% of their income on food, such a tremendous rise of food prices immediately threatens them with starvation.

This catastrophic, life-threatening situation has led to a series of hunger revolts and strikes with demands for higher wages etc. At the time of writing there have been revolts in a whole series of countries: in Egypt, Burkina Faso, South Africa, Cameroon, Morocco Mozambique, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Yemen, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Philippines, Mexico and Peru, Argentine, Honduras, Haiti.

How are we to understand the causes of this situation?

The fear of starvation has been a nightmare which has accompanied - and spurred on - the ascent of humanity from its beginnings. The root cause of this danger has always been the relative primitiveness of the productive forces of society. The famines which periodically afflicted pre-capitalist societies were the result of an insufficient understanding and mastery of the laws of nature. Ever since society has been divided into classes, the exploited and the poor have been the main victims of this backwardness and the fragility of human existence flowing from it. Today, however, where  hundreds of millions of human beings are threatened by starvation, it becomes increasingly clear that the root cause of hunger today lies in the backwardness, not of science and technology, but of our social organisation. Even the representatives of the official institutions of the ruling order are obliged to admit that the present crisis is ‘man made'. During its ascendant period, capitalism, despite all the misery it caused, believed itself to be capable, in the long run, of liberating humanity from the scourge of famine. This belief was based on the capitalism's ability - indeed its imperious need as a system of competition - constantly to revolutionise the forces of production. In the years that followed World War II, it pointed to the successes of modern agriculture, to the development of the welfare state, to the industrialisation of new regions of the planet, to the raising of life expectancy in many countries, as proofs that, in the end, it would win the ‘battle against hunger' declared by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. In recent times, it has claimed, through the economic development of countries like China or India, to have saved several hundreds of millions from the clutches of starvation. And even now, it would have us believe that soaring prices world wide are the product of economic progress, of the new wealth which has been created in the emerging countries, of the new craving of the masses for hamburgers and yoghurt. But even if this were the case, we would have to ask ourselves about the sense of an economic system which is able to nourish some only at the price of condemning others to death, the losers of the competitive struggle for existence.

But in reality, the exploding hunger in the world today is not even the result of such a despicable ‘progress'. What we see is the spread of starvation in the most backward regions of the world and in the ‘emerging countries'. Across the world, the myth that capitalism could banish the spectre of hunger is being exposed as a wretched lie. What is true is that capitalism has created material and social preconditions for such a victory. In doing so, capitalism itself has become the main obstacle to such a progress. The mass protests against hunger in Asia, Africa and Latin America in the past months reveal to the world that the causes of famine are not natural but social.

The many one-sided explanations of the ruling class

The politicians and experts of the ruling class have put forward a series of explanations for the present dramatic situation. These include the economic ‘boom' in parts of Asia, the development of ‘bio-fuels', ecological disasters and climate change, the ruining of agrarian subsistence economy in many ‘underdeveloped' countries, a speculative run on foodstuffs, the limitations on agricultural production imposed in order to prop up food prices etc. All of these explanations contain a grain of truth. None of them, taken in isolation, explain anything at all. They are at best symptoms which, taken as a whole, indicate the root causes of the problem. The bourgeoisie will always lie, even to itself, about its crises. But what is striking today is the degree to which governments and experts are themselves incapable of understanding what is going on, or of reacting with any semblance of coherence. The helplessness of the apparently almighty ruling class becomes increasingly clear. The partial ‘explanations' of the bourgeoisie, apart from being the cynical expression of rival particular interests, only go to hide the responsibility of the capitalist system for the present catastrophe. In particular, none of these arguments, and not even all of them taken together, can explain the two main characteristics of the present crisis: its profoundness, and the sudden brutality of its present acceleration.

Depth of the capitalist crisis

Whereas in the past hundreds of millions of Chinese only had very little to eat, now there is a bigger consumption of meat, dairy products and wheat. Growing demand for more meat and milk means cattle and poultry feed crops take over agricultural lands, feeding far fewer mouths from the same acreage. This is the main explanation put forward by many fractions of the bourgeoisie. This proletarianisation of a part of the peasant masses, which has radically transformed their way of life, and integrated them into the world market, is assumed by the ruling class to be identical with a great improvement of their condition. But what remains to be explained is how this improvement, this lifting of millions out of the clutches of starvation, itself in turn has led to its opposite.

Bio-fuels. Replacing petrol by wheat, corn, palm oil, etc. has indeed led to dramatic shortages of food staples. According to a recent World Bank report, the switch to bio-fuels, especially in the USA, has pushed food prices up by 75% (Guardian, 4.7.08). Not only is the pollution balance sheet of bio-fuels negative (recent research shows that bio-fuels increase air pollution by discharging more harmful particles than normal fuel, not to mention the fact that some bio-fuels need almost as much oil as energy input as the energy they produce), but their global ecological and economic consequences are disastrous for the whole of humanity. Such a change of cultivation of wheat, corn/maize, palm oil etc. for production of energy instead of for food is a typical expression of capitalist blindness and destructiveness. It is driven in part by a futile attempt to cope with rising oil prices, and in part - especially for the United States - by the hope of reducing its dependence on imported oil in order to protect its security interests as an imperialist power.

Export subsidies and protectionism. On the one hand there is agricultural overproduction in some countries and a permanent export offensive; at the same time other countries can no longer feed themselves. Competition and protectionism in agriculture have meant that as with any other commodity in the economy, more productive farmers in industrial countries must export (often with government subsidies) large parts of their crops to ‘Third World' countries and ruin the local peasantry - increasing the exodus from the country to the city, swelling international waves of refugees and leading to the abandonment of land formerly used for agriculture. In Africa for example many local farmers have been ruined by European chicken or beef exports. Mexico no longer produces enough food staples to feed its population. The country has to spend more than $10 billion annually on food imports. ‘Left' propagandists of the ruling class, but also many well meaning but misguided or badly informed people, have called for a return to subsistence farming in the ‘peripheral' countries, and the abolition of agricultural export subsidies and protection of their own markets by the old capitalist countries. What these arguments fail to take into consideration is that capitalism, from the outset, lives and expands through the integration of subsistence farmers into the world market, meaning their ruin and their - often violent - separation from the land, from their means of production. The recovery of the land for the producers is only possible as part of a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism itself. This will mean nothing less than the overcoming of private property of production for the market and of the antagonism between city and country, the progressive dissolution of the monstrous mega-cities through a world wide and planned return of hundreds of millions of people to the countryside: not the old countryside of rural isolation and backwardness, but a countryside newly invigorated by its integration with the cities and with a world wide human culture.

While the bourgeois media list these above mentioned factors, they try to prevent the unmasking of the deeper root causes. In reality we are witnessing not least the combined, accumulated consequences of the long-term effects of the pollution of the environment and the deeply destructive tendencies of capitalism in agriculture.

 

Capitalist destructiveness in agriculture and the environment

 

Several destructive tendencies have become undeniable. Due to the pressure of competition traditional farming practices have receded and farmers have become dependent on chemical fertilisers, pesticides and artificial irrigation. The International Rice Research Institute warns that the sustainability of rice farming in Asia is threatened by overuse of fertilisers and its damage to soil health. By now some 40% of agricultural products are the result of irrigation; 75% of the drinking water available on the earth is used by agriculture for this purpose. Planting Alfalfa in California, citrus fruits in Israel, cotton around the Aral Lake in the former Soviet Union, wheat in Saudi Arabia or in Yemen, i.e. planting crops in areas which do not provide the natural condition for their growth, means an enormous waste of water in agriculture.

The massive use of GM/GE ‘hybrid seeds' poses a direct threat to bio-diversity; while in many areas of the world, the soil is getting more and more polluted or even totally poisoned. In China 10% of the land area is contaminated and 120,000 peasants die each year from cancers caused by soil pollution. One result of the exhaustion of soil through the ruthless drive for productivity is the fact that in the Netherlands, the agricultural powerhouse in Europe, foodstuffs have an extremely low nutritional value.

And global warming means that with each 1°C increase in temperature, rice, wheat and corn yields could drop 10%. Recent heat waves in Australia have led to a severe crop damage and drought. First findings show that increased temperatures threaten the capacity for survival of many plants or reduce their nutritional value.

Thus a new danger is cropping up - which mankind might have imagined was a nightmare of the past. The combined effects of climate-determined drought and floods and its consequences on agriculture, continuous destruction and reduction of usable soil, pollution and over-fishing of the oceans will lead to scarcity of food. Since 1984 world grain production, for example, has failed to keep pace with world population growth. In the space of 20 years it's fallen from 343kgs per person to 303kgs. (Carnegie Department of Global Ecology in Stanford)

The folly of the system means that capitalism is compelled to be an over-producer of almost all goods while at the same time it creates a scarcity of food staples by destroying the very basis in nature of the conditions of their growth. The very roots of this absurdity can be found in capitalist production: "Large landed property reduces the agricultural population to an ever decreasing minimum and confronts it with an ever growing industrial population crammed together in large towns; in this way it produces conditions that provoke an irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself. The result of this is a squandering of the soil, which is carried by trade far beyond the bounds of a single country" (Marx, Capital: Vol. III. Part VI)

Brutal acceleration of the crisis

Since the collapse of the housing speculation in the USA and other countries (Britain, Spain etc.) many hedge-funds or other investors look for alternative possibilities of placing their money. Agricultural crops have become the latest target of speculation. The cynical calculation of speculation in times of severe crisis: foodstuffs are a ‘safe bet', since they are the last thing which people can afford to do without! Billions of speculative dollars have already been placed in agricultural companies. These colossal speculative sums have certainly speeded up the price hikes in agricultural products, but they are not the actual root cause. We can assume even if the speculation ceased, price rises of agricultural products will continue.

Nevertheless, this insight into the role of speculation (which is a red herring if taken in isolation) gives us a clue about the real interconnections in the contemporary world economy. In reality, there is a direct connection between the ‘property crisis' and the earthquake taking place in world finance, and the food price explosion. The world recession of 1929, the most brutal in the history of capitalism to date, was accompanied by a dramatic fall in prices. The pauperisation of the working masses at the time was linked to the fact that wages, in the context of mass unemployment, fell even more dramatically than other prices. Today on the contrary, the world wide recession tendencies which are becoming manifest are accompanied by a general surge of inflation. The soaring prices of foodstuffs are the spearhead of this development, intricately linked to the rising cost of energy, transport and so on. The recent churning of hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy by governments in order to prop up the failing bank and finance systems has probably contributed more than any other factor to the recent world wide inflation spiral.

The present day sharpening of the world wide and historic crisis of world capitalism turns out to be a many headed hydra. Alongside the monstrous property and finance crisis which continues to smoulder at the heart of capitalism, there has already appeared a second monster in the form of soaring prices and starvation. And who can tell which others may soon follow? For the moment, the ruling class still appears stunned and somewhat helpless. Its day to day reactions reveal the attempt to increase state control over the economy and to coordinate policy internationally, but also the sharpening of competition between the capitalist nations. The soothing words of policy makers are aimed at disguising from the world, and even from themselves, the feeling of progressively losing any control over what is happening to their system. A development which confronts the ruling class with a twofold danger: that of the destabilisation of entire countries or even continents in a spiral of chaos, and the danger, in the longer term, of a revolutionary upheaval that puts capitalism itself into question. ICC (Updated 5/7/8)

A longer version of this article appears on ICC Online [77] .

In the first part of this article (see WR 315 and the ICC website [80] ), we tried to understand what the current economic crisis represents. We saw that it was only a particularly serious episode in the long agony of decadent capitalism. We showed that, in order to survive, capitalism has had to resort to a kind of drug: debt to capitalism is what heroin is to an addict. The drug of debt has made sure that capitalism has managed to stay standing, albeit leaning on the arm of the state, whether ‘neo-liberal' or ‘socialist'. The drug gives it moments of euphoria where it feels that it is living in the best of all possible worlds, but more and more frequently it is plunged into periods of convulsion and crisis, such as the one we entered in August 2007. As the dose increases, the drug has less and less effect on the addict. He needs a bigger and bigger dose to achieve a high that gets weaker and weaker. This is what has happened to capitalism today! But two questions remain: how, concretely, has debt supported the economy for 40 years while at the same time preparing the ground for new and more violent crises? And, above all, is there a way out of the crisis?

In the 1970s, debt ravaged the countries of the ‘third world' which had been lent masses of money in order to become outlets for the commodities of the main industrialised countries. The dream didn't last long: in 1982, Mexico, then Argentina, for example, were on the verge of bankruptcy. A route had been closed for capitalism. What was to be the new way forward? The US plunged itself into debt! From 1985, having been the world's creditor, the USA bit by bit became the most indebted country in the world. With such a manoeuvre, capitalism assured its survival, but in doing so it undermined the economic bases of the world's leading power. This strategy was shown to be untenable by the convulsions of 1987 and 1991. Since then, the world economy has geared itself towards what has been called ‘relocation' or ‘globalisation': to relieve the high production costs which were smothering the main economies, entire swathes of production were displaced towards the famous Asian ‘Tigers' and ‘Dragons'. But once again the powerful shocks of 1997-8, the famous ‘Asian crisis', resulted in the collapse of all the economies which were being presented as proof of capitalist prosperity. Only China succeeded in staying afloat thanks in large part to the miserable wages paid to its workers. China has now become a direct competitor with the main capitalist countries. The dizzying rise of China gives the appearance of ‘resolving' one of the main contradictions of the world economy - the weight of unsustainable production costs - but in doing so it took competition onto even more unbearable levels.

In the last few years, capitalism has managed to give itself a semblance of ‘prosperity' thanks to the vast property speculation in the USA, Britain, Spain and about 40 other countries. The ‘brick' boom is a crying expression of the aberrant level that this system has reached. The aim of building all these houses was not to give shelter to people - the number of homeless has gone up and up of late, especially in the US! The aim was nothing more than speculation on property. In Dubai, the desert has been sown with skyscrapers with no other purpose than to satisfy the thirst of international investors, greedy for profits made by buying housing and selling them three months later. In Spain, the coastal regions which were not yet overcrowded have been covered with holiday home developments, skyscrapers and golf courses. All this to fill the pockets of a minority, while the majority of these buildings remained conspicuously empty. One of the consequences of this speculative madness is that housing has become inaccessible to the majority of working class families. Millions of people have had to take out loans that can go on for 50 years, or sink huge amounts of money into the bottomless pit of rent. Hundreds of thousands of young couples are forced to live in sublet slums or crammed together with their parents. Today the bubble has burst and a fragile economy, where everything was held together with the sticking plaster of speculation, of accounting frauds and payments adjourned into some promised future, is experiencing the most violent convulsions.

Capitalism's only response: push the effects of its crisis onto the working class

Ten years ago, an article entitled ‘Thirty years of the open crisis of capitalism' (see ICC online) drew up a balance sheet of this continuous plunge into debt:

"This intervention by the state to go with the crisis, adapting to it in order to slow it down and if possible delay its effects, has allowed the big industrialised powers to avoid a brutal collapse, a general debacle of the economic apparatus. It is has not however been a solution to the crisis nor has it been able to overcome its most acute effects, such as unemployment and inflation. Thirty years of this policy of palliatives has only allowed a kind of accompanied descent towards the bottom of the abyss, a planned fall whose only real result is to prolong the domination of this system with its procession of suffering, uncertainty an despair for the working class and the immense majority of the world population. For its part, the working class of the big industrial centres has been subjected to a systematic policy of continuing and gradual attacks on its buying power, its living conditions, its jobs, its very survival. As for the great majority of the world population, those who eke out a miserable living on the vast periphery around the vital centres of capitalism, it is subjected to barbarism, famine and death on such a level that we can talk about the greatest genocide that humanity has ever known".

And the balance sheet of these past 40 years is indeed horrifying. In the 1960s, the majority of workers, even those in the less rich countries, had a more or less secure job; today the dominant tendency everywhere is towards job insecurity. For more than 20 years, the real wages in the richest countries have fallen continuously. And in the poorest countries, the average wage remains extremely low, even for the majority of the workers who are the ‘beneficiaries' of the ‘Chinese miracle'. Unemployment has become chronic. The best that states can do is to make it less socially visible. The bourgeoisie has succeeded in getting the unemployed to feel their situation as a shameful one: in the official discourse, the unemployed are idle losers, incapable of taking advantage of the wonderful possibilities of employment supposedly being offered to them. And what about retirement pensions? The older generation still at work (50-60 year olds) is seeing its future pensions melting away like snow in the sun. Their pensions will be much reduced in comparison to their parents' and many of them understand that they will have to continue with casual work or odd jobs after they are 60 or 65 if they are going to manage. And it's guaranteed that young people today won't even get a pension.

If humanity is to live, capitalism must die

These catastrophic perspectives have been with us for 40 years. But capitalism has an extraordinary capacity to sow illusions and to make people believe that the famous cycle of ‘boom and bust' is an eternal one. But today the ability of the capitalist state to ‘go with' the crisis through all sorts of palliatives is being seriously weakened. The new downward plunge we are seeing today will be even more abrupt and brutal than the previous ones. The attack against the proletariat and humanity as a whole will be even crueller and more destructive: a proliferation of imperialist wars, attacks on wages, increasing job-insecurity and unemployment, the intensification of poverty. In all countries, the governments are appealing for calm and claim that they have the answers, that they can get the economic machine moving again. And everywhere, the opposition parties play their own role in this deception, attributing the disaster to the poor management of the party in power and promising a ‘new kind of politics'.

Let's not be taken in! The experience of the last few months is highly instructive: the governments of the world, of all types and colours, armed with their legions of financial gurus and experts, have tried all kinds of potions to ‘get out of the crisis'. We can say without hesitation that they are all doomed to fail. The proletariat, the workers of the entire world, cannot have any confidence in them. We can only have confidence in our own strength! We have to develop our experience of struggle, of solidarity, of debate, acquiring the consciousness and will needed to destroy capitalism, which has become an obstacle to the survival of humanity. The slogan of the Communist International in 1919 is more relevant than ever today: "if humanity is to live, capitalism must die!"

Translated from Accion Proletaria, the ICC paper in Spain, 23/1/08

How ever you look at it, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the present system of social economic organisation - capitalism - is breaking down all over the planet.

It can no longer feed its wage slaves, let alone the millions who aren't even given the chance of being wage slaves. Because of the sudden rise in food prices that is hitting those who are already living in dire poverty, "at this very moment, 100,000 people are dying of hunger every day across the world; a child under 10 is dying every five seconds; 842 million people are suffering from chronic malnutrition and are being reduced to the status of invalids. And right now, two out of the six billion human beings of the planet (i.e. one third of humanity) are in a daily fight for survival because of the rise in the cost of basic foodstuffs" (International Review 133).

It can no longer maintain the illusion of economic prosperity. The ‘credit crunch' is exposing all the slurry about economic growth fed to us by politicians and media for the past decade and more. Alongside the spiralling price of oil and fuel, we are seeing the world's major economies, drawn by the former world ‘locomotive', the USA, plunging into recession. The ‘economic miracles' of India and China are also beginning to lose their sheen. In recent months, the Chinese central bank has been intervening on the foreign exchanges to the tune of nearly $50 billion in an attempt to push down the value of the Yuan. Over 67,000 companies have gone bust in China in the first half of 2008, laying off 20 million people and there now seems to be an outright contraction in manufacturing. As for Britain, with its allegedly stable economic base, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself warned that we are approaching the worst economic crisis for 60 years (see the article on p2).

It can less and less hide its nature as a system of military rivalry and warfare. The war between Russia and Georgia is being presented in the media as a revival of the Cold War between Russia and NATO. So how come the ‘end of communism' in Russia at the end of the ‘80s was supposed to bring us a world of peace and harmony? Could it be that the struggle between Russia and America was not a struggle between different societies or ideologies, but between different imperialist states struggling for spheres of influence - just as it is today? What's more, the hypocrisy of countries like Britain and the US condemning Russian atrocities in Georgia is pretty clear when you look at what the ‘democratic' powers have been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last seven years. All the world's states, from the biggest to the smallest, are warmongers, and the conflicts between them are becoming more and more chaotic and dangerous.

It can no longer conceal the threat its very continuation poses to the planetary environment. The ‘debate' about global warming - in the sense of whether it's real and whether it's a result of ‘human activity' - is effectively over. All the world's governments and big corporations are falling over themselves to show us their green credentials - while at the same time every pompous international conference on climate change and pollution only confirms how little each government is prepared to do about the problem the minute the interests of its ‘national security' and its ‘national economy' are put into question (see the article starting on page 3).

False hopes about ‘change'

The capitalist system is openly condemning itself as a system capable of satisfying the basic needs of humanity. The longer it goes on the more it poses the real danger of engulfing society in an apocalypse of starvation, war and ecological catastrophe.

But those who run this system will never admit this ‘inconvenient truth'. They cannot hide the scale of the problems facing humanity but they can certainly do all they can to obscure their real causes and above all to divert us with all sorts of illusory hopes and false prospects for change.

Hope and change are the ‘keynotes' of the election campaign in the world's leading military power, the USA. Barack Obama is being presented across the world in almost messianic terms as a man who offers hope to the world: hope for a different US foreign policy which "leads by the power of our example rather than the example of our power", to use Obama's stirring phrase. Hope that America's internal divisions between racial groups, the poison of slavery's legacy, can be healed by a man who is black, but also a little bit white. Hope that the shocking gap between rich and poor in the US can be drastically reduced through a bold redistribution of wealth.

Many a critic of the farce of American ‘democracy', where elections are contested by two parties who are not only indistinguishable but equally tied to big business, organised crime, the CIA and the military colossus, is leaping onto the Obama bandwagon, urging in particular the younger generation and the poor and dispossessed, those most disillusioned by the democratic game, to embrace this new illusion and thrown themselves into the pro-Obama camp. 

But Obama is no ‘anti-war' option. He has made it perfectly clear that his opposition to the Iraq war did not mean any let-up on the ‘war on terror' which is the USA's pretext for military action to maintain its global domination. He criticised the Iraq adventure because he saw it as a diversion from the war in Afghanistan, which he supported from the outset, and to which he wants to commit even more military resources - including the extension of bombing raids deep into Pakistan.

Yes, the US has lost a great deal of credibility thanks to the blunderbuss foreign policies of the Bush clique. That's why it needs to change its image on the world stage and Obama is the man for the make-over. But the imperialist drives that lead to its military adventures here there and everywhere will not go away with a change of personnel in the Whitehouse and a new lick of PR paint.

The same applies to the problems of impoverishment, economic crisis and environmental destruction, whether in the US or world wide. They are inseparable from the way that capitalism works. It is a system which must crush all the needs of humanity and nature under the merciless wheel of accumulation, and every company, country, government and politician has to obey this logic if they are to survive.

To stop the juggernaut of capital, a fundamental revolution is required, a profound uprising of the exploited and the oppressed against the very logic of production for profit. But this requires not only an economic change, but a shattering of the political apparatus which maintains the present social/economic relations. It means the destruction of the capitalist state and the creation of new organs of political power. The noisy show of ‘democracy' is there to prevent us, the proletariat, from seeing the real nature of the capitalist state. Participating in the show only delays the dawn of consciousness about the need to take the power into our own hands and rebuild society from top to bottom.  

Amos 06/09/08

This article has already appeared online. A link will appear here shortly.

The international response to the military action of Russian and Georgian imperialism in and around South Ossetia was mixed. While only a small minority of ruling classes attacked Georgia (Cuba and Kazakhstan among them), the condemnations of Russian imperialism took many forms.

In Europe, countries like Germany, France and Italy were more restrained in their criticisms, partly out of pragmatism - they are very aware of their dependency on energy supplies from Russia. More importantly, perhaps is the fact that Germany and France in particular have for a long time been pursuing a particular, more conciliatory approach towards Russia. By contrast, the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Britain were prepared to make the strongest denunciations of Russian aggression, quickly resorting to images of the Cold War. In the words of Foreign Secretary David Miliband, this was a "chilling" reminder of the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.

What do these criticisms really amount to? If you look at the US, the only military superpower in the world, you can see how little the condemnations mean. Dick Cheney, the US Vice President, visited Georgia and could say little more threatening than "Russia's actions have cast grave doubt on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner". Miliband and Tory leader David Cameron also went to Georgia. The latter said that the West should be doing more, without actually spelling out what that might be, other than increasing ‘diplomatic pressure'. Miliband just went through the usual routine on the violation of Georgia's territorial integrity.

That's all that Britain can do. Financially constrained by a deepening economic crisis, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, its armed forces already overstretched, it can only afford empty rhetoric. It's true that some of the British have been more forceful in their language, but that will be like water off a duck's back to the likes of Putin and Medvedev. Gordon Brown, for example, in an article entitled ‘This is how we will stand up to Russia's naked aggression' (Observer 31/8/8), said it was necessary to demonstrate "to Russia that its actions have real consequences". Apart from Britain wanting to reduce its energy dependence on Russia, there's no way of knowing what these "consequences" could possibly be.

Brown said there was a need to re-evaluate NATO's "relationship with Russia, and intensify our support to Georgia". What support? At least the US could announce a $1bn aid package to Georgia, and the IMF a loan of $750m. Britain is giving £2m to the Red Cross.

Both Labour and Tory figures have talked of the need to ‘fast-track' Georgian and Ukrainian membership of NATO. What would that accomplish? Poland and the Czech Republic have joined NATO, but US plans to incorporate them in its missile defence system have only lead to threats from Russia. The US has armed and trained Georgian forces for years, but always warned Saakashvili not to be so provocative. He thought he would still get military support during a conflict with Russia. How wrong he was. Neither the US, nor Britain (nor Poland etc) was going to war with Russia over South Ossetia.

If British ‘support' for Georgia is flimsy, its criticisms of Russia also look pretty thin in the light of its own actions. It recognised a breakaway Kosovo despite Serbian protests, yet denounced Russian recognition of breakaway South Ossetia. It took part in the bombings of Serbia and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but condemned the Russian presence in Georgia. British imperialism has little to offer except hypocrisy.  

Car 05/09/08

It is rather ironic that staff at ACAS, the conciliation service that is supposed to resolve disputes, have voted for strike action. They've been treated like many other workers, with a 10-month hold-up on their 2007 pay deal, and no sign yet of any action on this year's pay which was due on August 1.

However, if their experience is like other sectors of workers this summer, any union strike that's called is as likely to be called off or be limited to a token gesture.

After a one day strike at Argos distribution centres in July the Unite union proposed a series of strikes against a below inflation wage deal that was proposed, despite the union having agreed to all sorts of ‘flexible working' during the last year. These were called off at the last minute, despite no obvious gains for workers and further concessions being made by the unions.

At Manchester, Gatwick and Stansted airports baggage handlers and check-in staff were due to strike over the Bank Holiday until the union called it off because of a revised pay offer.

On the London Underground a proposed three day strike by 1000 maintenance staff over pay and conditions was abandoned by the RMT because of an ‘improved' offer. Workers were reported to be ‘angry' and ‘disappointed' at the union's action.

The most serious examples of workers' discontent being dispersed by the unions have been in the public sector.  There have been a number of strikes and actions among workers employed by local and national government. The biggest was the two-day strike by up to 300,000 local government workers in England in mid-July, mainly under the auspices of UNISON. And yet despite the huge numbers of workers on strike in London, for example, there was only a small demonstration in the centre of the city as the union called for a series of local events.

Other actions, though involving workers with very similar grievances and often belonging to the same unions, took place completely separately: thus, in the Passport Office in July there was a 3-day strike by 3000 staff against possible job losses. At the DVLA there have been 4 one day strikes this year, with other forms of action short of striking by the 4500 workers. On 20 August there was a strike by 150,000 council workers across Scotland: obviously, in the unions' eyes, English and Scottish council workers can't have the same problems. There has also been a strike by Rescue Coordinators working for the coastguard service, which went ahead despite propaganda about ‘putting lives at risk'. In the face of these separate actions by public sector unions the government's policy of pay ‘restraint' (that is, keeping wage deals below the rate of inflation) has remained undisturbed.

Workers' discontent - with the unions

It's not surprising that many workers are pissed off with the unions. A union member was reported in Socialist Worker (26/8/8): "Some are collecting signatures to recall the union reps and elect new ones. Many people left Unite in frustration at what was happening. Some have joined the RMT union and some have just left."

The basic problem for workers is not one of electing new union reps, or joining a different union, or trying to make a union responsive to workers' needs. What's needed is for workers to take struggles into their own hands. For example, in August, at a new nuclear power station in Plymouth, 350 workers came out on strike without any union sanction because 16 workers were going to be laid off before the end of a 6-month contract. The union were successful in persuading them to accept a one-off payment, but they were still going to be laid off when the company said so. In July there was an unofficial strike by Peterborough refuse collectors; in August a wildcat by workers at a coach-builders in Falkirk. Some workers are solving the problem of the unions by not waiting to get their seal of approval.

No alternative from the ‘revolutionary left'

Trotskyist groups, aware of militant workers' growing suspicion of the unions, try a number of ways to get them back in the fold. The Socialist Party of England and Wales, for example, makes a distinction between unions which it says have a pro-Labour leadership (Unison, GMB, CWU) and unions with a ‘left leadership' (RMT, PCS) that can be trusted. This flies in the face of workers' actual experience of these unions, where, public or private sector, they play the same role, the only difference being at the level of rhetoric.

The Socialist Workers Party doesn't make the distinction between different unions. It points out that (Socialist Worker 30/8/8) "in a number of wage disputes the union leaderships have been keen to settle at the first new offer from management, regardless of whether it meant decent pay or not for their members. The union leaders are always keen on settling disputes as quickly as possible unless there is pressure on them from below." So instead of workers taking independent action, the SWP proposes that workers put pressure on the union leaders, even through they admit that "there is an added political pressure - heightened in the public sector. This is the union leaders' support for the Labour government."

But why try and force the unions to do something they can't do when workers are already beginning to show the capacity to organise their own struggles?

The SWP is also putting its weight behind the ‘People Before Profit Charter': "The charter's ten points put forward proposals on a number of issues that would improve the lives of millions of people. These include decent pay rises, taxing corporations, improving workers' rights, opposing privatisation, building council homes, opposing racism and war, improving pensions and abolishing tuition fees."

At a time when governments across the world are trying to pass the effects of the economic crisis on to the working class, the idea that capitalism be persuaded to put ‘people before profit' is absurd. Food riots in the poorer countries, growing inflation and unemployment everywhere, and war as the basic knee-jerk response of every state or proto-state on the planet - every prospect offered by our exploiters involves a worsening of the situation. The struggle of the working class is the only force that offers a perspective that would ‘improve the lives of millions.'  

Car 01/09/08

We are reprinting here one of the articles from the first edition of Tea Break (July 2008). Tea Break, which was distributed at the time of the recent nation-wide strike by local government workers, describes itself as "an irregular workers' bulletin of users of libcom.org encouraging workers to take regular tea breaks, talk to their workmates and unwind from the working day". It's a revised form of the Dispatch bulletin which we commented on in WR 307 (‘Dispatch: Workers' groups and the potential for wider intervention and discussion').

The article in question offers a strong analysis of the way the large-scale public sector strikes of 2007 were dispersed by the trade unions, leaving the workers with little to show after returning to work. Although sometimes focusing on the problem of ‘union leaders' and their ties to the Labour party and the government, the bulletin rejects any idea of democratising the unions, which is the stock in trade of the leftist groups like the SWP. In a separate box, the bulletin places more emphasis on the need for the struggle to be controlled by mass meetings open to all workers regardless of union membership:

"What you can do...

• Vote for industrial action where possible and encourage others to do the same.

• Visit other workers' picket lines and discuss how you can help each other.

• Make links between workers. Invite all staff at your workplace to your pay dispute meetings whether temps, permanent, members of your union or not.

• Do not cross the picket lines of any group of workers.

• If you absolutely have to work, do not cover the work of any strikers and take on-the-job action like go-slows and work-to-rules. Don't forget to take regular breaks!

• Take control of the strike. Make decisions in open workplace meetings with as many people involved as possible rather than leaving it to union full-timers"

This is a promising initiative which should be repeated in future outbreaks of the class struggle. We think however that the initiative should move towards acting as a ‘physical' collective rather than a purely online one, which tends to reinforce the impression that the group is a rather ‘confidential' effort by people already involved in running the libcom forum. A group that advocates workers coming together in open-ended meetings to decide on the orientation of the struggle cannot shy away from functioning on the same basis.

What went wrong in 2007?

Gordon Brown preaching pay restraint, union leaders talking about ‘co-ordinated strike action', sound familiar? It should, because exactly the same things were being said last year. Despite brave attempts in 2007, workers suffered another defeat, unable to assert our own interests against both our bosses and unions who did deals behind closed doors, ignored strike votes, witch-hunted their members, and dragged on consultations for months.

Just like this year, 2007 started with a 2% cap on public sector pay rises. This led to a wave of strikes which, while impressive, were stopped before many even got started. To reverse this trend, we need to learn from previous mistakes in order not to repeat them again.

Postal staff started well, with rolling strikes and a work to rule followed by wildcat strikes across the country. With the second wave of official strikes due, the CWU leadership called them off, entering ‘meaningful negotiations'. These lasted weeks and came to no firm conclusion apart from leaving strikers in Liverpool who had continued with unofficial action unpaid and out on a limb, as the CWU refused to release details of deals for fear of a massive negative reaction from its members.

There were also strikes by 200,000 civil servants, significant strikes by health and local government workers in Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, and in the private sector by thousands of workers at Grampian Foods, Coca Cola and Heinz. So with hundreds of thousands out on strike, how did we not get the victory we needed?

First we need to look at what was promised: ‘prolonged and sustained strike action' and coordination between unions. And what we got: strikes cancelled at the slightest hint of a deal, majority votes rejected as not enough of a mandate, local union members witch-hunted by the national executive after refusing to remain neutral over the dispute.

So how do we respond to this? Certainly not by appealing to the union leadership! While the right wing press complains of Labour's close ties to the unions, they fail to mention the unions' close ties to Labour: it's a short jump from trade union leader to cushy ministerial position or fat pay check sitting in a think tank, and that's where their interests lie (since their wages go up regardless of whether ours do). Trying to replace leaders or ‘democratise' the unions is another old game that was bankrupt even when union membership was higher and more militant, it just catapults militants into the same positions and compromises they attacked moments before.

What's needed is independent activity outside these structures and that us at the bottom of the union ladder look after our interests regardless of what's said by those at the top. This means cooperation of workers across boundaries of union, sector and the public/private divide. Even small numbers of workers can have a big effect if they break out of these restrictions. By taking our breaks, leaving on time, organising go-slows, walking out in defence of victimised colleagues, in fact, taking action without waiting for people who've got no interest in our situation, except in us continuing to give them permission to take control of our struggles, we can make this year's strikes more successful than the last.

 A truth that's told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent[1]

Economic conditions today are "arguably the worst they've been in 60 years" according to Chancellor Alistair Darling (Guardian 30/8/8). No, that's not just for Britain, but for the whole world economy

For the Sunday Times the next day this was a "gaffe", contradicting both his deputy's memo to spin doctors and Brown's ‘relaunch'; for the Times his job is at risk. Before we jump to any conclusions about what Darling was doing we should first of all examine the real state of the economy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks have given government and media the chance to rubbish Darling's idea: we don't have rationing as we did 60 years ago, we don't have double figure inflation as in the 1970s, we don't have unemployment of 3 million as in the 80s (officially we don't), and the crisis won't be as deep as in the 1990s (oh really?). This sort of argument asks us to look at each new crisis as if it had nothing to do with the previous one. It would be a bit like arguing against global warming because Gustav was less powerful than Katrina or because we had a cool wet August in Britain. We have to look at the long term trends, at the state the economy was in when the credit crunch hit, at the margin of manoeuvre for governments to respond, and not explain everything away by comparing facts or statistics without any context. Even the Economist (6-12 September) had to concede "Mr Darling had a point... It is rare to be hit by so many problems in such a short space of time", going on to list rises in oil and food prices, reduced consumer spending, the banking crisis and the collapse in the housing market.

40 years of crisis

Sixty years ago the world had just been through the most disastrous half century: the Great War 1914-18, flu pandemic, crash of 1929, followed by the great depression and then World War II. For revolutionaries this was clear evidence that capitalism is decadent, that it has no perspective for humanity but more and more disasters, that it needs to be overthrown. But in 1948 things seemed to be improving, at least for developed countries in the west and others benefiting from loans from the USA (particularly the Marshall Plan) and from massive state intervention. In Britain nationalisation of coal, steel, railways and health provided important support for economic development. Whatever the hardships, the economy was apparently recovering. 20 years later Sterling had been devalued, announcing the start of the crisis we are still living through today.

Unemployment: In Britain a generation that had grown up after the 2nd World War was shocked by the threat of the 1960s Labour government that we had to accept unemployment of 1-2%,. But in fact it is low unemployment that was the aberration in the 20th Century. Even before the crash of 1929 or the hunger marches in the 30s, Britain had endemic unemployment of a million men throughout the 20s (see ‘Evolution of British imperialism' in WR 312 and 313). Unemployment grew during the 70s and then exploded to more than 3 million in the 80s, when government policy reduced the numbers by forcing millions to claim incapacity benefit instead.

Much has been made of falling unemployment over recent years, but what is the reality? The credit crunch has not hit an economy with full employment, as the 1960s crisis did, but one with over a million unemployed. Officially unemployment is now 5.4% or 1.67 million, up 60,000 over the last 3 months, but the Labour Force Survey noted that in the 3 months to June there were 3.06 million households where no-one works, including 4.29 million working age people and 1.8 million children.

Remember this when you read about how the credit crunch is not as bad as the 70s or 80s. Remember that unemployment is one of the main ways the working class suffers in a crisis. And remember that the recovery in the 1990s was so ‘successful' that in the US it was dubbed the ‘jobless recovery'. It is not a question of whether the credit crunch is going to create more or less job losses than previous crises in the last 60 years, but how many more unemployed it will add to the millions already out of work.

Growth has clearly been hit by the credit crunch. Negative growth in the euro zone in the last 3 months, the OECD forecasting a ‘technical recession' for Britain at the end of the year. But the American economy is growing again - thanks to a $180 billion fiscal handout - so perhaps we should look forward to the light at the end of the tunnel? After all, have we not seen stupendous growth during the years the ICC has been claiming that we are living through an economic crisis? The reality of growth is often revealed in the crash that follows. The Asian ‘tigers' helped stimulate growth in the 1990s, but the role of debt in sustaining this was revealed in the crash of 97/98. The reality of the dot.com ‘recovery' was revealed in the crash that followed - when much of the ‘growth' was in fact the growth of companies valued at far more than either the capital invested or the profits they had made. It was nothing more than a bubble. And the ‘growth' that resulted in the credit crunch was based on the growth in the price of houses and a stupendous increase in personal debt so that by summer 07 personal debt in Britain exceeded GDP.

Stagflation is a term from the 1970s that has reared its head again since the credit crunch. With inflation well over the 2% target the Bank of England is charged with maintaining, the government has much less margin for manoeuvre for injecting more money to kickstart the economy. Interest rates are no longer being cut, as they were in 1998 or 2001. Clearly they have learned the lessons of the 1970s when money pumped into the economy fuelled damaging levels of inflation. Some money is being pumped in of necessity: the budget deficit has widened to £35 billion, and may double. Money will be pumped in as loans to potential homebuyers, and when councils and housing associations buy out those liable to lose their homes, but the £1.6 billion this will cost won't restart the economy.

What has Darling achieved?

Media attention on Alistair Darling's remarks has often focused on whether they were a gaffe or part of a power struggle within the cabinet. Nevertheless, we can see that Darling has achieved three important results for British capitalism. In the first place he has given the media plenty of opportunity to tell us that things are not nearly as bad and that they will get better if we put up with a year or so of austerity. If they were not rubbishing the chancellor's ‘gaffe' would anyone have believed a word of this? Secondly, he has fuelled the media smokescreen about divisions and power struggles within the cabinet that diverts attention from the real economic problems and the attacks being made on the working class.

Thirdly, the pound fell to a record low shortly after he made his remarks. Overall it has lost 15% of its trade weighted index in the last year and 5% in the last week. "Still there are signs that sterling's slump is lifting the domestic economy" (The Economist 6.9.08). This devaluation may temporarily improve Britain's competitiveness, but we should have no illusions as its economy is particularly vulnerable due to the high household debt to income ratio (the basis of the last 10 years' growth) and the weight of the finance sector in the economy, as well as the stagnation of the euro area which takes more than half of its exports.

The perspective for the working class

Politicians of left and right, media, business, all are agreed that wage claims must remain below inflation. Workers are already paying for the credit crunch through higher food and fuel prices, job losses and the fear of job losses; and this comes on top of 40 years of attacks. The economic crisis shows what capitalism has to offer: declining pay, more unemployment, lost pensions at home while the state engages in continued military adventures overseas. This crisis has put down a challenge to the working class every bit as serious and every bit as dangerous as that of 1914, for we face the same historic choice: socialism or barbarism.

Alex 06/09/08

 

---

[1] ‘Auguries of innocence' William Blake.

We have received an interesting letter from a comrade in Spain who asks about the reality of the ecological crisis: "what truth is there in all this world-wide theatre about climate change? Are there not particular interests hidden behind this?...The analysis could be: given the real situation of the destruction of the world (what is this? Do we know precisely?) can we continue with the level of consumption reached by the masses? Can the system change its model of production and consumption? Which class, the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, is hit hardest by the approaching climatic catastrophes? Are they imminent?".

The comrade asks whether we are facing a grave ecological crisis, or whether, on the contrary, it might be a media show to make us accept austerity measures and poverty under the pretext of ‘saving the planet'.

What truth is there in the ‘ecological crisis'?

It is quite right to say that capitalism doesn't have the slightest scruple about the pretexts it uses to gain advantage for itself, and it will not hesitate to dress up in green if this will gain benefits for it.

It's also particularly repulsive to see the attempts of all governments, but especially those of the left, to make us feel guilty about the deterioration of the environment. We are led to believe that bad habits like going to work by car, showering regularly or putting out the rubbish are the cause of all the ills facing the planet.

But underneath this pile of shameless propaganda, a very real and serious problem remains: capitalism is indeed in the process of destroying the conditions for life on this planet. In the article in ‘Only the proletarian revolution can save the human species' in International Review 104 we said that:

"Throughout the 90s, the plundering of the planet has continued at a frenzied rhythm: deforestation, soil erosion, toxic pollution of the air, water tables and oceans, pillage of natural fossil resources, dissemination of chemical or nuclear substances, destruction of animal or plant species, explosion of infectious diseases, and finally the steady increase in average temperatures over the surface of the planet (seven of the hottest years for millennia were in the 90s). Ecological disasters are becoming more combined, more global, often taking on an irreversible character, with long term consequences that are hard to predict".

In the same article we cited the report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change: "Average surface temperature has increased by 0.6% since 1860...New analyses indicate that the 20th century has probably seen the most significant warming in all the centuries for the last thousand years in the northern hemisphere...The area of snow cover has diminished by about 10% since the end of the 1960s and the period in which lakes and rivers are under ice in the northern hemisphere has diminished by about two weeks in the 20th century.....the thickness of the Arctic ice has diminished by 40%....Average sea levels have risen by between 10 and 20 cm during the 20th century...the rhythm of these rising sea levels during the 20th century has been about 10 times higher than in the previous three thousand years".

 Our article also cited the journal Maniere de Voir, no 50:

"...the reproductive and infectious capacities of insects and rodents, the vectors of parasites or viruses, is connected to the temperature and humidity of their surroundings. In other words, a rise in temperature, even a modest one, gives the green light to the expansion of numerous agents which are pathogenic to man and animals. This is why parasitic diseases - such as malaria, schistosomiasis and sleeping sickness, or viral infections like dengue fever, certain forms of encephalitis or haemorrhaging fevers - have gained ground in recent years...In the same way, the number of diseases transmitted by water is also spiralling. The warming of fresh waters facilitates the proliferation of bacteria. The warming of salt waters - particularly when they are enriched by human effluent - allows phytoplanctons, which are the real breeding grounds for the cholera bacillus, to reproduce at an accelerating rate. After virtually disappearing from Latin America around 1960, cholera claimed 1,368,053 victims between 1991 and 1996".  We think that we have to reply in the affirmative to the questions the comrade asks about the dangers of climate change. We can also say that the workers and the oppressed masses will be the most affected, but the question is more global and more profound: it's a question of the destruction of the very milieu in which humanity lives, the destruction of "man's inorganic body", as Marx described the natural environment in which we live.

The relationship between man and nature under capitalism

We have to pose an elementary question here: what is the relationship between man and nature? This question has already been posed by the marxist movement. Let's quote The Dialectics of Nature by Engels, who writes that "the animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals..." (‘The part played by labour in the transition from ape to man')[1]

Human societies have sought to adapt the natural milieu to the necessity to survive, and to exploit to the maximum the riches supplied by nature. The development of the productive forces of humanity can be measured by the degree to which they have been able to transform the natural milieu and more effectively extract the riches it contains. A dual relationship has thus been established between man and nature throughout history: transformation but also depredation.

Under the modes of production which preceded capitalism (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, etc), nature exerted a crushing domination over man, and the latter's capacity to modify it was very limited. This relationship was radically transformed by capitalism. In the first place, the productive forces (machines, means of transport, industrial and agricultural techniques) have reached an unprecedented level. In the second place, capitalism has spread across the entire world, subjecting every country to the power of its mode of production. Finally, the exploitation of natural resources (agriculture, fish, minerals, cattle...) became systematic and extensive, profoundly altering natural cycles and processes (climate, regeneration of cultivated land, forests, watercourses...). For the first time, man had developed the productive forces which could not only transform but totally exhaust the existing natural resources.

The capacity of human society to transform its natural milieu, and consequently to transform itself constituted a very important historical progress. But capitalism has made it so that that this progress expresses itself fundamentally in a negative and destructive way, while its positive, transformative and revolutionary side remains hidden.

The transformations and changes brought about by capitalism in the evolution of the natural milieu take place in a chaotic and anarchic manner, working in the short term, without taking into account the more long term consequences, acting on the surface of things without concern about the underlying laws of nature. This immediate and empirical way of acting has caused all kinds of damage to the global ecology. We are now seeing the catastrophic results of this and they announce even more dramatic and sinister prospects for the future. The human and natural productive forces are developing in the prison of antagonistic relations - relations based on class divisions and ferocious competition between nations and enterprises.

The body and mind of the workers suffer even worse ravages than the natural milieu: physical and psychological destruction, moral and material poverty, frenzied competition, atomisation, the extreme compartmentalisation of human capacities, monstrously developed to the point of hypertrophy in certain cases and castrated no less monstrously in others. We arrive at a terrible paradox: "At the same pace that mankind masters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy. Even the pure light of science seems unable to shine but on the dark background of ignorance. All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life, and in stultifying human life into a material force" (Marx, speech on the anniversary of The People's Paper, 1856)

The comrade asks himself about capitalism's ability to prevent the catastrophe it has set in motion. We think that the laws and internal contradictions of the system will not only prevent it from doing so but can only push it further towards the disaster. The need to produce in order to produce, to accumulate for the sake of accumulation, pushes capitalism to become locked in insurmountable contradictions: "Goaded by competition, by the anarchic rivalry of capitalist units struggling for control of the market, it obeys an inner compulsion to expand to the furthest limits permitted to it, and in this mer­ciless drive towards its own self-expansion, it cannot pause to consider either the health and welfare of the producers, or the future ecologi­cal consequences of how and what it produces" (IR 63, ‘It's capitalism that's poisoning the Earth').

The decadence of capitalism and the destruction of the environment

All these phenomena have their roots in capitalism since its birth, but they have reached a paroxysm in the period of the decadence of the system. When the greater part of the planet was incorporated into the world market, at the beginning of the 20th century, the period of capitalism's decline began and from then "capital's ruthless destruction of the environment takes on a dif­ferent scale and quality, while at the same time losing any historical justification. This is the epoch in which all the capitalist nations are forced to compete with each other over a satu­rated world market; an epoch therefore, of a permanent war economy, with a disproportionate growth of heavy industry; an epoch charac­terised by the irrational, wasteful duplication of industrial complexes in each national unit, by the desperate pillaging of natural resources by each nation". (ibid)

Already in the ascendant period of capitalism, in the 19th century, Marx and Engels drew attention to the danger of the gigantic industrial cities developing at the time: "Marx and Engels had many occasions to denounce the way that capitalism's thirst for profit poisoned the living and working conditions of the working class. They even considered that the big in­dustrial cities had already become too large to provide the basis for viable human communities, and considered that the ‘abolition of the sepa­ration between town and countryside' was an integral part of the communist programme"(ibid) This problem has been massively aggravated in the period of decadence, a period in which we have seen the proliferation of mega-cities of 10 or 20 million human beings, bringing with it huge problems of pollution, water supply, waste disposal, etc, giving rise to new sources of illness and deformities and further destroying the ecological balance.

But decadence also adds a qualitatively new phenomenon. For centuries, humanity has suffered the scourge of war, but the wars of the past can in no way be compared to the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries, for which marxists coined a term that reflected their historical novelty: imperialist war. We can't here go any deeper into this question. We will limit ourselves to pointing out that the effects of imperialist war on the environment are devastating: nuclear destruction, the development of pathogenic agents through the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons; the brutal alteration of the ecological balance through the massive use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, etc. The effects of more than a century of imperialist wars on the environment remain to be evaluated, since for the moment they are denied or severely underestimated by the bourgeoisie.

The proletarian revolution opens the door to a new relationship between man and nature

Global ecological problems require a global solu­tion. But despite all the international confer­ences, despite all the pious talk about interna­tional cooperation, capitalism is irreducibly based on competition between national economies. We cannot hope for anything from capitalism. It's significant that the book/film written by Al Gore, former vice president of the USA, the country which contributes the most to global pollution, uses a ‘daring' title (An Inconvenient Truth) but actually proposes paltry measures like eating less meat, doing the washing up by hand, using washing lines or working at home!

Faced with a problem of planetary dimensions and which has its origins in the relationship between the whole organisation of society and its relationship with nature, this gentleman merely reveals the impotence of the representatives of capital, who can propose nothing more than a list of good citizen's habits as ridiculous as they are useless. Al Gore tells us to "behave in an irreproachably green way", and lays responsibility for the ecological disaster on the ‘citizen' in order to make us feel guilty for the disasters that threaten us and to let the social system off the hook.

We on the other hand have to put forward this ‘inconvenient truth' for capitalism in response to Al Gore and other ‘Green' ideologues: "In its present phase of advancing decomposi­tion, the ruling class is increasingly losing control of its social system. Humanity can no longer afford to leave the planet in its hands. The ‘ecological crisis' is further proof that cap­italism has to be destroyed before it drags the whole world into the abyss" (ibid)

The proletarian revolution, in eliminating states and national frontiers, in eliminating commodity production and the exploitation of man by man, will destroy the system which is leading towards the annihilation of the human race and the ruin of the natural environment. The society the proletariat aspires to will be founded on the world human community, which will consciously plan social production and establish a harmonious and organic relationship with the natural environment. The relations of fraternity and solidarity, the collective consciousness which will mark the world human community will naturally extend to man's relationship with nature.

ICC (24/2/08)

---

[1] Engels also makes it clear in this article that man is an integral part of the natural milieu and is in no sense an outside element: "At every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature - but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly".

This article has already appeared online. A link will appear here shortly.

This is how we concluded our previous article on May 68:

"Thus, the fundamental historical significance of May 1968 is neither found in ‘French specificities', nor in the student revolt, nor in a ‘moral revolution' that we are told about today. It is in the emergence of the world proletariat from the counter-revolution and its entry into a new historic period of confrontations against capitalist order. In this period, proletarian political currents, that previously had been eliminated or reduced to silence by the counter-revolution, began to develop - including the ICC" (‘May 1968, part 4: The international significance of the general strike in France', WR 316).

That is what we will look at in the article below. 

The ravages of the counter-revolution in the communist movement

At the beginning of the 20th century, during and after the First World War, the proletariat engaged in titanic battles. In 1917, it overthrew bourgeois power in Russia. Between 1918 and 1923, in the principal European country, Germany, it undertook numerous struggles in order to achieve the same aim. This revolutionary wave reverberated throughout the world wherever a developed working class existed, from Italy to Canada, from Hungary to China.

But the world bourgeoisie succeeded in containing this gigantic movement of the working class and it didn't stop there. It unleashed the most terrible counter-revolution in the whole history of the workers' movement. This counter-revolution took the form of an unimaginable barbarity, of which Stalinism and Nazism were the two most significant representatives, precisely in the countries where the revolution went furthest, Russia and Germany.

In this context, the Communist Parties that had been at the vanguard of the revolutionary wave were converted into parties of the counter-revolution.

When the socialist parties, faced with imperialist war in 1914, betrayed the working class, this gave rise to currents within these parties that were determined to pursue the defence of proletarian principles: these currents had been instrumental in the foundation of the communist parties. In turn, when the latter also betrayed, we saw the appearance of left fractions committed to the defence of real, communist positions. However, while those who had struggled within the socialist parties against their opportunist slide and betrayal had gained strength and a growing influence in the working class, to the point where they were able to found a new International after the Russian revolution, it was nothing like this for the left currents that came out of the communist parties, because of the growing weight of the counter-revolution. Thus, although at the beginning they regrouped a majority of the militants in the German and Italian parties, these currents progressively lost their influence in the class and the greater part of their militant forces, or were scattered into multiple small groups, as was the case in Germany even before the Hitler regime had exterminated them or sent the last militants into exile.

In fact, during the 1930s, aside from the current animated by Trotsky more and more eaten up by opportunism, the groups who continued to defend revolutionary positions, such as the Groep van Internationale Communisten(GIC) in Holland (that advocated ‘Council Communism' and rejected the necessity for a proletarian party) and the Left Fraction of the Italian Communist Party (which published the review Bilan) only counted some dozens of militants and no longer had any influence over the course of the workers' struggle.

Contrary to the first, the Second World War didn't result in an overthrow of the balance of forces between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Quite the contrary. Learning from the historic experience and with the precious support of the Stalinist parties, the bourgeoisie was careful to kill at birth any new uprising of the proletariat. In the democratic euphoria of the ‘Liberation', the groups of the communist left were still more isolated than they were in the 1930s. In Holland, the Communistenbond Spartacus picked up from the GIC in the defence of councilist positions, positions that were equally defended from 1965 by Daad en Gedachte, a split from the Bond. These two groups did much publishing work although they were handicapped by the councilist position that rejected the role of an organisation of the avant-garde of the proletariat. However, the greatest handicap was from the ideological weight of the counter-revolution. This was also the case in Italy where the constitution in 1945, around Damen and Bordiga (two old militants of the Italian Left in the 1920s) of the Partito Comunista Internazionalista (which published Battaglia Comunista and Prometeo), didn't fulfil the promise its militants expected. Although this organisation had 3000 militants when it was founded, it progressively weakened, a victim of demoralisation and splits, notably the one in 1952 which led to the formation of the Parti Communiste International (which published Programma Comunista). The causes of these splits also lay in the confusion that reigned over the regroupment of 1945, which was made on the basis of the abandonment of a whole series of acquisitions elaborated by Bilan in the 1930s.

In France, the Gauche Communiste de France (GCF), which had been formed in 1945 in continuity with the positions of Bilan (but also integrating a certain number of programmatic positions from the German and Dutch Left) and which published 42 numbers of the review Internationalisme, disappeared in 1952. In the same country, outside of some elements attached to the Parti Communiste International, who published le Proletaire, another group defended class positions up until the 1960s with the review Socialisme ou Barbarie (SouB). But this group, coming out of a split from Trotskyism after the Second World War, progressively and explicitly abandoned marxism, which led to its disappearance in 1966.

We can also cite the existence of other groups in other countries. But what marked the situation of currents that continued to defend communist positions during the course of the 1950s and beginning of the 60s, was their extreme numerical weakness, the confidential character of their publications, their international isolation, as well as various political regressions. These led either to their disappearance pure and simple or into a sectarian withdrawal, as was notably the case with the Parti Communiste International that considered itself to be the only communist organisation in the world.

The renewal of revolutionary positions

The general strike of 1968 in France, then the different massive movements of the working class, which we've mentioned previously, put the idea of communist revolution, back on the agenda in numerous countries. The lie of Stalinism, which presented itself as ‘communist' and ‘revolutionary', had begun to fall apart. This evidently profited the currents who denounced the USSR as deviating from the ideals of the ‘Socialist Fatherland', such as the Maoists and Trotskyists. The Trotskyist movement, particularly because of its history of struggle against Stalinism, went through a second youth from 1968 and came out of the shadows cast up to then by the Stalinist parties. Its ranks were swollen in a spectacular fashion, notably in countries like France, Belgium and Britain. But since the Second World War this current had ceased to be part of the proletarian camp, above all because of its position on the defence of the alleged ‘workers' gains' in the USSR, i.e. the defence of the imperialist camp dominated by this country. In fact, the workers' strikes that developed from the end of the 60s showed the anti-working class role of the Stalinist parties and the unions. They also showed the electoral and democratic farce as instruments of bourgeois domination and this led to numerous elements around the world turning towards political currents which, in the past, had most clearly denounced the role of the unions and parliamentarism and which had better incarnated the struggle against Stalinism - the currents of the communist left.

Following May 68, the writings of Trotsky were distributed massively. Also those of Pannekoek, Gorter[[1]] and Rosa Luxemburg who, shortly before her assassination in January 1919, was one of the first to warn her Bolshevik comrades of certain dangers that menaced the revolution in Russia.

New groups appeared that drew on the experience of the communist left. In fact, the elements who understood that Trotskyism had become a sort of left wing of Stalinism turned much more towards councilism than towards the Italian Left. There were several reasons for this. On one hand, the rejection of the Stalinist parties often accompanied the rejection of any idea of the communist party; and the fact that the Bordigist current (the sole descendent of the Italian Left that had any real international extension) defended the idea of the taking of power by the communist party and defended the idea of ‘monolithism' in its own ranks, strengthening mistrust towards the historic current of the Italian Left. At the same time, the Bordigists completely overlooked the historic significance of May 68, seeing only the student dimension.

While new groups inspired by councilism began to appear, those who had existed beforehand experienced an unprecedented success, seeing their ranks strengthen in a spectacular fashion at the same time as being capable as acting as a pole of reference. This was particularly the case for the group Informations et Correspondances Ourvieres (ICO) coming out of a split from SouB in 1958. In 1969, this group organised an international meeting in Brussels attended by Cohn-Bendit, Mattick (an old militant of the German Left who had emigrated to the United States where he published diverse councilist reviews) and Carlo Brendel, animator of Daade en Gedachte. However, the success of ‘organised' councilism didn't last long. Thus, ICO pronounced its self-dissolution in 1974. The Dutch groups ceased to exist as their main animators grew too old or passed away.

In Britain, the group Solidarity, inspired by the positions of Socialisme ou Barbarie, after a success similar to that of the ICO, underwent a split and exploded in 1981 (although the group in London continued to publish a magazine up to 1992). In Scandinavia, the councilist groups which had emerged after 1968 were capable of organising a conference in Oslo in September 1977, but it didn't lead to much.

In the final account, the current which developed the most during the course of the 1970s was the one which attached itself to the positions of Bordiga (who died in July 1970). It benefited largely through an influx of elements coming out of the crises that had hit certain leftist groups (notably the Maoists) in this period. In 1980, the International Communist Party, was the most important and influential group of the communist left at the international level. But this opening out of the Bordigist current to elements strongly marked by leftism led to its explosion in 1982, reducing it to a myriad of small sects.

The beginning of the International Communist Current

In fact, the most significant long term expression of this renewal of positions of the communist left has been our own organisation.[[2]] It was first constituted 40 years ago, in July 1968 in Toulouse, with the adoption of a first declaration of our principles by a small group of elements who had formed a discussion circle the year beforehand with a comrade, RV, who had entered political life in the group Internacionalismo in Venezuela. This group had been founded in 1964 by Marc Chirik who had been the main animator of the Gauche Communiste de France (1945-52), after having been a member of the Italian Fraction of the Communist Left from 1938 and having entered into militant life from 1919 (at the age of 12), first of all in the Palestinian Communist Party and then the French Communist Party.

During the general strike of May 1968, elements of the discussion circle published several leaflets signed Movement for the Founding of Workers Councils (MICO) and undertook discussions with other elements which then finally formed the group that published Revolution Internationale from the end of September 1968. This group made contact and discussed with two other groups belonging to the councilist movement. One was l'Organisation conseilliste de Clermont-Ferrand and the other published Cahiers du communism de conseils and was based in Marseilles.

Finally, in 1972, the three joined together in order to constitute what was going to become the section in France of the ICC and which began the publication of Revolution Internationale (new series).

This group, in continuity with the policy undertaken by Internacionalismo and Bilan, engaged in discussions with different groups who had appeared after 1968, notably in the United States (Internationalism). In 1972, Internationalism sent a letter to about twenty groups claiming links with the communist left, calling for the constitution of a network of correspondence and international debate. Revolution Internationale responded warmly to this initiative while proposing that the perspective should be of holding an international conference. Other groups belonging to the councilist movement also gave a positive response. For their part, groups claiming the heritage of the Italian Left were either deaf, or judged this initiative premature.

On the basis of this initiative several meetings took place between 1973 and 1974 in England and France, involving World Revolution, Revolutionary Perspectives and Workers' Voice, the first two coming out breaks with Solidarity and the last coming out of a break with Trotskyism.

Finally, this cycle of meetings ended in January 1975 with the holding of a conference where the groups sharing the same political orientation - Internacionalismo, Internationalism, Revolution Internationale, World Revolution, Rivoluzione Internazionale (Italy) and Accion Proletaria (Spain) - decided to unify within the International Communist Current.

The Current decided to pursue this policy of contacts and discussions with other groups of the communist left. This led it to participate in the 1977 Oslo conference (as well as Revolutionary Perspectives) and to respond favourably to the initiative launched in 1976 by Battaglia Comunista with a view to holding an international conference of groups of the communist left.

The three conferences that took place in 1977 (Milan), 1978 (Paris) and 1980 (Paris) aroused a growing interest among elements claiming links with the communist left but the decision by Battaglia Comunista and the Communist Workers' Organisation (coming out of a regroupment of Revolutionary Perspectives and Workers' Voice in Britain) to henceforth exclude the ICC sounded the death knell for this effort.[[3]] In a certain way, the sectarian closing up of BC and the CWO (who regrouped into the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party in 1984), at least towards the ICC, was an indication of the exhaustion of the initial impulsion given to the communist left by the historical resurgence of the world proletariat after May 1968.

However, despite the difficulties that the working class has met these last decades, notably the ideological campaigns on the ‘death of communism' after the collapse of the Stalinist regimes, the world bourgeoisie has not succeeded in inflicting a decisive defeat on it. That is shown by the fact that the current of the communist left (represented principally by the IBRP[[4]] and above all by the ICC) has maintained its positions and is now experiencing a growing interest in them from elements who, with the slow reappearance of class combats since 2003, are turning towards a revolutionary perspective.  

Fabienne (6 July 2008)

---

[1] The two principal theoreticians of the Dutch Left.

[2] For a more complete history of the ICC, read our articles "Construction of the revolutionary organisation: 20 years of the International Communist Current" (International Review n° 80) and "30 years of the ICC: learning from the past to build the future" (International Review n° 123).

[3] Regarding these conferences see our article "The international conferences of the Communist Left (1976 - 1980) - Lessons of an experience for the proletarian milieu" in International Review n° 122

[4] The fact that the IBRP has grown less compared to that of the ICC is principally down to its sectarianism as well as its political opportunism towards regroupment (which has led it to build on sand). On this subject see our article "An opportunist policy of regroupment that will only lead to ‘abortions'' (International Review n° 121)

Today the leaders of ‘western democracy' put the blame for the current chaos and misery in Zimbabwe squarely on the corruption and vicious repression of Robert Mugabe and his dictatorial regime. Mugabe on the other hand blames all the woes of his country on the conspiratorial attempts of the former colonial powers led by Britain to overthrow him.

Meanwhile, many of today's leftists hide the fact that they once supported the ‘national liberation' struggle in Zimbabwe and the coming to power of Mugabe as in some way expressing the interests of the working class.

In fact, as this article by a close sympathiser of the ICC shows, the coming to power of a black nationalist regime in Zimbabwe was the result of a deliberate policy of the US imperialist bloc in order to protect its own strategic interests in Southern Africa. Against the hypocrisy of the democratic states today in denouncing the terror and corruption of Mugabe's regime, revolutionaries need to demonstrate that the USA, Britain and their allies were instrumental in creating the current chaos and misery in Zimbabwe.

The strategic significance of Southern Africa for the rival imperialist blocs

The deepening of the global capitalist crisis in the 1970s intensified the struggle between the two rival imperialist blocs that dominated the Cold War period before the collapse of the Russian bloc. By the mid-1970s there was a significant tendency for localised inter-imperialist confrontations to move from the peripheries of the capitalist world towards its vital centres: the Middle East, the Mediterranean basin and the regions of Africa astride the major trade routes linking Europe with Asia and the Americas.

Africa became a particularly important focus for inter-imperialist conflicts, as the economically superior bloc suddenly found itself facing a threat to its strategic interests from its economically weaker Russian rival. This led to a dramatic shift in US policy, demonstrated by the intervention of French and Belgian troops in Zaire in 1978 to prevent this mineral-rich region from being overrun by Russian-armed and Cuban-trained guerrilla forces. There were also bloody inter-imperialist confrontations in the western Sahara, the Horn of Africa, and in Southern Africa - which due to all its raw materials and control over the Cape trade routes was of vital strategic importance to both blocs.

For more than two decades, faced with the overwhelming economic resources of the US, the strategy of Russian imperialism had been to attempt to weaken and destabilise its rival through the arming and training of ‘national liberation' fronts to overthrow fragile pro-American regimes or to smash the remnants of the colonial empires of the US's allies. Following the collapse of Portuguese control over Mozambique and Angola in the mid-1970s, Russian imperialism raised the stakes by directly using Cuban and East German ‘volunteers' and ‘advisers' in a formidable military build up to try to wrest these countries from the American bloc.

Faced with these attempts by its rival to destabilise Southern Africa, the US was forced to reorient its strategy with the aim of neutralising the Russian threat and ensure economic stability in the region, and in particular to safeguard South Africa itself, the capitalist jewel at the tip of the sub-continent. This meant preventing the spread of chaos in the other so-called front-line states - Mozambique, Botswana, Angola, Zambia and Zaire. The state then known as Rhodesia to the north was a weak link in this strategy - less strategically important but a dangerous source of instability, where the white minority regime of Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front had been fighting a long-running struggle against black nationalist guerrilla forces based largely in Mozambique and backed increasingly by Russian provided arms and ‘military experts'. From 1975, following the failure of talks on a transition to black majority rule, the black nationalist struggle intensified, at a time when the Russian presence in Angola was growing.

Alongside its increased willingness to participate in direct military interventions, the US committed itself to regime change in Southern Africa, reversing its previous support for Smith's racist regime. With the continued guerrilla war bleeding the country dry, and its Mozambique border closed, the land-locked Rhodesian economy was on the verge of collapse, so using its diplomatic and economic muscle the US persuaded Smith's regime to reluctantly agree to black majority rule. It was supported in this by the white South African bourgeoisie, who had also been persuaded to accept black majority rule by hard economic inducements plus assurances that their own political domination would not be fundamentally threatened. The US ‘godfather' had made the white regimes of Southern Africa an ‘offer they couldn't refuse'.

The only question was, which particular faction of the emerging black nationalist bourgeoisie would take over the Rhodesian state?

The struggle of the black nationalist factions for political power

In the frenzied jockeying for position with the prospect of power in Rhodesia, the main contenders at the time were Bishop Muzorewa and Joshua Nkomo, who claimed to lead rival wings of the United African National Council (in reality a defunct political shell). The US's favoured contender was Nkomo's ZAPU (Zimbabwe African People's Union), which showed itself both moderate and willing to compromise, but lacked military support within Rhodesia.

The other force in the black nationalist struggle was the Zimbabwe African Nationalist Union (ZANU), in which Robert Mugabe had gained ascendancy, and with a military wing based in Mozambique. It was Mugabe who, while lacking US backing, ultimately had the ‘guns and muscle' to make sure the Smith regime finally conceded, and it was his ZANU which used the most radical and militant ‘national liberation' language.

The leaders of the US imperialist bloc came to realise that a Rhodesian settlement without the two wings of the Patriotic Front - Nkomo and Mugabe - would risk allowing the Russians to increase their intervention in the guerrilla war, and they therefore decided to integrate the Front into a political settlement before Russia could use its military support as a tool in its strategy of destabilisation.

In 1978 there was a last ditch attempt by the doomed Smith regime to reach an internal settlement with the moderate black nationalist factions. The US, together with its loyal British lieutenant led by the Labour Party, refused to support the resulting elections in which Muzorewa's supporters won a majority. The settlement was opposed by the Patriotic Front, which refused to lay down its arms and was thus able to present itself as the only genuine opponent of the regime, honing its radical credentials with the black working class.

The International Herald Tribune, clearly spelled out the American strategy: "This agreement endangers the most important American interests in Africa. These interests demand that there will be a peaceful transition to black majority rule in all of southern Africa, and that any conflict which risks provoking the intervention of foreign powers is avoided. The surest means of promoting a peaceful transition is to insist that any agreement includes the Patriotic Front."

The leaders of the Patriotic Front were subsequently invited by the British bourgeoisie to participate in a ‘negotiated peace', leading to new elections under British supervision. The Lancaster House agreement in December 1979 finally ended the seven years of guerrilla war, and the US imperialist bloc finally achieved its desired carve up - this time assisted by the Conservative government, which despite its bluster about not supporting terrorists quickly fell into line with US policy. The front-line states, desperate for western loans and economic aid, were also instrumental in exerting pressure on the Front to sign an agreement, in order to prevent further disruption to their own economies caused by the war, and to avert the threat of spreading social unrest.

Mugabe in 1980 - ‘capitalism's latest superstar'

After seven years of open fighting, the Rhodesian/Zimbabwean economy was officially bankrupt, and the black masses, having experienced the massacres and murder of the civil war, now faced more misery and chaos, this time under the cover of socialist rhetoric about reconstructing ‘their' country. But for the US bourgeoisie, as the ICC put it, Robert Mugabe was "capitalism's latest superstar" (WR 29, April 1980).

In the elections held as part of the Lancaster House agreement in early 1980, Mugabe's ZANU won a landslide victory, which was initially viewed as a problem for the US bloc. However, Mugabe, the former ‘marxist' guerrilla and ‘scientific socialist', and the most reluctant to accept agreement during the ‘peace talks', rapidly reassured western leaders by confirming that the new government would, in its leader's own words, "retain the economic structure of the country within the existing capitalist framework." It would also adhere to the letter and spirit of the constitution and uphold "fundamental rights and freedoms." He even re-employed the old white military leadership to integrate the former guerrilla forces with the Rhodesian security forces. The reaction of the Tory government in Britain on hearing the election results was to rush to dispel the impression that Mugabe was a puppet of the Soviet Union.

A victory for US imperialism

All in all, the outcome of the Zimbabwe elections was a cause for congratulations in the ranks of the democratic bourgeoisie, and was rightly seen as a victory for US imperialism which, through the peace deal in Zimbabwe and the support of the other front-line states, regained the initiative from its Russian rival. In Angola the MPLA could not afford to finance the continuation of a war outside of its borders when it faced American-backed guerrilla forces operating in its own territory, while ‘red' Mozambique played a crucial role in aiding America's cease fire plan by threatening an end to its support for Mugabe's forces operating within its borders.

The Russian bloc, unable to compete with the superior economic strength of its US rival, lacking its political and diplomatic muscle, lost out all along the line in Southern Africa and other strategic regions like the Middle East, as its former satellites desperately sought the economic aid and stability the US could offer; it also began the 1980s increasingly bogged down in the war in Afghanistan.

As the ICC warned at the time, the coming to power of a black nationalist regime in Zimbabwe could not be seen in any way as a victory for the working class, and the success of the US bloc's strategy to stabilise the region only made it possible for the new black bourgeoisie to do what all bourgeoisies in decadent capitalism do - attempt to reconstruct the national capital from the blood and sweat of the proletariat: the only difference from before would be the rhetoric used by the government.  

MH 29/08/08

The current financial crisis is ultimately the result of a crisis of overproduction, like the one of 1929. The growth over the last few decades has only been possible thanks to the accumulation of vast debts, which have destabilised the entire banking system.

On 24 September 2008, US President Bush gave what journalists and commentators around the world agreed was an "unusual" speech. His televised address focused on the harsh trials facing the "American people":

"This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.

We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis

The government's top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: more banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession".

The world economy is being shaken by a financial earthquake

In reality, it's not just the American economy which is facing "a long and painful recession", but the entire world economy. The USA, locomotive of growth for 60 years, is now dragging the world economy towards the abyss.

The list of financial institutions in difficulty is getting longer every day:

- in February, the 8th largest bank in Britain, Northern Rock, had to be nationalised under threat of going under

- In March, Bear Stearns, Wall Street's fifth largest bank, had to be ‘saved' by being annexed by JP Morgan, the third biggest US bank, with the help of funds from the Federal Bank

- In July, Indymac, one of the USA's biggest loan companies, had to be taken in hand by the Federal authorities

- Beginning of September, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two key finance organisations with a joint weight of 850 billion dollars, were again only kept afloat thanks to a new influx of funds from the Fed

- A few days later, Lehman Brothers. America's fourth largest bank, declared itself bust and this time the Fed couldn't save it. Its total debts on 31 May stood at 613 billion dollars. This was the biggest collapse of an American bank ever

- Then came Merrill Lynch (taken over by the Bank of America); American International Group, propped up by emergency funds from the US central bank; Washington Mutual, America's biggest building society, closed down. In Britain, first HBOS had to be taken over by Lloyds, then Bradford and Bingley had to be nationalised.

Naturally, world stock markets have also been in turmoil. Regularly there have been falls of 3,4,5% in the wake of new bankruptcies. In Moscow the stock exchange had to close its doors in mid-September after successive falls of over 10%. And all records were broken when Congress first turned down Bush's 700 billion dollar bail out package: Wall Street dropped 800 points, the biggest ever in a single day.

Towards a new 1929?

Faced with this cascade of bad news, the world's biggest economic experts have been thrown into a bit of a panic. Alan Greenspan, the former and much revered president of the Fed, declared on ABC television on 14 September: "this is a once in a half century, probably once in a century type of event....There's no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I've seen and it still is not resolved and still has a way to go". Even more significant was the statement by the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz who, with the aim of "calming minds" rather maladroitly asserted that the present financial crisis had to be less serious than the one in 1929, even if we need to avoid "overconfidence": "we could be mistaken but the general point of view is that today we have the tools to avoid another Great Depression". Far from reassuring anyone, this eminent specialist in economics, but not a very good psychologist, seems to have provoked considerable disquiet. After all, he had brought up the question that everything is thinking about but few dare speak about: are we heading towards a new 1929, a new "Depression"?

Since then, the economists have queued up on TV to reassure us that, while things today are indeed serious, they have nothing in common with 1929 and the economy is going to pick up again soon. This is all half-truths. At the time of the Great Depression, in the USA, thousands of banks went bust, millions of people lost their jobs and businesses, the rate of unemployment reached 25% and industrial production fell by nearly 60%. In short, the economy more or less ground to a halt. At that time, the world's leaders only responded after a long delay. For months, they left the markets to themselves. Even worse, the only measure they took at first was to close the borders to foreign exports through protectionist barriers, which further paralysed world trade. Today, the context is very different. The bourgeoisie has learned a lot from this economic disaster, has equipped itself with international organisms and keeps a very close eye on the unfolding of the crisis. Since 2007, the various central banks (mainly the Fed and the Central European Bank) have injected nearly 2000 billion dollars to save companies in trouble. They have thus managed to stave off the complete and brutal collapse of the financial system. The economy is slowing down at a considerable rate but it is not completely blocked. For example in Germany, growth for 2009 will only be around 0.5% (according to the German weekly Der Spiegel on 20 September).

But contrary to what all the economic experts are saying, the present crisis is really far more serious than in 1929. The world market is totally saturated. The growth over the last few decades has only been possible thanks to vast debts. Capitalism is now sinking under this mountain of debt

Certain politicians or economists are now telling us that the world of finance needs to be made more ‘moral' in order to avoid the excesses which have led to the present crisis, that we need to go back to a more ‘healthy' capitalism. But what they avoid saying is that the ‘growth' of these past decades has been the precise result of these ‘excesses', ie of capitalism's headlong flight into generalised debt. It's not the excesses of the financial fat cats who have brought about the present crisis: these excesses and the financial crisis are only symptoms of the irresolvable crisis, the historic dead-end that the capitalist system as a whole has reached. This is why there can be no real ‘light at the end of the tunnel'. Capitalism is going to carry on sinking down. The 700 billion dollar Bush bail-out may stabilise the stock-market for a while, if it is accepted, but it can bring no lasting solution to the problem. The underlying problems will still be there: the market will still be glutted with commodities that can't be sold and the financial establishments, the companies, and the states themselves will still be staggering under the weight of debt.

The billions of dollars thrown into the financial markets by the various central banks of the planet won't change anything. Worse, these massive injections of liquidity will mean a new spiral of public and banking debts. The bourgeoisie is at an impasse and it only has bad solutions to offer. This is why the American bourgeoisie is hesitating about launching the ‘Bush plan': it knows that while it might avoid panic in the immediate, it will only pave the way for new and even more violent convulsions tomorrow. For George Soros, one of the world's most celebrated financiers, "there is a real possibility that the financial system will break down". 

A wave of impoverishment not seen since the 1930s

The living conditions of the working class and the majority of the world's population are going to decline brutally. A wave of lay-offs will hit all corners of the planet at the same time. Thousands of factories and offices will close. Between now and the end of 2008, in the finance sector alone, 260,000 jobs are going to go in the USA and Britain (according to the French paper les Échos of 26 September). And a job in finance on average generates four directly linked jobs! The collapse of the financial organisations will thus mean unemployment for hundreds of thousands of working class families. House repossessions are going to rise sharply: 2.2 million Americans have already been evicted from their homes since the summer of 2007 and a million more are expected to follow suite between now and Christmas. This phenomenon is now hitting Europe, in particular Spain and Britain.

In Britain, the number of house repossessions rose by 48% in the first quarter of 2008. In the past year or so, inflation has also made a big comeback. The prices of raw materials and foodstuffs have exploded, resulting in famines and hunger riots in many countries. The hundreds of billions of dollars the Fed and the Central European Bank have injected into the economy will make this situation worse. This adds up to the impoverishment of the whole working class: housing yourself, feeding yourself and travel will become increasingly difficult for millions of workers.

The bourgeoisie will not shrink from presenting the bill for the crisis to the working class, through wage reductions, cuts in benefits (unemployment, health, etc), postponing retirement age, tax increases and increases in the number of taxes. George Bush has already announced this: his 700 billion dollar bail-out plan will be financed by "contributions". Working class families will each have to give several thousand dollars to propping up the banks at a time when many of them can't even afford a roof over their heads!

The crisis today may not have the same sudden aspect as the crash of 1929, but it will subject the exploited of the world to the same torment. The real difference between now and 1929 is not to be found at the level of the capitalist economy but at the level of the consciousness of the working class and its willingness to fight back. At that time, having just been through the defeat of the Russian revolution of 1917, the crushing of the German revolution between 1918 and 1923, and the rise of the Stalinist and fascist counter-revolution, the world proletariat was beaten, resigned to its fate. The  ravages of the crisis did provoke class movements such as the struggles of the unemployed and the auto-workers in the USA or the massive strikes in France in 1936, but these movements were unable to prevent capitalism dragging humanity into the Second World War. Today it's totally different. Since 1968 the working class has thrown off the dead weight of the counter-revolution and although the campaigns about the ‘death of communism' after 1989 were a real blow, since 2003 the working class has been developing its struggles and its consciousness. The economic crisis today can be a fertile soil for the further growth of workers' solidarity and class consciousness.

Francoise 27/9/8

The current financial crisis means a fall in living standards for the working class. This is already visible and obvious, something the ruling class is no longer trying to hide. From Gordon Brown, whose ‘first concern' is for people "struggling to make ends meet", promising to do "whatever it takes", to David Cameron putting aside party political differences in a crisis, or the meeting between Alistair Darling and George Osborne, all are speaking the language of truth, telling us that we will suffer in this global crisis. Credit is close to unobtainable; we can only trust the banks with our money if they are backed by the state, but we will end up paying for every bank rescue through taxes; prices of everyday necessities are rising far higher than official inflation; unemployment is up and growth at a standstill.

"I want your money"

This was how The Economist (27/9/08) depicted Henry Paulson's plan for a $700bn bail-out of the US banks and his brutally honest admission that it would cost the taxpayer. The Northern Rock nationalisation alone represents a greater proportion of British GDP than the Paulson bail-out plan does of the US GDP (‘Finance crisis: in graphics', BBC news online). The Sunday Times has estimated that it will cost 5p in the pound in extra taxation (21/9/08).

However, while the banks need more and more money put in to shore them up, borrowing from them is harder and harder. Mortgage lending is down more than 90% on a year ago as the housing market seizes up and average house prices have fallen by 12.% on a year ago according to a Nationwide Building Society report, while house prices at auction fell 25%. Homeowners are no longer taking equity out of their houses. Repossessions rose 17% to 38,000 in the second quarter of the year, and this is expected to worsen - more working people falling into arrears will be evicted, despite the government's plan to encourage housing associations to buy up these homes and rent them back.

Unemployment

Credit is also being squeezed for business, fuelling recessionary tendencies. British factory output is falling at the fastest rate in 17 years, having already shed 1 million jobs in the last 10 years. Fords in Southampton, for example, has announced a 4-day week. The building industry is in full recession with new orders down 15% in the 3 months to August and new housing orders down 33% with the Construction Products Association predicting a 3 year slump. The CBI has optimistically estimated only 10,000 jobs in finance will go in the next 3 months. Even the service sector is at a standstill. Overall the economy fell 0.2% between June and August.

Unemployment is up 81,000 to 1.72 million in May to July, with the claimant count up to 904,900 in August, up 56,000 in the last year. Along with workers in construction, industry and banks, council workers can also expect job losses, with the Local Government Association predicting a £1bn shortfall caused by inflation. And cuts in services will inevitably accompany the cuts in jobs.

Prices

No-one in Britain is unaware of inflation, officially 4.7%, but in reality, for any worker, anyone on a modest income, it is far higher as all the basic necessities have increased in price - in the year to June food up 10.6% with many basic foods rising even more steeply, petrol up 24%. House prices may be falling, but mortgages are more expensive and so is rent. Even a pay rise equal to the nominal inflation rate would represent a significant cut in living standards - but in reality pay is being pegged well below that, usually between 2 and 3% in the public sector after Gordon Brown called for rises to be kept to 2% this year.

"We're very sorry"

These are only the most immediate effects of the credit crunch and bank failures. We know that over the last few years many thousands of workers have lost some or all of their pensions, and that is bound to continue and worsen with the financial crisis. Things are tough for the working class at all levels, and the perspective is that they will get worse. Various media commentators are at pains to tell us that this is not as bad as the depression in the 1930s, but what is the reality of the situation? It is true that all the money pumped into financial institutions to keep them afloat is aimed at ensuring that there is enough liquidity in capitalism to prevent a sudden and severe slump, and to that extent they have learned the lessons of 1929. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has apologised for it, "We did it. We're very sorry... we won't do it again" (The Times 1/10/08). So it was all a big mistake by the economists, and if only we put our trust in the state bail-outs going on all over the world, and accept a bit of austerity, tighten our belts, put up with a common or garden recession, there will be no slump, no Depression.

Experience tells us otherwise. The older generation can remember the Labour government in the 1960s telling us that if only we accept unemployment of 1-2% we can avoid unemployment of one or two million. Well we got unemployment of a million in the following decade with the next Labour government, and it has never gone below that. We can remember the last time that the bourgeoisie talked the language of ‘truth', warning us that there was ‘no alternative', in the Thatcher years, when unemployment rose to over 3 million officially, only coming down with a policy of forcing people to claim incapacity benefit instead of the dole, as well as with a whole pile of statistical manipulations. In any case the financial bail-outs will be paid for in inflationary pressures and taxes - only wages will be held in check as the working class is asked to pay for the crisis, just like the ‘social contract' in the 1970s, just like Gordon Brown's demand last January to keep public sector pay rises to 2%.

The Times article on Mr Bernanke's speech helpfully reminds us that "The stock market decline was more a reaction to, rather than a cause of, the deteriorating economic conditions". Exactly. So how will skilful management of today's stock market decline and bank failures reverse the deteriorating economic conditions? They may continue to deteriorate more slowly than immediately after 1929, but they have surely continued to deteriorate over the last 40 years for all the Asian tiger, dot.com and housing bubbles on the way, and with them the conditions of the working class have declined. The only way to stop them doing it again is to develop the struggle of the working class in response (see back page) with the perspective of overthrowing capitalism.   

Alex 4/10/08

Once again, the summer has seen an acceleration of military barbarism. At the very moment that all the countries were counting up their medals at the Olympic Games, there was a proliferation of terrorist attacks in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Turkey and India. In less than two months, 16 such attacks followed each other in a macabre dance that left scores of dead among the urban population. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there is full-scale war. The recent terrorist attack in Islamabad highlights the danger that Pakistan is also being dragged into this whirlpool.

But the slide into barbarism went furthest in Georgia.

Once again, the Caucasus was aflame. At the moment that Bush and Putin were taking part in the opening of the Olympics, so-called symbol of peace and reconciliation between nations, the Georgian president Saakashvili, the protégé of the White House, and the Russian bourgeoisie, were engaged in a grim massacre.

This war between Russia and Georgia resulted in a veritable ethnic cleansing on each side, with several thousand deaths, mainly among the civilian population.

As ever, it was the local populations (whether Russian, Ossetian, Abkhazian or Georgian) who were taken hostage by all the national factions of the ruling class.

On both sides, the same scenes of killing and horror. Throughout Georgia, the number of refugees, stripped of everything they owned, went up to 115,000 in one week.

And, as in all wars, each camp accused the other of being responsible for the outbreak of hostilities. 

But the responsibility for this new war and these new massacres does not only lie with the most direct protagonists. The other states who are now shedding hypocritical tears about the fate of Georgia have their hands soaked with blood from the worst kinds of atrocities, whether we're talking about the US in Iraq, France in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, or Germany, which, by backing the secession of Slovenia and Croatia, helped unleash the terrible war in ex-Yugoslavia in 1992.

And if today the US is sending warships to the Caucasus region, in the name of ‘humanitarian aid', it's certainly not out of any concern for human life, but simply to defend its interests as an imperialist vulture.

Are we heading towards a third world war?

The most striking thing about the conflict in the Caucasus is the increasing military tensions between the great powers. The two former bloc leaders, Russia and the US, once again find themselves in a dangerous head-to-head: the US Navy destroyers that have come with ‘food aid' for Georgia are only a short distance away from the Russian naval base of Gudauta in Abkhazia and the port of Poti which is occupied by Russian tanks.

This is all very nerve-wracking and we can legitimately pose a number of questions. What is the aim of this war? Will it unleash a third world war?

Since the collapse of the eastern bloc, the Caucasus region has been an important geostrategic prize between the great powers. The present conflict has been building up for some time. The Georgian president, an unconditional Washington partisan, inherited a state which from its inception in 1991 had been supported by the US as a bridgehead for Bush Senior's ‘New World Order'.

If Putin, by laying a trap for Saakashvili, into which he duly fell, used the occasion to re-establish his authority in the Caucasus, this was in response to the encirclement of Russian by NATO forces which had already been in operation since 1991.

Since the collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989, Russia has been more and more isolated, especially since a number of former eastern bloc countries (like Poland) joined NATO.

But the encirclement became intolerable for Moscow when Ukraine and Georgia also asked to join NATO. 

Above all, Russia could not accept the plan to set up an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow knew perfectly well that behind this NATO programme, supposedly directed against Iran, Russia itself was the real target.

The Russian offensive against Georgia is in fact Moscow's first attempt at breaking the encirclement.

Russia has taken advantage of the fact that the US (whose military forces are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan) had its hands tied in order to launch a military counter-offensive in the Caucasus, not so long after re-establishing its authority, at considerable cost, in the murderous wars in Chechnya.

However, despite the worsening of military tensions between Russia and the USA, the perspective of a third world war is not on the agenda.

There are today no constituted imperialist blocs, no stable military alliances, as was the case with the two world wars of the 20th century or the Cold War.

By the same token, the face-off between the US and Russia does not mean that we are entering a new Cold War. There's no going back and history is not repeating itself.

In contrast to the dynamic of imperialist tensions between the great powers during the Cold War, this new head-to-head between Russia and the US is marked by the tendency towards ‘every man for himself', towards the dislocation of alliances, characteristic of the phase of the decomposition of the capitalist system.

Thus the ‘ceasefire' in Georgia can only legitimate the victory of the masters of the Kremlin and Russia's superiority on the military level, involving a humiliating capitulation by Georgia to the conditions dictated by Moscow.

And Georgia's ‘patron', the US, has also suffered a major reverse here. While Georgia has already paid a heavy price for its allegiance to the US (a contingent of 2000 troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan), in return Uncle Sam has been able to offer no more than moral support to its ally, issuing vain and purely verbal condemnations of Russia without being to raise a finger of practical help. 

But the most significant aspect of this weakening of US leadership resides in the fact that the White House had to swallow the ‘European' plan for a ceasefire - worse still, this was a plan dictated by Moscow.

While the USA's impotence was evident, Europe's role shows the level that ‘every man for himself' has reached. Faced with the paralysis of the US, European diplomacy swung into action, led by French president Sarkozy who once again represented no one but himself in all his comings and goings, following a policy that was entirely short-term and devoid of any coherence.

Europe once again looked like a basket of crabs with everyone in it pursuing diametrically opposed interests. There was not an ounce of unity in its ranks: on the one side you had Poland and the Baltic states, fervent defenders of Georgia (because they suffered over half a century of Russian domination and have much to fear in a revival of the latter's imperialist ambitions) and on the other side you had Germany, which was one of the most fervent opponents of Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, above all because it wants to block the development of American influence in this region.

But the most fundamental reason that the great powers can't unleash a third world war lies in the balance of forces between the two main social classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Unlike the periods which preceded the two world wars, the working class of the most decisive capitalist countries, notably in Europe and America, is not ready to serve as cannon fodder and sacrifice itself on the altar of capital.

With the return of the permanent crisis of capitalism at the end of the 1960s and the historic resurgence of the proletariat, a new course towards class confrontations was opened up: in the most important capitalist countries the ruling class can no longer mobilise millions of workers behind the defence of the national flag.

However, although the conditions for a third world war have not come together, we should not at all underestimate the gravity of the present historical situation.

The war in Georgia has increased the risk of destabilisation, of things running out of control, not only on the regional level, but also on the world level, where it will have inevitable implications for the balance of imperialist forces in the future. The ‘peace plan' is just a mirage. It contains all the ingredients of a new and dangerous military escalation, threatening to create a series of explosive points from the Caucasus to the Middle East.  

With the oil and gas of the Caspian Sea or the central Asian countries, some of which are Turkish-speaking, the interests of Iran and Turkey are also involved in this region, but the whole world is also part of the conflict. Thus, one of the objectives of the USA and the western European countries in supporting a Georgia independent from Moscow is to deprive Russia of the monopoly of Caspian Sea oil supplies towards the west via the BTC pipeline (from the name Baku in Azerbaijan, Tbilissi in Georgia and Ceyhan in Turkey). These are thus the major strategic stakes in this region. And the big imperialist brigands can all the more easily use people as cannon fodder in the Caucasus given that the region is a mosaic of different ethnicities. This makes it easy to fan the nationalist flames of war.

At the same time, Russia's past as a dominant power still exerts a very heavy weight and contains the threat of even more serious imperialist tensions. This is what lies behind the disquiet of the Baltic states, and above all of Ukraine which is a military power of quite another stature compared to Georgia and has its hands on a nuclear arsenal.

Thus, although the perspective is not of a third world war, the dynamic of ‘everyman for himself' is just as much the expression of the murderous folly of capitalism: this moribund system could, in its decomposition, lead to the destruction of humanity by plunging it into bloody chaos.

In the face of all this chaos and military barbarism, the historical alternative is more than ever ‘socialism or barbarism', world communist revolution or the destruction of humanity. Peace is impossible in capitalism; capitalism carries war within itself. And the only future for humanity lies in the proletarian struggle for the overthrow of capitalism.

But this perspective can only become concrete if the workers refuse to serve as cannon-fodder for the interests of their exploiters, and firmly reject nationalism.

Everywhere the working class must put into practice the old slogan of the workers' movement: ‘The workers have no country. Workers of all countries unite!'

In the face of the massacre of populations and the unleashing of military barbarism, it's obvious that the proletariat cannot remain indifferent. It has to show its solidarity with its class brothers in the countries at war, first of all by refusing to support one camp against the other, and secondly by developing its own struggles against its own exploiters in all countries. This is the only way it can really fight against capitalism and prepare the ground for its overthrow and for the construction of a new society without national frontiers and wars.  

RI 27/9/8

After the murderous confrontations in Georgia in August, bourgeois propaganda, notably in Europe, has been reassuring us that our governments are doing all they can to find a peaceful solution in the Caucasus. To prove their good intentions, we have the current humanitarian operations, with American and NATO warships transporting food and medicine to the Georgian population. In response to the questions asked about why this humanitarian aid is being taken by warships instead of merchant ships, our good democrats invoke the malevolent presence of the Russian navy which is occupying the Georgian coast. No doubt the Russians are ready to defend the territory they have conquered, but we can have reason to doubt the ‘humanist' sincerity of the US and NATO forces who have sent a veritable armada to the Black Sea.

This force is made up of no less than seven NATO warships (three American, one Spanish, one German, one Polish and one flying the NATO flag) which have been deployed to all the key points of the Black Sea. The American hydrographic warship USNS Pathfinder is capable of detecting submarines at a distance of over 100km; the missile carrier McFaul is equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles which can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads (we saw their terrifying firepower during the first Gulf War in 1991); and the flagship Mount Whitney of the American 6th Fleet is a craft equipped with the most sophisticated communication and surveillance systems in the world. It's the orchestral conductor of this so-called peaceful and humanitarian operation.

Such a deployment of military forces obviously has nothing altruistic or philanthropic about it. Its real objective is to "evaluate the state of the Georgian armed forces" and, as the US Senate's mission in Georgia underlined, "The US will provide assistance to the Georgian armed forces by providing them with the most modern anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons, and by continuing to train their troops" .

Clearly, ‘humanitarian aid' is a smokescreen for the transportation of deadly weapons and the strengthening of the Georgian army. All this prefigures America's response to the reverse it has just suffered through the invasion of its Georgian ally by the Russian army last August and the latter's recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This so-called humanitarian operation contains all the ingredients for a new and dangerous escalation of war over ex-Soviet Central Asia, a zone of immense importance, whether because of the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea or its geo-strategic position in relation to Russia, China and India.

The populations who are the victims of these military rivalries have nothing to gain from this militarised humanitarian aid. Like previous ‘peacekeeping interventions' (Somalia 1992, Bosnia 1993, Rwanda 1994 and a whole list of others - Kosovo, Darfur, Congo, Palestine....) humanitarian aid is a cynical alibi for war, the indispensable complement to all the speechifying about peace served up by imperialist states, large or small, in order to defend their interests.  

Daniel 26/9/8 

On 21 September the Marriott hotel in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, was all but gutted by a suicide bomb attack. More than 50 people were killed including US state department officials. Within 48 hours the BBC was reporting that US officials had ‘..vowed to redouble their efforts in fighting extremism..' whilst at the same time noting that this vow had come during heightened tensions between the two, formerly staunch, allies on the so-called war on terror. Just a few days later there was news of two other attacks on the same day "Police said they averted a major attack today on Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, by raiding the hideout of a group suspected of planning an attack on a high-profile target in the area. Three men blew themselves up. The explosions killed a hostage they had been holding for several months, police said. The man is thought to have been a supplier of fuel and goods to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Explosives, suicide jackets, guns and grenades were found, police said. ‘Police definitely averted a big attack from happening in this city,' said Babar Khattak, the head of Sindh police. In a separate incident, a bomb blast derailed a train in Punjab province, killing three people and wounding 15 others." (Guardian 26/9/8)

Pakistan was first described as ‘the most dangerous place in the world' by Bill Clinton, a designation that has stuck - quite something when you look at the map and see that its neighbours include Afghanistan and Iran! Given that the Islamabad government has no control over huge border areas, and the increasing dangerousness of everyday life, we can see the real descent into barbarism. That it has been degenerating into daily violence - bomb attacks, shootings and their subsequent reprisals - should come as no surprise. The ‘war on terror' has, in reality, meant ‘more war and more terror'. Far from combating terrorism the US-led war has greatly exacerbated the situation in this part of the world.

This is now spilling over to Pakistan with an increasing number of cross-border assaults by the US military, much to the anger of the Pakistani bourgeoisie. Just days after jointly vowing to fight terrorism, Pakistani and US troops came into conflict along the Afghan border "Pakistan has warned US troops not to intrude on its territory after US and Pakistani ground forces exchanged fire along the border with Afghanistan. The incident began after Pakistani troops fired on US helicopters they believed had encroached their airspace.... ‘Just as we will not let Pakistan's territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our neighbours, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our friends,' (Pakistani Prime Minister) Zardari said."

Partly in response to this escalating situation Zardari has appointed a new head of the ISI (Pakistani secret service) "The appointment of Lieutenant General Ahmed Shujaa Pasha as head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency was part of a leadership shake-up. In his position as director general of military operations, Pasha oversaw offensives in the Taliban and al-Qaida north-western stronghold. Some observers say ISI elements may still be aiding the Taliban to retain them as assets against India" (Guardian 1/10/9).

The problem remains, both for the US and Pakistani bourgeoisie, with different factions having different interests. Within the ISI, as hinted above, there are strong pro-Taliban factions who will do their best to subvert US military operations. Within the US there are factions which distrust Pakistan and want the freedom to chase the Taliban across the Afghan border. For example, Democratic nominee Barack Obama "...has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaida in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent" (BBC news online). Given the tensions between nuclear armed Pakistan and India, over ongoing murderous bombing campaigns and the unresolved disaster of Kashmiri ‘independence', capitalism's perspective for the region is for greater unrest and the spread of chaos.  

Graham 03/10/08

This review of a new book that contains damning evidence against the idea of World War Two as a ‘Good War' is by a close sympathiser of the ICC.

The title of the book Human Smoke - The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilisation refers to a Nazi officer's description of the debris of humanity falling from the sky from where it was sent through the chimneys of the ovens in the concentration camps. The book, written by Nicholson Baker and published by Simon and Schuster, has an interesting narrative that mostly includes sections of newspaper and magazine articles, radio pieces, memoirs, diaries, state directives and documents.  It begins in the 1920s, with Winston Churchill's new enemy the "sinister confederacy" of international Jewry and, a few years later, his welcoming of Signor Mussolini to anti-Bolshevism, where "Italian fascism had demonstrated that there was a way to combat subversive forces...".  It covers the period up to the end of 1941 with Churchill in Ottawa telling its parliament that the "Hun" would be "cast into the pit of death and shame... and only when the earth has been cleansed and purged of their crimes and of their villainies will we turn from the task which they have forced upon us".

Nicholson is apparently a pacifist and he uses many quotes from Gandhi and the Quakers. The whole period outlined shows not only the complete inability of pacifism to stop imperialist war, but how, in the end, it eventually supports one side against another. Even so, for the hard evidence involved against the victor's version of the Second World War, the book is an eye-opener on the complicity of democracy in genocide and some of the greatest mass murders in history. First though it's necessary to outline a marxist framework for the whole period.

Fascism: product of capitalist counter-revolution

In June1931, two years before the council communist Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested in front of the burning Reichstag, Hitler said in an interview, that the building looked like a synagogue and the sooner it was burnt down "the sooner the German people will be free from foreign influences". The democratic accession to power of Hitler in 1933 marked a decisive victory for the forces of counter-revolution; the rise of fascism to power was the product of the proletariat's defeat and not its cause. Fascism and democracy are two sides of the same coin. The barbarity of the Nazi regime and its Holocaust wasn't a monstrous accident, the product of "evil" or of a few deranged minds, but an outcome of decadent capitalism and this barbarity was equalled by democracy in all its horror, cynicism, lies and crimes against humanity. The crushing of the German revolution around 1918-23 was the first major act of the capitalist counter-revolution. Hitler's original power base, the SA had its roots in the counter-revolutionary Freikorps which, a decade earlier, assassinated thousands of communist militants in Germany in the name of Social Democracy.

What German capital expressed through its embrace of fascism wasn't an aberration based on this or that so-called national characteristic, but the fundamental need of nationalism, all nationalisms, to carve out a bigger slice of the world for themselves at the expense of their rivals: "War becomes the only means for each national capital to try to extricate itself from its difficulties, at the expense of rival imperialist states" (Gauche Communiste de France 14.7.45, quoted in International Review no. 78, ‘50 Years of Imperialist Lies'). Given the particularities of German capital at that time, the defeat of German imperialist power in WWI and the defeat of the revolutionary wave in that country, fascism was a particular form of state capitalism that was born of German imperialism and western democracy. It took a brutal form but in essence its state capitalism was part of a worldwide phenomenon affecting all the major capitalist countries. Like the USA, Britain and France, Germany embarked on programmes of public works and welfare but with its proletariat crushed, the centralised German state apparatus oriented the economy directly towards war. After the decisive defeat of the working class in Germany, Jews and other minorities became the scapegoats of the Nazi regime and the latter's characterisation of them, "cosmopolitan blood-suckers", was essentially shared by the democratic regimes of Britain, France, Russia and America, particularly in relation to the connection they all made between Jewry, internationalism and marxism.

The democracies arm Hitler

The ‘democracies' didn't have very much to say about the Nazi concentration camps at the time that they were being built and put to use; they certainly did nothing to put them out of action or assist their condemned and miserable inmates during the worst of times; but directly after WWII the Allies, for whom the proletariat was still a major concern, developed a whole propaganda campaign regarding the concentration camps. This massive campaign, which persists today from infant school to the grave, allowed the Allies to hide their own murderous crimes, complicities and genocides and to vaunt the moral superiority of victorious democracy.

Churchill and Roosevelt were both anti-Jewish, as were the regimes that they represented; and both slammed their doors to Jewish immigration from Germany throughout. Apart from vaguely looking at real estate for Jewish settlements in inhospitable parts of Latin American and Africa (where they would share the terrain with Tsetse Flies and various forms of plague), both governments did nothing to increase quotas of Jewish refugees. The tales of the concentration camps of Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachenhausen, though not yet fully operational, were known to both governments by 1938, as was the murder of workers and the treatment of Jews and other minorities prior to that.  In Britain in 1940, thousands of Jewish refugees between 16 and 60 were rounded up by soldiers with fixed bayonets and taken to detention camps. The age was later increased to 70 where they were met with "deplorable and disgraceful" conditions, according to Lord Lytton (22.8.40). In May of that year, a thousand CID officers rounded up "enemy aliens", ie, several thousand women workers of German and Austrian origins and their children, and sent them to the Isle of Man. Eleven thousand, mostly Jews, were held in detention facilities. At the Mooragh camp on the island some Jews published a newspaper that said that the war of liberation of Western civilisation had begun "by imprisoning the most embittered enemies of its own enemies". The British authorities shut the paper down.

In the lead-up to war, in building up Adolf Hitler as their policeman of Europe, the west provided his gangsters not just with the small arms needed to begin its reign of terror, but heavier, more deadly equipment. In 1934, the French arms supplier Schneider supplied tanks to Germany. The British company Vickers provided bombers and other arms, as did Boeing. US manufacturers were selling Germany crankshafts, cylinder heads and control systems for anti-aircraft guns. The Sperry Corporation shared patents with Germany on bombsights and gyroscopic stabilisers and BMW brought Pratt and Whitney engines. The USA, like Britain, also sold ‘non-military' guns and ammunition to Germany.

Starvation and terror bombing as weapons of democracy

In the dance of death leading up to the outbreak of war, and to some extent during its first year or so, all the combatants tried to paint themselves as victims of the other. Hitler said early on: "We will not make the mistake of 1914. We now have to lay the blame on our enemy".

"No matter how much it has successfully prepared the population for war on the ideological level, the bourgeoisie in decadence cloaks its imperialist wars in the myth of victimisation and self-defence against aggression and tyranny. The reality of modern warfare, with its massive destruction and death, with all the facets of barbarism that it unleashes on humanity, is so dire, so horrific, that even an ideologically defeated proletariat does not march off to slaughter lightly. The bourgeoisie relies heavily on manipulating reality to create the illusion that it is a victim of aggression, with no choice but to fight back in self-defence"  (IR. 108, ‘The Machiavellianism of the Bourgeoisie'). The defence of the national capital, common to the imperialist thrusts of both fascism and democracy, has to cloak itself in the mantle of victim; and for democracy that meant acting the "peace lovers" against tyranny and expansionism. We can see the same game of imperialism being played out today by the west over the events in Georgia. The book amply confirms the provocations of the democracies, Britain and America in particular, in the words and policies of their own regimes, towards both Germany and Japan, in order to appear the wronged party and brainwash their own populations to support and fight for their own imperialist aims.

From the forgery of the Zinoviev letter days before the British election of 1924 (very likely written by himself), to his opinion of being "... strongly in favour of using poisoned gas on uncivilised tribes", step forward the man of the British bourgeoisie, Winston Churchill. Added to what we already know of this expression of barbarism, Baker's book is damning. In order to pursue what was being called ‘the people's war' the whole policy of Churchill on behalf of his putrid class was to murder as many workers and civilians as possible. With its naval superiority, British imperialism enforced a food blockade on mainland Europe. It affected all the German occupied parts, including Belgium (‘plucky little Belgium' of World War I), Holland, Poland, Greece, Norway and others. Ex-US President Herbert Hoover proposed lifting the blockade, but the starvation of men, women and children was the policy of Churchill and his Ministry of Economic Affairs. Hoover wrote: "When Churchill succeeded Chamberlain... he soon stopped all permits of food to Poland" with the result of bodies lying on the streets of Warsaw and the death rate of children ten times higher than the birth rate. In a speech to the House of Commons, August 1940, on why he was refusing requests to lift the blockade, Churchill said: "Fats make bombs and potatoes make synthetic fuel". He added: "The plastics used now so largely in the construction of aircraft are made of milk"! Refusing to let the Red Cross food ships deliver even the smallest amount of milk to France led the French to call Churchill "the famisher". The blockade went on. In the German-occupied territories lived forty million children. How many hundreds and thousands, possibly millions of these vulnerable children died of disease, malnutrition or starvation? The British bourgeoisie certainly wasn't keeping count and the general information that Baker gives comes from the Quakers. Add to this the old, the sick, pregnant women and it must have been millions.  Hoover called this a "holocaust" years before the word was give a capital letter and applied exclusively to the abomination of the Nazi death camps.

The starvation of civilians wasn't the only policy of the British bourgeoisie; there was also the deliberate bombing of civilians overseen by the arch-terrorist Churchill. There were two aims to the saturation bombing of civilians by the Royal Air Force: one was to provoke a response to the increasingly devastating carnage, ie, to get Luftwaffe to bomb British working class areas in retaliation thus pulling the population behind the bourgeoisie - a ploy that largely succeeded. And secondly, the aim was to kill, maim and terrorise as many German civilians as possible - the primary aim wasn't industry or the war machine. Very early on in the war, the RAF were dropping bombs on working class areas and then coming back to strafe with machine guns the firemen trying to put out the blazes. The British Air Ministry produced a new policy report on bombing, 24.4.41: "It is only possible to obtain satisfactory results by the ‘Blitz' attack on large working class and industrial areas of the towns". An appendix concluded, "delayed action bombs should make up 10% of the tonnage dropped". Previous head of the RAF, Lord ‘Boom' Trenchard, said the way forward was to drop more tonnage where most people live, so that fewer bombs would be wasted. Charles Portal, Head of the RAF, agreed. Head of Bomber Command, Richard Peirse gave these orders on 5.7.41: "(destroy) the morale of the civilian population as a whole, and of the industrial workers in particular". Churchill called for the "largest quantity of bombs per night" and the RAF started night bombing.

Baker's book looks at other interesting areas notably the disgust of many Germans of the treatment of the Jews. The were demonstrations in Bremen and Baker reports that the population were so disgusted in Berlin that "the Nazis found it necessary to distribute handbills saying that the Jews were to blame for everything". The handbills added that anyone being friendly to Jews committed treason. There are reports of Germans showing politeness and civility to elderly Jews wearing their yellow badges on public transport. The Gestapo was sufficiently concerned to inform all its branches that "persons of German blood continue to maintain friendly relations with Jews and appear with them in public in a blatant fashion". The answer was terror: make and publicise examples by sending both Germans and Jews involved to concentration camps.

Baker's well-researched book, covering the build-up and the first two years of WWII, amply confirms the marxist position that both fascism and anti-fascism are two sides of the same imperialist coin.  

Baboon, 20/9/8

Despite the nationalisation of Northern Rock in Britain, the US government rescue of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG and encouragement of Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch, the British government's intervention to ensure Lloyds TSB took over HBOS, and the intervention of the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the central Banks of Japan and other countries with hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up the money markets, there are still people who say that state intervention is not integral to the way capitalism functions, indeed, that the increasing role of the state is part of the move towards socialism.

From the Right, a Republican senator from Kentucky was able to say of Bush's proposed $700bn rescue package "It's a financial socialism and it's un-American" and, from the Left, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Guardian 17/9/8): "To think that the biggest neo-liberal nation in the world would start nationalising banks ... we're rubbing our eyes in disbelief."

There's no disbelief for marxists. Since the First World War revolutionaries have seen that the state has an essential role to play not just in times of war and open economic crisis, but as a permanent feature of decadent capitalism. And that socialism can only come through the revolutionary struggle of the working class, which has to destroy the capitalist state.

Yet left-wingers feed the myth that the state can be an organ of protection and planning. George Monbiot (Guardian ibid) cast his mind back to the 1930s: "A Keynesian solution along the lines of Roosevelt's New Deal could deliver many of the things that the left is calling for - more public spending, more training and education." In reality, the New Deal in the US was, like fascism in Germany and Italy, and Stalinism in the USSR, just a particular expression of a universal tendency for state intervention in the economy and of the preparations for war.

Trotskyists give their ‘critical' support to this process. The SWP (to take a typical example) said that although "The solutions Keynesian economists propose now are only partial. Many are ideas socialists would support, such as nationalising industries" (Socialist Worker 13/8/8). At the time of the Bear Stearns bailout the SWP thought that "To reshape society in a socialist direction it is necessary to take control of ... corporations and coordinate their investment decisions (5/4/8)" Certainly they say that "Recession is built into capitalism and state intervention cannot eliminate it" (13/9/8) and that "All too often the supporters of socialism, as well as its enemies, identify socialism with state ownership" (20/9/8). But they still go on to say "Socialists support nationalisation if it's used to protect jobs. We oppose privatisation of public services because it means less public accountability" (ibid). Here you see the idea of ‘protection', as if the capitalist state was neutral and could be used for the benefit of workers as much as the bourgeoisie. The ‘accountability' comes through something they call ‘workers' control'.

In Socialist Worker (ibid) they say that "workers' control has reappeared again and again", giving examples of Spain 1936, France 1968, Poland 1980, Hungary 1956, Portugal 1974, and recently in Argentina. There is the qualification that "under capitalism workers' control can only go so far. There cannot be socialism in a single country and certainly no socialism in a single workplace. Even if workers take over their factory, they will eventually end up competing on the market and thus organising their own exploitation." In fact, as the examples cited all show, ‘workers' control' can't even go "so far". As soon as workers in struggle occupy their place of work they have the choice of whether to ‘organise their own exploitation' or use it as a moment in the development of the struggle, as a place for discussion, as a base toward the extension of the fight to other workers.

Nationalisation, whether ‘under workers' control' or not, is not a goal or a means of workers' struggles - it is one expression of state capitalism. Self-managed exploitation is a trap, no alternative to spreading the fight. Car 24/9/8

Contribution from a sympathiser which examines the background to the convulsions shaking the world economy and the way they may develop in the period ahead.

The recent economic crisis began with the explosion of the ‘sub-prime' mortgage market in the US and has been jolting the world economy with aftershocks ever since. The bourgeoisie has mobilised the full resources of the state, intervening on a global scale, in an effort to contain the crisis of the financial system which, if left to itself, would most likely have imploded.

Unfortunately, although the strategy has managed to prevent a complete rout of the financial apparatus, the crisis has not been resolved. In terms of surface phenomena, the shockwaves have now rippled through every sector of the world economy. It now seems certain, even in a best case scenario, that the world economy will experience a sharp slowdown with individual countries being more or worse hit depending on their specific economic weaknesses. And, for Marxists, it goes without saying that the strategies of the bourgeoisie have done nothing to counter the underlying systemic contradictions of a decadent capitalist economy.

Nonetheless, as with all previous crises, history cannot stand still. The crises of the 70s gave birth to ‘Thatcherism' and ‘Reaganomics'. The crises of the 80s led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and the development of ‘globalisation'. We are now standing on the cusp of a new period in the unfolding drama of decadent capitalism. It is impossible to see the exact form which capitalism will evolve in the coming period but it seems possible to trace two major tendencies that will undoubtedly impact on that evolution.

The historic decline of the US ...

The process of US decline has been an incipient worry for that bourgeoisie ever since the 70s, when the economic crisis reasserted itself exacerbated by the US's entanglement in Vietnam. Increasing commercial competition from Japan and the impact of the crisis at home, led to talk of ‘imperial overstretch' - the worry that the US would be unable to meet its strategic military commitments with the decline in its economic performance.

The policy of containing the Soviet Union, most closely associated with the Reagan administration, and the increased military spending of this period appeared to demonstrate that these worries were for nothing. In fact, the Western bloc suffered enormous drains on its resources which were overcome only by new mechanisms of deficit spending which allowed the great powers to square the circle to some extent, even if it only put off the day of reckoning.

The US was able, through mechanisms such as the IMF and the World Bank, to co-ordinate the response to the crisis to some extent. Even after the break-up of the US military bloc, the US was able to maintain its economic dominance through these mechanisms and also through its position as the ‘world locomotive'.

Today, the US's capacity to continue in this role is becoming visibly weaker. The ‘Washington Consensus' - a global strategy based on neo-liberalism and massive debt - is now lying in tatters. Not only has the US been severely wounded by the current crisis, its financial apparatus has been forced to go to its former subordinates in the Middle and Far East for hand-outs in order to maintain the stability of its banking system. Although this has been successful up to a point, it represents a long-term weakening of the US's global economic position and a transfer of power to these smaller financial players. The continuing current account deficit is also a sign of this long-term weakening, because it depends on other players in the world economy to essentially fund American consumption. This was possible while the US provided the world reserve currency, but the US's current fiscal policy, which has flooded the world with cheap dollars, is now causing the economies of China and India to dangerously overheat. US decline will more and more put the dollar into question.

... Leads to the break-up of the world economy

The use of the dollar as the world's reserve currency has been a lynchpin of global economic strategy since the Second World War. The collapse of Bretton Woods in the 70s was simply the first step in the unravelling of this policy even though it did, initially, allow the US and the world economy to prevent an immediate collapse. Moreover, the bourgeoisie worldwide made conscious efforts to resist any effort to return to the ‘beggar-thy-neighbour' policies of the 30s which not only failed to resolve the crisis but also provided fertile ground for the drive to war.

Today, as American authority continues to unravel, this consensus is beginning to break down. The first signs of a new phase of American weakness were signposted several years ago when the ‘developing nations' became much more assertive in the world trade talks. The new crisis has put protectionism firmly back on the agenda both in the US and internationally. The Doha Round of trade talks has still failed to reach agreement, despite being in progress since 2001! In addition, the apparent stability of the Euro as compared to the dollar will undoubtedly shift the balance of financial power back toward Europe.

However, even the Euro area will have problems due to the pressures created by the differing economic performance of the member states. Supporters point out that the US has the same problem with the dollar and the varying regions of the United States, but the various US states have a history of unity far longer than Europe and don't have developed regional bourgeoisies in the way that the European Union does. There are thus very powerful centrifugal forces threatening the integrity of the Euro that can only be exacerbated by the current crisis, particularly if it proves to be long-term.

Another step into the abyss

The exact pace that these tendencies will work out their logic in the world economy is impossible to foresee. For the moment, despite enormous pressures, the bourgeoisie is aware of the stakes in the current situation and its more lucid segments will do everything in their power to prevent such a disintegration taking place. Nonetheless, it seems possible that we could have reached a point that will have as crucial repercussions in the world economy as the collapse of the Eastern bloc had nearly 20 years ago. They also demonstrate clearly the growing impasse of the entire capitalist system. So far, the world economy has not suffered the spectacular effects of decomposition that have been visible in the social and political spheres. If the economic sphere begins to disintegrate, then all the other self-destructive tendencies of decomposing capitalism will be unleashed on a new and unprecedented scale.

The only solution to this growing threat to human civilisation is the conscious dismantling of capitalist society and its replacement with one based on truly human values. The bourgeoisie cannot entertain this as an option while the other classes in society have no alternative vision. Only the working class, the revolutionary proletariat, can destroy this rotting system before it destroys humanity.  

Silver (1/10/8)

Readers will have seen that with this issue of World Revolution both the cover price and subscription charges to our press have increased. Such an increase is dictated by the ever-rising costs of producing our press and distributing it all over the world. The decision to raise the price was not taken lightly; indeed this is the first increase in over a decade (see WR 197). But we know that buying a communist publication is itself a political act, and buying it regularly already expresses a certain commitment to the cause that it defends. We are therefore confident that our readers will not only understand the financial necessities involved, but actively support the development of our press. We urge comrades to continue, or begin, to subscribe to the revolutionary press and where able take extra copies to sell. Although the price of the subscription barely covers our costs it allows our organisation to husband its resources in order to intervene more effectively in the class struggle. Payment of the subscription is a direct expression of support for, and defence of, communist positions. Please help us with this work.

We end this appeal with a statement from the pages of Bilan, which has never been more appropriate:

"Once again, we are calling for the support of all our readers. Our press can only live if it gets the support of all those communists who understand the necessity for an intense effort of political clarification. Let every militant help us distribute Bilan and make the necessary financial effort of subscriptions and donations. Our fraction has always known perfectly well that the regular publication of the review would require substantial funds relative to its resources but we have based ourselves on the spirit of sacrifice of all those militants who feel the gravity of the present situation, and who are ready for the enormous effort of understanding that is demanded if we are to prepare for the struggles of tomorrow.

 

Let our readers help us then, by sending donations and by helping us distribute the press".

WR 4/10/8

We are publishing here a statement by one of our contacts in the Dominican Republic after the hurricanes which devastated neighbouring Haiti, leaving several thousand victims. It very rightly denounces the primary responsibility of capitalism in the sombre balance-sheet of catastrophes which have little that is ‘natural' about them.

At the end of August, beginning of September, Haiti, the poorest country in the Americas, was hit by the hurricanes Gustav and Hannah, leaving over a thousand recorded dead and thousands more disappeared, hurt or homeless. This tragedy is, as usual, being used by the ruling class to call for reconciliation between the classes and ‘humanitarian aid'.

You can make all the fine speeches you want, but the only force guilty for all these deaths is capitalism, first and foremost as the material author because it is responsible for the environmental crisis (see ‘The ecological crisis: real menace or myth' in WR 317); and, in the concrete case of Haiti, because it has been the victim of the pillage carried out by the great capitalist powers. They have brought about the deforestation of this part of the ‘Island of Hispaniola'[1], drying out the rivers and transforming their former riverbeds into settlements for a deprived population of workers, unemployed and poor peasants, who built their huts and barracks there, all of which were swept away when the channels once again became rivers swollen by torrential rain.

Decadent capitalism in Haiti has taken such a clear form that other nations refer to it as a ‘failed state', a country where a whole mass of people have no choice but to take to the sea in flimsy boats and head towards the Dominican side of the island or the US to sell their labour power. And there these workers often become victims of nationalist xenophobia; if the bourgeoisie isn't satisfied with robbing their labour, it robs them of everything else by using its immigration laws to chuck them out of the country.

How is it possible that so much is invested in military coups, guerrilla wars, armed invasions like the one carried out by MINUSTAB[2], which included troops from a whole range of countries (Peru, Chile, Nicaragua, Brazil, some of these claiming to be ‘socialist') and that all this money is never used to avoid tragedies like the ones provoked by Gustav and Hannah? Only the collective action of the proletariat of all countries, and, in the present case and as a beginning, the proletariat of the whole island of Hispaniola, can face up to capitalism which for years has had nothing to offer but crises and wars, to which we can now add climatic catastrophes.

Vi.

Workers of all countries, unite!

Internationalist Discussion Nucleus, Dominican Republic

---

[1] Hispaniola is the old name for the entire island, today divided between Haiti, a former French colony, and the Dominican Republic, a former Spanish colony

[2] Name of the ‘stabilising' mission of UN troops in Haiti

This is a report on the recent congress of our section in France, looking back at the developments in the class struggle and the activity of revolutionaries since the events of May 1968.

This Congress took place at a very symbolic moment in the history of the world wide class struggle. It coincided with the 40th anniversary of the ‘events' (to use the media term) of May 1968 - actually the biggest strike in the history of the international workers' movement, a movement which marked the historic revival of the proletarian struggle on a world scale after four decades of counter-revolution. What's more, our section in France also celebrated the 40th anniversary of its foundation, because it was in the wake of the events, indeed even before the return to work had been completed, that the small group Revolution Internationale was set up: along with 5 other groups, RI was to be involved in the constitution of the ICC in 1975. The formation of our international organisation was by no means a chance event. It was the crystallisation of a whole process of reflection that was going on in the working class as it returned to the path of massive struggles[1].

What has become of the great hopes raised by May 68? How has capitalist society, the struggles of the working class, and the revolutionary movement evolved since then? The 18th Congress of RI had to respond to these questions and in doing so open up its reflections to the whole of the working class and the proletarian political milieu.

From 1968 to today, what has been the evolution of the living conditions of the working class?

As we wrote in World Revolution no 316, in the article ‘May 68, the international significance of the general strike in France': "If the whole of the working class of this country launched itself into a general strike, it's because all its sectors had begun to be hit by the economic crisis which, in 1968, was only at its inception, a crisis that wasn't ‘French' but of the whole capitalist world". The attacks on wages, jobs or benefits that the workers in France were beginning to experience were expressions of what was going on in all the main capitalist countries. The world economic crisis had returned to centre stage after several decades of respite. The period described by the ruling class as the ‘economic miracle' or the ‘Thirty Glorious Years', which had begun soon after the end of the Second World War, was coming to an end. However, at that time, the bourgeoisie was still a long way from having used up all the mechanisms at its disposal for dealing with, or rather slowing down the aggravation of its mortal economic crisis. We have now had more than 40 years of the capitalist system sinking inexorably into this crisis.

At the end of the 1920s and during the 1930s, capitalist society also went through a major outbreak of its economic crisis. Since then the bourgeoisie has learned a good deal and in particular it has found ways of attenuating and postponing the most devastating effects of the crisis. But this does not mean at all that it possesses the means to overcome the contradictions inherent in its system and which are at work deep in the very fibres of this society. This is why the discussions at this Congress highlighted the fact that while in May 68 the bourgeoisie had the means to face up to the first manifestations of the crisis, it is very different today. All these means, all the palliatives have to a large extent been used up today. It emerged clearly from our discussions that the world economic crisis was entering into a new phase, into new and profound convulsions on a far greater scale than anything seen since 1968. In 1968 many sectors of the working class were suffering from the first serious attacks on their living standards, resulting in a first great wave of discontent in numerous countries. The far more serious economic situation today is bringing with it a series of much wider and deeper attacks than in the late 60s. Above all, since 1968, these attacks have become general across the entire planet. Thus we are seeing the development of the conditions for a more powerful and generalised social discontent. 

Since 1968, the long and difficult development of the class struggle

After 1968 and throughout the 1970s and 80s, through successive waves of struggle, the hopes and perspectives raised by the massive movement in France in 1968 were confirmed and reinforced. But the evolution of the class struggle has been permanently confronted with all the traps and manoeuvres deployed by the world bourgeoisie, which is united against the class struggle in spite of all its commercial and imperialist rivalries, and which had been caught by surprise in 1968. The hardest blow received by the working class consisted of the massive, worldwide ideological campaigns launched by the bourgeoisie around the theme of the ‘death of communism' following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and of the ‘Soviet' bloc in 1989. According to the ruling class, this showed that communism had failed lamentably and that capitalism, for all its faults, had proved its crushing superiority. Any idea that communist revolution was possible, or even that the working class could play any role in society, was thus buried under an avalanche of lies. The result of this was to be over ten years of retreat in the militancy and consciousness of the working class, making the life of the working class and of its revolutionary organisations all the more difficult. At this point the hopes raised by 1968 seemed to have utterly disappeared. But the 18th Congress of RI, as well as the international and territorial congresses which have been held since at least 2003, insisted in their discussions and resolutions that the evolution of the international situation and of the class struggle demonstrates that this is not at all the case. At the beginning of the 2000s, the weight of the defeat suffered by the working class during the 1990s was gradually lifting and the class struggle was beginning to renew its links with the past. 

Since then, even if's been in a much less spectacular way than in 1968, the struggle has developed more and more on all continents. In Asia, in China, for example, where there are more industrial workers than anywhere else in the world, there has been one struggle after another for a number of years. We have described and analysed in our press many of these struggles around the world. The Congress drew particular attention to the recent struggles in Germany, following those against the CPE in France two years ago. Germany has one of the most experienced proletariats in the world - the one which carried out the 1918-19 revolution in continuity with the 1917 revolution in Russia. It was also this fraction of the working class which went through a crushing defeat orchestrated by the entire national bourgeoisie (with the social democratic party in the forefront), and which could draw the most lessons from this experience for the new generations of the working class. The fact that struggles are now developing at the heart of world capitalism, at a moment when all continents are going through strikes and class movements, demonstrates concretely that the historic perspective opened up in 1968 is being conformed.

The discussion at the Congress also examined the difficulties facing these struggles, and they are not to be underestimated. Unlike in 1968, the working class no longer has many illusions in the future that capitalism can offer to it and to its children, seeing that the system has been bogged down in a generalised economic crisis for forty years and is showing more and more obvious signs of being a system in decomposition. But the question of the perspective, the question of the communist revolution, still largely remains outside the consciousness of the great majority of the working class. This difficulty is without doubt one of the major characteristics of the new worldwide wave of struggles. However, in the Congress we pointed to the fact that the increasingly simultaneous attacks, the increasingly uniform degradation of living standards, will more and more oblige workers to develop active forms of solidarity in their struggle - indispensable to the extension and unification of their movements. Another aspect of the struggle discussed at the Congress, and one which was virtually absent in May 68, was that there are now more and more frequent reactions within the working class to the problem of hunger. Feeding oneself has become an increasingly pressing issue for a growing part of the working class. In the recent period, hunger riots have also broken out in a number of countries, as for example in Egypt recently. The working class as a whole will have to integrate this question into its general struggle against capitalism. In contrast to 1968, the state of world capitalism is much more serious, far more rotten, and the class struggle even more vital. But this situation poses much harder questions than in May 1968, and these are the questions that future struggles will have to take up and resolve.   

The discussion on the class struggle in France

The Congress went in some depth into the situation in France and showed how it is illustrative of the evolution of the struggle on a world scale. Thus, in 2003, it was the working class in France, along with the Austrian workers, who gave proof of a revival of struggles more than 10 years after the blow received with the fall of the Berlin Wall. This dynamic was confirmed by the struggle against the CPE in spring 2006 and the movement in November 2007, which involved the students' struggle against the LRU law and the strikes by railway workers, gas and electricity workers against the attacks on their pensions[2]. All these struggles illustrated the depth of the resurgence of class combats, because of the role played within them by the younger generation and the forms of the struggle, which renewed the link with the ones that had been seen in May 68. At the same time, the sophistication of the manoeuvres by all the political and union forces of the bourgeoisie which we saw at work in November 2007 shows what the ruling class is capable of at an international level in its efforts to get its attacks through and to block any massive response by the working class.

40 years after 1968, a new rise in interest for the positions of the communist left

After the 17th ICC Congress held in 2007, and the Congress of our section in France in 2006, this was the third time groups from the proletarian political milieu were present and actively participating at a Congress of our organisation. A delegation from the OPOP group in Brazil was already present at the Congress of RI in 2006 (and was able to witness the demonstrations and struggle against the CPE). At the 2007 International Congress there were delegations from the OPOP, the EKS in Turkey and the SPA from South Korea (the group Internasyonalismo in the Philippines, which had accepted our invitation, couldn't come but sent greetings to the congress and statements of position on all the points on the agenda). At the recent RI Congress, there were again delegations from the OPOP and the EKS (Internasyonalismo again sent statements, being again unable to come as were a number of groups from Latin America who had also accepted our invitation). This active participation by internationalist groups has now become a gain of the left communist camp. It shows, like the regroupments that took place in the wake of 1968, that there has been a maturation of consciousness within the class as a whole, expressed in the emergence of small minorities, whether organised or not. In a difficult, but increasingly visible manner, the working class is necessarily being led to pose the questions raised in 1968, but now on a much deeper level. It is undeniable that, much more than in the late 60s and early 70s, this revival of interest is now posed on a much wider international scale. Our Congress showed how vital it is for our organisation and the older generations of militants who lived through May 68 to transmit all the experience accumulated over the past 40 years to the young elements now being politicised. Without this capacity, it's obvious that the construction of the future world communist party will not be possible. The revival of interest in the positions of the communist left is without doubt the first step on this road.

The culture of debate: a vital question for the class struggle

All the workers or militants who lived through May 1968 had a foretaste of what it means to debate in a proletarian manner. The bourgeoisie always tried to present the struggles of 1968 as no more than a series of violent clashes between the students and the police. Nothing could be more false! In the massive struggles of the working class at this time, and despite all the difficulties connected to the sabotaging role of the left and the unions, the workers in struggle, in the general assemblies and street demonstrations, began to develop a process of collective discussion on the meaning and aims of their movement. In the same way, without the desire for debate there could have been no unification of revolutionary forces at this time and no ICC. The renewal of the international class struggle pushed all those who really responded to the needs of the movement to develop a discussion on the widest possible scale. Since then, this basic condition of the workers' struggle and the regroupment of revolutionaries has been posed to our organisation in a much clearer and more conscious way.

For several years now the ICC has put the question of the culture of debate in the workers' movement at the heart of its concerns, both theoretical and practical. The 18th Congress of RI continued this work. But it was above all in the way the debates were conducted - in an open, fraternal spirit, a spirit of attentive, reciprocal listening - that our maturation at this level was expressed most clearly. This necessity, this precondition for the unification of internationalist forces was also expressed in the way the groups present themselves took part in the Congress discussions, fully taking up a conception of debate and reflection that is shared by the ICC.

Despite all the difficulties, all the partial defeats suffered by the working class over the past 40 years, what this Congress highlighted above all is that the hope and promise opened up by May 68 are not dead and buried. May 68 in France and all the struggles which followed in its wake were an integral part of the historical experience of the working class. The enormous interest in May 68 at the time of its 40th anniversary, not only in France but in many other countries, above all among the younger generation, is the sign that the most advanced elements of the world proletariat are in the process of re-appropriating this experience in order to prepare the battles of tomorrow.  

ICC  (1/10/8)

---

[1] On the significance of the events of May 68, see 5-part series in WRs 313-317 (or IR 133 and 134).

[2] See ‘Struggles in France: Government and unions hand-in-hand against the working class'

ICConline, January 15, 2008

As banks get nationalised, as the Federal Reserve and other central banks leap in to prop up the money markets, and the US Congress argues over the $700bn banking rescue plan, workers know that no one's going to bail them out. On the contrary. It's clear that on top of the existing wages that are falling behind inflation, the attempts to crank up productivity that are already in place, and jobs that have already gone, the current financial crisis will rapidly have an impact on the working and living conditions of millions who haven't already been directly hit by the collapse of banks and other financial institutions.

The material conditions experienced by workers are the basis for the development of their struggles. The crisis of capitalism leads to attacks on the working class that in turn can lead to a militant response. How far workers' struggles go, how combative they become, what sense they have of their own potential cannot be tied down in a scientific formula. The deepening of the crisis, x, doesn't necessarily become y amount of struggle or z amount of consciousness.

However, it is right to ask whether the working class is today showing signs that it could be up to the challenges of the current crisis, or whether it has been disarmed by the whole brutal experience of exploitation, and succumbed to ideologies which have left it passive in the face of the worsening situation it finds itself in.

In contrast to the 1930s the working class is not defeated

In the aftermath of the 1929 Wall Street Crash, the Depression is recognised as a time of great economic suffering. A characteristic image from Britain in the 1930s is of the weary hunger march from Jarrow, or, from the US, the queues at soup kitchens in the richest country in the world. This was only part of the reality, as there were many expressions in this period of militant class struggle. In France there were waves of strikes and occupations from 1934-38 that were ultimately derailed by the illusions workers had in the Popular Front. In the US there were major struggles from 1935-37, finally undermined by workers' misplaced confidence in the new industrial unions. In Spain in 1936, the workers' first response to Franco's coup took on a semi-insurrectionary nature. But here again the Popular Front dragged workers away from their own ground into the battle between democracy and fascism, prefiguring the mobilisation of the world working class for the second imperialist carnage. In short, this was a period of profound defeat for the working class.

It was a different situation at the end of the 1960s, where a less serious expression of the economic crisis set off first the struggles in France in 68, the ‘hot autumn' in Italy 69, and the demonstrations and strikes in Poland in 1970. These were followed by waves of struggles over two decades, in which the working class in countries across the world returned to the struggle, often on a massive level.

While it's now easy to see the limitations of the struggles of the 70s and 80s, it shouldn't be forgotten that the ruling class was not a passive onlooker. The ruling bourgeoisie adopted particular political strategies against the threat of the class struggle. Typically, in the 1970s left parties came to power, using the language of reform or even socialism, able to get the working class to accept wage levels and unemployment that would have been unacceptable from the conservative parties of the right. In the 1980s, with governments privatising and cutting jobs and services, there was a massive response from the working class; in this context left parties (along with unions and the leftists) posed as the opposition to the status quo, advocates of a so-called ‘alternative'.

In the 1990s, in the wake of the collapse of the eastern bloc and the huge campaigns about the ‘death of communism' and the ‘end of the class struggle', there was a definite disorientation within the working class and a low level of militancy, but since 2003 there has been a slow but definite renewal of workers' struggles, with a number of positive characteristics.

Loss of illusions and revival of solidarity

Changes in material reality can have a significant effect on workers' understanding of the world and their place in it. Even the blind can recognise objects when they bump into them. In the current state of the economic crisis it is clear that our masters have very little control of their own affairs and have to resort to the further intervention of the state to cope with a crisis of state capitalism. The idea that capitalism doesn't suffer from crises that are intrinsic and insoluble can surely now only convince those who have an interest in its continuation. In addition, the worldwide nature of the crisis, revealing yet again the interlinked nature of all economies, is another reminder that there can be no national solutions to the problems presented by global capitalism.

In recent struggles the illusions that workers have in the possibilities of sustainable reforms, or in the real role of the unions, or in left-wing governments, have been challenged. Indeed because of the lack of credibility of the left parties (and their leftist satellites) there have been attempts recently to create new, or re-launch old, left parties in Germany, Italy and France, among other countries.

As for the content of the class struggle, we have seen a number of struggles where solidarity has been shown in practice. Not on a massive scale, but significant enough to demonstrate one of the most important aspects of the working class in struggle, and as the basis for a future society. Some academics (and other ideologists) maintain that the working class has changed so much with the development of technology and the transformation of heavy industry that the marxist view of the working class is a relic of the 19th century. Expressions of solidarity among the ‘new' working class show that such ideas are just wishful thinking from the ruling class.

Furthermore, the expansion of migration patterns across the world means that in nearly every country there is greater diversity in the working class, and correspondingly, a greater capacity for internationalism and unity across potential divisions. The fact that the bourgeoisie is everywhere trying to sustain racist and anti-migrant campaigns in order to sow divisions in the ranks of the working class shows what a threat working class unity is to capitalism.

Evidence from across the world

During the last five years there have been examples of workers' struggles that have shown significant differences to the past. For instance, we have seen various struggles in a country as important as Germany, which was much less affected by workers' militancy in the 1970s.

In a country like Iraq, where we can see the profound effects of war, both past and present, we can still see the struggle of the working class. Recently, in response to an attempt by the Iraqi government to cut public sector wages by 30% (that is, to reverse a wage rise from earlier in the year) there was a wave of strikes, demonstrations, protests and sit-ins. The wage rise has been reinstated, the government will no doubt rapidly return to the attack, but workers have gained a sense of what it is like to fight for class interests, not national or religious interests.

In Iran, supposedly under the rigid domination of fundamentalist clerics, there have been demonstrations over labour laws as well as strikes involving thousands of workers angry at the non-payment of wages for many months.

Across Egypt there have been successive waves of strikes during the last two years, involving thousands of workers. In Vietnam, a country that is in no way isolated from the impact of the economic crisis, there is high and still growing inflation that has led to dozens of wildcat strikes. There have also been massive strikes in Bangladesh and Argentina, and a nationwide general strike in South Africa in August.

As for the latest ‘economic miracles', India and China, neither has been immune from the crisis or the class struggle. In China, with tens of thousands of enterprises going bust and 20 million people laid off, it is not surprising that there have been massive workers' demonstrations that wouldn't have happened ten years ago, and wildcat strikes involving many thousands of workers happening just about every day. In India, in September, there was a strike affecting a number of states, which the unions claimed involved 80 million workers. Industry, banks, insurance, coal, power, steel, tea, telecoms and IT were all affected. Subsequently, there was a two day strike of 900,000 workers in 26 government-run banks that closed about 60,000 branches; and at the time of writing tens of thousands of workers employed by the ‘Bollywood' film industry are on strike against low wages or not being paid at all.

Change through struggle

A working class that can't defend itself can't make a revolution. But the question still stands: can the working class go beyond the defensive struggles of today?

In practice, as the working class struggles it begins to change. It becomes more aware of the possibilities of the struggle, the nature of the obstacles that will be encountered and the lies that it has been told. Consciousness develops through the gradual escape from the weight of bourgeois ideology at the same time as the development of workers' self-organisation and the sense of unity and solidarity. The response of the working class is not just to immediate attacks but to a whole history of them. The difference between ‘economic' and ‘political' struggles diminishes; ‘defensive' struggles announce the start of struggles where workers take the initiative.

But in this whole process of the development of the working class through the experience of its struggles there is still one enormous hurdle to get over. The more workers reflect on the implications of their situation, the more they will be drawn to the conclusion that capitalism has to be overthrown. That means a revolution. It is understandable that workers should be hesitant when the immensity of what lies before them becomes clear.

The current phase of the economic crisis will lead to the further development of the class struggle. When the working class begins to realise where that struggle is leading, it will be vital that it understands that it is not only the sole force that can free itself from capitalist exploitation, but also the only force that offers a future to humanity. Revolutionaries will play an important role in the development of this consciousness. Hesitation is understandable, but the working class is transformed by its struggle, so that future movements will be undertaken by a class that has gained from its struggles and in reflecting on them.  

Car 1/10/8

The President of the USA is often described as the ‘most powerful man in the world'. Every four years there is an election for the ‘leader of the free world', in charge of the country with the strongest economy, the Commander-in-Chief with one figure on the nuclear button. The US President does have many formal powers, but ultimately he is just the most prominent figure in a whole state capitalist class. After the votes are counted the faces can change, but the same capitalist state still dominates every aspect of American society.

In the 2008 US Presidential election Barack Obama is the favourite, and if John McCain gets in it will be the biggest surprise since 1948 when Harry S Truman beat Thomas Dewey. The advantage of installing Obama is that his whole campaign is centred on the idea of ‘change', for America and the world. The illusion of change is one that the ruling class, if it can, often conjures up at election time. ‘You think things are bad? They can get better.' This time round even McCain has tried to make out he's different from Bush, attacking the doubling of the US national debt since 2001 and criticising the mismanagement of the war in Iraq.

The details of the candidates aren't what's essential. Obama's father was from Kenya, and McCain's father and grandfather were both admirals. So what? What's fundamental is that the circus of democracy can be given its latest performance and people are led to believe that something will change.

What goes on behind closed doors

The financial crisis has been a good test for the candidates. When emergency financial measures were being adopted both Obama and McCain voted for the $700 billion rescue bill in Congress and supported the takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. These interventions weren't their idea, nor were they Bush's. They happened because the logic of capitalist development has led to a crucial role for the state,

The New York Times (14/10/08) reported how others accepted the inevitable.

"The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States trooped into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department at 3 p.m. Monday. To their astonishment, they were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said they must sign it before they left. The chairman of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, was receptive, saying he thought the deal looked pretty good once he ran the numbers through his head. The chairman of Wells Fargo, Richard M. Kovacevich, protested strongly that, unlike his New York rivals, his bank was not in trouble because of investments in exotic mortgages, and did not need a bailout, according to people briefed on the meeting.

But by 6:30, all nine chief executives had signed [...]

Mr. Paulson announced the plan Tuesday, saying ‘we regret having to take these actions.' Pouring billions in public money into the banks, he said, was ‘objectionable,' but unavoidable to restore confidence in the markets and persuade the banks to start lending again." Elsewhere, with similar plans in Britain and other European countries, there had been some consultation "But unlike in Britain, the Treasury secretary presented his plan as an offer the banks could not refuse."

This is state capitalism at work. The democratic charade has no connection with the bourgeoisie's real decision-making process that mostly goes on behind closed doors. The banks know when they have to acquiesce. At no point does the ‘public' get any say in the outlay of ‘public money'.

Policies of war and repression

Obama has promised ‘change', but it's only in the details. He has said that it is necessary to step up the war in Afghanistan. He plans to send an extra 15,000 soldiers as soon as he takes over. He's also promised that if he wants to attack Taliban or al Qaida targets in Pakistan he won't wait for Islamabad's permission. On the home front Obama has supported legislation to extend the powers of bodies like the FBI and National Security Agency for surveillance and wiretapping.

All this has upset left-winger Alexander Cockburn. In an article in the Independent on Sunday (‘Obama, the first rate Republican' 26/10/8) he criticises Obama's plans "to enlarge the armed services by 90,000 ...to escalate the US war in Afghanistan, ... to wage war against terror in a hundred countries, creating a new international intelligence and law enforcement ‘infrastructure'". He thinks that "Obama is far more hawkish than McCain on Iran" and that "Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines."

There's nothing exclusively ‘Republican' about this approach. The Democratic presidents of the 20th century also set an example for Obama to follow. The First World War was fought under Woodrow Wilson, who had been re-elected on the slogan "He kept us out of the war." Roosevelt geared up American imperialism for the Second World War and, during it, ensured the execution of its most ruthless and brutal strategies. Under Truman the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nearly 6 million Americans were sent to fight in the Korean War. Kennedy and Johnson escalated and sustained the US offensive in the Vietnam War. With Clinton we saw the bombing of Serbia and the devastating sanctions and air attacks on Iraq.

Without even turning to the prospects that the economic crisis offers the American working class under a new president - i.e. a sustained and savage attack on their living standards - it is obvious that Obama is in the mainstream of Democratic politics.

For the world's media each presidential election is presented as a vital moment of decision-making that affects everyone on the planet. The truth is that the factions of the American bourgeoisie make their decisions according to the blows of material reality. The deepening of the economic crisis; the difficulty, as the only remaining superpower, of waging war on a number of fronts; the threat of workers' struggles: these are what confront the ruling class in the US. The new president has only austerity and repression to offer the working class in the US, and further conflicts for the rest of the world.  

Car 29/10/8

The sight of thousands of desperate panicking people fleeing towns in the North Kivu region in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was a sad reminder of a war that never went away, a devastating conflict more lethal than any since World War 2. 

Between 1998 and 2003, the DRC, with assistance from Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe, fought off the attacks of Rwanda and Uganda, and hostilities have continued to flare up since, particularly in Kivu. This reached such a point that a peace deal involving a whole range of armed groups was signed in January this year.

It didn't last long: fighting broke out again in August as Laurent Nkunda's National Congress for the Defence of the People, a Tutsi militia of 5,500, attacked a number of towns and camps (both military and refugee). The movement of people increased. There were already 850,000 displaced persons from the two previous years of conflict. Since August another 250,000 have been on the move, in some cases for the second or third time. In the DRC as a whole there are more than 1.5 milion displaced people. More than 300,000 people have fled the country.

With Goma, the North Kivu capital, under siege from Nkunda's forces, but also partly terrorised by retreating Congolese army soldiers looting and rampaging, there are fears of a full-scale resumption of war. Already, since 1998, 5.4 million people have died, from the war and from war-related violence, famine and disease. The director of the International Rescue Committee has said that "Congo is the deadliest conflict anywhere in the world over the past 60 years" (Reuters). The chief executive of Irish relief agency GOAL said "It's the worst humanitarian tragedy since the Holocaust," telling Reuters that it was "the greatest example on the planet of man's inhumanity to man."

Inflamed by ethnic hatred and revenge

Laurent Nkunda claims that his forces are in North and South Kivu because the DRC should have brought various Hutu forces to justice. In particular they focus on the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR) for their part in the 1994 genocide of 800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda. Backed by Rwanda, Nkunda has threatened to go right across the country to the DRC capital, Kinshasa, 1500km away.

The role of groups such as the FDLR is well documented, but so is the progress of Nkunda's own forces as they systematically loot, rape and murder their way across the country. It's not the first time that the claim to ‘defend the people' has been used to terrorise the population. In Rwanda and the DRC the incitement of ethnic hatred and the desire for revenge continue to inflame the situation

Plunder of mineral wealth

In trying to explain what lies behind the continuing conflict in the DRC, it is impossible to ignore the variety of valuable minerals it has. From the Guardian (30/10/8): "A UN investigation on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in Congo found that the conflict in the country had become mainly about ‘access, control and trade' of five key mineral resources: diamonds, copper, cobalt, gold and coltan - a metallic ore that provides materials for mobile phones and laptops.

Exploitation of Congo's natural resources by foreign armies was ‘systematic and systemic', and the Ugandan and Rwandan leaders in particular had turned their soldiers into ‘armies of business'. The UN panel estimated that Rwanda's army made at least $250m in 18 months by selling coltan."

In the Independent (30/10/8) there is an article in which the Africa Director of the International Crisis Group says "Nkunda is being funded by Rwandan businessmen so they can retain control of the mines in North Kivu. This is the absolute core of the conflict. What we are seeing now is beneficiaries of the illegal war economy fighting to maintain their right to exploit." The article continues "At the moment, Rwandan business interests make a fortune from the mines they illegally seized during the war. The global coltan price has collapsed, so now they focus hungrily on cassiterite, which is used to make tin cans and other consumer disposables."

Society disintegrates

The DRC has an area 90 times that of Rwanda, and a population more than 6 times as big, yet it seems incapable of seeing off a relatively small militia force, even with the help of 17,000 UN troops. The rapid retreat of its army in the face of a new offensive is apparently normal. The Guardian (28/10/8) says that DRC government troops "are notorious for turning their guns on civilians and for fleeing when faced with a real threat. The Congolese army, a motley collection of defeated army troops and several rebel and militia groups after back-to-back wars from 1997 to 2003, is disjointed, undisciplined, demoralised and poorly paid." The state of the army reflects the state of a ruling class that can't control its frontiers or what goes on inside them. The reality of dozens of heavily armed groups, many of them backed by countries like Rwanda and Uganda, some of them more determined to act on ethnic hostilities, others more wanting to profit the exploitation of valuable natural resources, is a classic expression of the gangsterisation of capitalist society. In a world of ‘each against all' the DRC government can't control the situation, but the armed gangs can't have any ambition beyond becoming bigger gangs, if they survive at all.

The UN, the EU, aid agencies and ‘concerned' western governments denounce the violence, and plead their sympathy for the stricken populations. But like local imperialist states such as Uganda and Rwanda, the big powers are also part of the problem. Let's not forget that behind the Hutu murder squads in 1994 stood French imperialism, while the Americans backed the Tutsi forces in order to strike a blow against France's presence in the region; France was also a mainstay of the Mobutu regime in Zaire, as the DRC was formerly called, and the Americans were deeply involved in supporting the forces that were working towards Mobutu's overthrow. Thus Congo's cauldron of chaos has also been well stirred by the ‘democratic' world powers, pillars of the UN and the ‘international community'.

Ethnic divisions and mineral resources are among factors in the continuing conflict, but the most important reality is the decomposition of capitalist society, which is expressed not only in the tendency of the weaker countries to fall apart, but also in the sharpening rivalries between imperialist powers large and small. The fact that the capitalist system still exists, however decrepitly, means that brutal wars will continue to erupt. Capitalism is not just an economic crisis; it's also all the killing fields that scar the face of the planet.  

Car 31/10/8

There can be no doubt about the government's determination to defend the interests of British national capital abroad. We have only to look at the UK involvement in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain isalways pronouncing on current conflicts, even if it is powerless to influence, as it was in Georgia, and even more now with David Milliband proposing an EU force on stand-by for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Recent events indicate the very great difficulties in the way of Britain making a successful defence of its interests on a global scale.

Unwanted in Iraq

Britain is not so much withdrawing from Iraq, as being told it is no long wanted: "the presence of this number of British soldiers is no longer necessary. We thank them for the role they have played, but I think that their stay is not necessary for maintaining security and control", as PM al-Maliki said in the interview in The Times. It's difficult to see why Iraq would want the 4000 troops holed up in Basra Airport. Their defeat was already obvious in February last year when Blair announced a partial withdrawal, "By March-April 2007, renewed political tensions once more threatened to destabilise the city, and relentless attacks against British forces in effect had driven them off the streets into increasingly secluded compounds. Basra's residents and militiamen view this not as an orderly withdrawal but rather as an ignominious defeat. Today, the city is controlled by the militias..." (‘Where is Iraq going? Lessons from Basra' June 07, International Crisis Group). And "Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, asserts that British forces lost control of the situation in and around Basra by the second half of 2005" (The Independent 23.2.07).

Britain also showed it was not capable of standing up to Iran, the main regional threat in Southern Iraq, when it captured 15 UK Naval personnel in March 07. A year later the Iraqi government called on US forces to help them with their push in Basra, rather than British troops from much closer. Why would they want to keep them?

Ill-equipped in Afghanistan

The UK commander in Helmand has warned we should not expect a decisive victory, as Britain finds itself bogged down with its much bigger US ally in Afghanistan. The whole situation is one of spreading chaos as the US makes more incursions into the Taliban's bases within western Pakistan - attacking one of its erstwhile great allies in the ‘war on terror'.

Meanwhile an SAS commander has resigned in disgust at the poor equipment provided for soldiers, in this case the Snatch Land Rover which becomes a death trap, offering no protection when it hits a landmine. There was a similar scandal over "serious systemic failures" condemned by a coroner after unnecessary deaths due to lack of explosion suppressant foam. This should remind us one more time that when the ruling class is determined to defend the national interest abroad, it always makes the working class pay for it - by increased exploitation at home, and in the blood spilt in adventures abroad. When the country finds its resources stretched by participation in too many conflicts it will send in its soldiers without the protection expected by a modern army.

Buffeted by events

British imperialism's difficulties should not lead us to think it is no longer a significant military power, far from it; but it is a declining power, one that ruled the world a hundred years ago, one that still has interests worldwide but no longer has the strength to act independently to defend them - a point made very forcibly at Suez in 1956. To defend its interests now is to ‘punch above its weight', and this can only be achieved by positioning itself in relation to stronger powers and trying to play them off against each other. When the USA and Russia faced each other at the head of two military blocs armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, Britain was clearly positioned behind the US bloc. When Russia collapsed it had the space to play a more independent role, particularly in the break-up of Yugoslavia where Britain and France gained some influence in Serbia, while Germany encouraged Croatia and the USA based itself on Bosnia. But this success could not last, and after 9/11 the UK positioned itself closer to the USA under the force of its ‘war on terror', joining its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. This brought scant reward - it had to face the July 7th bombing in 2005, and by summer 2006 Britain was humiliated again when Blair waited for the call to negotiate at the top table over the Lebanon crisis, a call that never came.

The British bourgeoisie needed to find a new position less closely identified with the US and better able to play it off against Europe. Blair had to be forced out of office, through the loans for peerages scandal, before he was ready because "...Mr Blair's room for pragmatic  manoeuvre in foreign affairs was limited by his partnership with George Bush... his insistence on seeing problems of the Middle East in purely Manichean terms - as a global struggle between Good and Evil, between Western Civilisation and apocalyptic terrorism -  does not lend itself to good policy-making. Stabilisation in Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel's occupation of Palestine - these are problems that require separate treatment" was a typical comment in the Observer 29.4.07. When Brown finally became PM the change in foreign policy was illustrated by the appointment of David Milliband, a critic of Blair's policy on Lebanon, as foreign secretary; Shirley Williams, who had opposed the Iraq war as an advisor; and another critic, Mallach Brown, as minister for Africa. Mallach Brown's appointment was described as "inauspicious" by John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN.

The problem for Britain however is that its closeness to the USA was a result not so much of Blair's relationship with Bush as its weakness as a declining power in the face of the pressures from America's ‘war on terror'. Indeed, steering a path between the US and Europe will only get harder, whoever is in no 10. Essentially the British bourgeoisie has been unable to extricate itself from the disaster of its close relationship to the USA and still finds itself bogged down and increasingly humiliated in unsuccessful military adventures. As the economic crisis worsens so will the barbaric military conflicts around the world, further exposing Britain's weakness, damaging its prestige and reducing its margin for manoeuvre in future conflicts.

Alex (1.11.08)

This text is a translation of an article by the section of the ICC in Spain.

Today French President Sarkozy proclaims that "Capitalism must be re-built on ethical bases". German Chancellor Merkel attacks the speculators. Spanish PM Zapatero points an accusing finger at the ‘free-marketeers' who pretend that markets will regulate themselves without state intervention. They are all telling us that this crisis announces the end of ‘neo-liberal' capitalism and that hopes are turning today towards ‘another kind of capitalism'. This new capitalism would be based on production and not finance, liberating itself from the parasitic layer of financial sharks and speculators who were presented as its champions under the pretext of ‘deregulation', ‘limiting the state', and the primacy of private interests over ‘public interests' etc. To hear them speak, it's not capitalism that could collapse, but a particular form of capitalism. The leftist groups (Stalinists, Trotskyists, anti-capitalists) proudly claim: ‘The facts are proving us right. Neo-liberal measures are leading to disaster!' They remind us of their opposition to ‘globalisation' and to ‘unfettered liberalisation'. They demand the state take measures to make the multinationals, the speculators and others, supposedly responsible for this disaster through their excessive thirst for profits, see reason. They claim their solution is a ‘socialist' one that reins in the capitalists for the benefit of ‘the people‘.

Is there any truth in these claims? Is ‘another kind of capitalism' possible? Does benevolent state intervention provide a solution to the capitalist crisis? We will attempt to provide some elements of a reply to these vital questions. But, to begin with, we must first clarify a fundamental question: does socialism come through the state?

Is socialism the same as state control?

Chávez, the illustrious champion of ‘21st century socialism' has just made an amazing declaration: "Comrade Bush is about to introduce measures associated with comrade Lenin. The United States will become socialist one day, because its people aren't suicidal". For once, and without wanting to set a precedent, we are in agreement with Chávez. Firstly on the fact that Bush is his comrade. Indeed, even if they are in a bitter competitive imperialist struggle, they are no less comrades in the defence of capitalism and in using state capitalist measures to save the system. And we can also agree with saying that "the United States will one day be socialist", even if this socialism has nothing to do with what Chavez advocates.

Real socialism defended by marxism and revolutionaries throughout the history of the workers' movement has nothing to do with the state. Indeed socialism is the negation of the state. The construction of a socialist society requires that the state be destroyed in every country of the world. A period of transition from capitalism to communism is required, as communism can't be created overnight. This period of transition will still be subject to the law of value peculiar to capitalism. The bourgeoisie isn't totally destroyed and along with the proletariat, there are non-exploiting classes still in existence: the peasants, the marginalised, the petite-bourgeoisie. As a product of this transitional situation, a form of state is still needed but it no longer has any similarities to the other states that have existed; it becomes a ‘semi-state', to use Engels' formulation, a state on the road to extinction. To advance towards communism in the historical context of a period of transition which is both complex and unstable, full of dangers and contradictions, the proletariat will have to undermine the foundations of this new state as well. The revolutionary process will have to overcome it or run the risk of losing sight of the perspective of communism.

One of the authors within the workers' movement who has addressed this question more than any other is Friedrich Engels. He is very clear on this point: "The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The ‘people's state' has been thrown in our faces ad nauseum by the Anarchists, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto, directly declare that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the State will dissolve itself and disappear. Since the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, during the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is pure nonsense to talk of a free people's state: so long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist." (Letter to Bebel, 1875).

State intervention to regulate the economy in the interests of ‘all the people', etc, hasn't anything to do with socialism. The state will never be able to act in the interest of ‘all the people'. The state is an organ of the ruling class and is designed, organised and constructed to defend the ruling class and to support its productive system. The most ‘democratic' state in the world is no less the servant of the bourgeoisie and will defend the capitalist system of production tooth and nail. On the other hand, the specific intervention of the state into the economy has no other purpose than preserving the general interests of the reproduction of capitalism and the capitalist class. Engels makes this clear in Anti-Dühring: "And the modern state, too, is the only organisation with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine; it is the state of the capitalists, the ideal collective body of all capitalists. The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished; it is rather pushed to an extreme."

Throughout the 20th century, with the entry of capitalism into its decadent phase, the state has been its main defence faced with the worsening social, military and economic contradictions. The 20th and 21st centuries are both characterised by the universal tendency to state capitalism. This tendency exists in every country of the world, no matter what political regime is in place. State capitalism is implemented in two basic ways:

- Complete statification more or less of the whole economy (this is what existed in Russia and still exists in China, Cuba, North Korea...) ;

- The combination of the state bureaucracy and the big private capitalists (as in the United States, Britain or Spain, for example).

In both cases, it is always the state that is in control of the economy. The first makes an open display of its ownership of a large part of the means of production and services. The second intervenes in the economy through a series of indirect mechanisms; taxes, fiscal policies, buying into companies[1], fixing the inter-bank interest rates, price controls, standards of accounting, state advisory, inspection and investment agencies[2], etc.

We are overwhelmed with ideological hype that is based on two associated lies: the first identifies socialism with the state, the second identifies neo-liberalism with deregulation and with the free market. Throughout the period of decadence (the 20th and 21st centuries), capitalism couldn't survive without being propped up all the time by the state. The ‘free' market is directed, controlled and supported by the iron hand of the state. The great classical economist Adam Smith once said that the market ruled the economy like an ‘invisible hand'. Today the market is ruled by the invisible hand of the state![3] When Bush was forced to save the banks and the insurance companies, he wasn't doing anything exceptional, any more than he was doing "what comrade Lenin did". He was only continuing the work of controlling and regulating the economy that is the daily responsibility of the state.

Has neo-liberalism failed?

After a period of relative prosperity from 1945 to 1967, the recurring world crises of capitalism returned with periodic convulsions followed by tremors that have brought the world economy to the brink of disaster. We can go back to the 1971 crisis when the dollar had to be detached from the gold standard; that of 1974-75 that ended with galloping inflation of over 10%; the debt crisis of 1982, when Mexico and Argentina had to suspend debt repayment; the Wall Street crash of 1987; the crisis in 1992-93 that led to numerous European currencies collapsing; that of 1997-98 that exposed the myth of the Asian Tigers and Dragons; that of the bursting of the Internet bubble in 2001...

"What characterises the 20th and 21st centuries is that the tendency towards overproduction - which in the 19th century was temporary and could easily be overcome - has become chronic, subjecting the world economy to a semi-permanent risk of instability and destruction. Meanwhile competition - a congenital trait of capitalism - became extreme and, crashing up against the limits of a world market which constantly verged on saturation, lost its role as a stimulant for the expansion of the system, so that its negative side as a factor of chaos and conflict came to the fore"(‘Capitalist economy: is there a way out of the crisis?' WR 315).

The different stages of the crises that followed each other through the last forty years are the product of this chronic overproduction and the exacerbation of competition. The capitalist state has attempted to combat the effects using various palliatives, the main one being increasing indebtedness. The strongest states have also deflected the most harmful consequences, ‘exporting' the worse effects onto the weakest countries[4].

The classic policy adopted in the 1970s was state indebtedness, backed up by a policy of direct state intervention into the economy: nationalisations, taking companies over, a rigid supervision of external trade etc. This was the ‘Keynesian' policy[5]. We should remind the amnesiacs who want to impose a false dilemma between neo-liberalism and state intervention that every party from the right to the left, were ‘Keynesians' then and publicised the benefits of ‘liberal socialism' (like that of the Swedish social democratic model). The disastrous consequence of runaway inflation arising from this policy, destabilising the economy, tended to paralyse international trade. The ‘solution' adopted in the 1980s was christened ‘the neo-liberal revolution' in which the key figures were the ‘Iron Lady', Margaret Thatcher, in Britain, and the ‘Cowboy' Ronald Reagan in the United States. This policy had two objectives:

• Cutting costs by eliminating substantial unprofitable parts of the productive apparatus resulted in an unprecedented wave of redundancies organised and planned by the state. Thus began a process of irreversible degradation of workers' living conditions, with an end to job security and the start of cut-backs in state benefits etc[6].
• Relieving the burden of the debt strangling the state by privatising sectors and sub-contracting services and operations to private companies, with the systematic transfer (via sales of shares) of the public debt to individuals, banks, speculators etc. This second stage of the ‘neo-liberal' policy was designed to pass the state's debt onto the financial sector. The market was flooded with all kinds of stocks, bonds etc, in which speculation exploded to monstrous proportions. From this point the world economy began to reassemble an immense casino in which governments, banks and expert brokers engaged in complicated operations to realise immediate profits from speculating... at the cost of terrible consequences in bankruptcies and destabilisation.

Don't listen to stories about how ‘private initiative' promotes ‘neo-liberalism'. These mechanisms don't spring spontaneously from the market but are the fruit and the consequence of a state economic policy for curbing inflation. It only postponed it, and it paid a heavy price as a result: using obscure financial mechanisms, debts were transformed into speculative credits at high rates of interest, yielding some juicy benefits at first which would however need to be disposed of at the earliest opportunity because, sooner or later, no-one would be able to pay out any more. At first these credits were the most attractive ‘shining stars' in the market which the banks, the speculators, the governments, all fought over, but they were very rapidly transformed into doubtful and devalued credits that investors avoided like the plague.

The failure of this policy was revealed with the brutal Wall Street ‘crash' in 1987 and the collapse of the American savings banks in 1989. This ‘neo-liberal' policy continued throughout the 1990s; but given the mountains of debt that were weighing the economy down, the costs of production had to be cut back by improving productivity and through outsourcing, which consisted in exporting whole parts of production to countries like China, where poverty wages and harsh working conditions dramatically affected living conditions for the world proletariat. This is when the concept of ‘globalisation' emerged: the bigger, richer countries demanded that protectionist trade barriers be removed and then swamped the smaller, poorer countries with their products to relieve their chronic overproduction.

Once again, these ‘medicines' only worsened the problem and the crisis of the Asian Dragons and Tigers in 1997-98 showed the ineffectiveness of these policies as much as the dangers that they held. But then capitalism pulled a rabbit out of the hat. The new century introduced us to what would be called the ‘net economy', in which excessive speculation in companies dealing in computers and the internet took place. In 2001 this quickly proved itself a staggering failure. Capitalism delivered a new magic trick in 2003 with a period of unrestrained speculation in the property market, with a growth in commercial and residential property around the world (in the process, adding to environmental problems). This gave rise to a terrible escalation in property prices, leading us to... the horrendous fiasco of the present day!

... or is it capitalism that's failed?

The current crisis can be compared with a gigantic mine field. The first to explode was the crisis of the subprimes in the US in the summer of 2007. We might have thought at first that things were going to fall back into place, after several billion dollars were paid out. Hadn't we seen it all before? But then the collapse of the banking institutions from the end of December was a new mine that shattered all illusions. The summer of 2008 has been breathtaking with a succession of bankruptcies of banks in the United States and Britain. By October 2008 another illusion that the bourgeoisie thought it could use to deflect our concerns went up in smoke: they said that the problems were immense in the United States but that the European economies had nothing to fear. As if. But the mines now began exploding in the European economies too, starting with the most powerful state of all, Germany, which looked on without reacting to the collapse of its principal savings bank.

When everything seemed to be ticking along for the bourgeoisie, what triggered the violent explosion of these mines? This is the product of 40 years of treating the crisis with palliatives that masked the problems and more or less allowed a system burdened with insoluble problems to carry on functioning. It resolved nothing, but it aggravated the capitalist contradictions to their breaking point, and now in this current crisis we are seeing the consequences unfold one after the other.

So can capitalism find a way out like it has done done before?

This idea is a false consolation:

• The previous episodes of the crisis were ‘resolved' by central banks making several billions of dollars available (100 at the time of the Asian Tigers' crisis in 1998). Today states havedisbursed 3,000 billion dollars since a year and a half ago and they can't see if there is going to be any end to it [7].
• The worst effects of the crisis had until this point been confined to a few countries (South East Asia, Mexico and Argentina, and Russia), while today the epicentre, where the worst effects are concentrated, is precisely in the central countries: the United States, Britain, Germany... and this is having a powerful effect on the rest of the world.
• These previous episodes were, in general, with the exception of the one at the end of the 1970s, of short duration and lasted for a period of six months to a year before there was light at the end of the tunnel. It is now a year and a half since this crisis began and there isn't even a glimmer. On the contrary, each day, the crisis is more serious and the disaster more profound!
• Moreover, this crisis is going to leave the world banking system very weak. The credit mechanisms are paralysed: owing to the general distrust, no-one really knows if the ‘assets' that the banks (and businesses) are declaring in their balance sheets are false or not. Property, businesses and plant are all losing value. As to the financial assets, according to the expression used by Bush, they are only "toxic assets", pieces of paper representing incredible, unrecuperable debts. ‘Liberal' state capitalism cannot function without strong and solid banks. The capitalist economy is so addicted to the drug of debt at the present time that if the credit system is incapable of supplying an abundant flow of money, production will be paralysed. The tap of credit is turned off despite the enormous sums made available to central banks by governments. No-one is clear how a system damaged throughout and losing its vital organs - the banks - one after the other, is going to recover. The crazy action of European states looking at who can give the biggest guarantees for their banks' deposits is a real sign of desperation. This overloading of ‘guarantees' shows clearly that nothing is guaranteed!

Some things are clear: capitalism is today experiencing its most serious economic crisis. There has been a brutal acceleration of history. After 40 years of a slow and uneven development of the crisis, this system is on course to sink into a terrible and extremely deep recession from which it will not emerge unscathed. But above all, from now on, the living conditions of billions of people will be severely affected for the longer term. Unemployment will hit a lot of homes, 600,000 in less than a year in Spain, 180,000 in August 2008 in the United States. Inflation is hitting prices of basic foodstuffs and hunger has been ravaging the world at breathtaking speed during the last year. Cuts in wages, temporary shut-downs of production, threats to retirement pensions... There is not the least doubt that this crisis is going to have consequences of unprecedented brutality. We don't know if capitalism can recover from this but we are convinced that millions of human beings will not. The ‘new' capitalism that will emerge from this crisis will be a much poorer society with vast numbers of proletarians having to face general insecurity, in a world of disorder and chaos. Each of the previous convulsions throughout the last 40 years has ended in a deterioration of the living conditions of the working class and with more or less major shut-downs of the productive apparatus. The new period that is opening up will take this tendency to a much higher level.

Only the class struggle can provide humanity with a way out of the impasse

Capitalism is not going to give up the ghost. Never has an exploiting class accepted the reality of its failure and given up power without a struggle. But we know that after more than a hundred year of catastrophes and convulsions, all the economic policies that state capitalism has used to solve its problems have not only failed, but have made the problems worse. We expect nothing from the so-called ‘new solutions' that capitalism is going to have to find to ‘come out of the crisis'. We can be certain above all that they will cause still more suffering, more poverty; and we have to be ready to face up to new, even more violent, convulsions.

This is why it is utopian to put any trust in any so-called ‘solution' to the crisis of capitalism. There is none. The whole system is incapable of hiding its bankruptcy. Being realistic means participating in the proletariat's efforts to regain confidence in itself, taking part in the struggles and discussions, the attempts at self-organisation which will enable the class to develop a revolutionary alternative to this rotting system.

ICC (8/10/08)

---

[1] An example of this is in the United States, presented as the Mecca of neo-liberalism. The US state is the main customer of companies and the computer companies are obliged to send a copy of the programmes they create and the components of the hardware they make to the Pentagon.

[2] It's a fairy tale that the American economy is deregulated, that its state doesn't intervene etc. The stock market is controlled by a specific Federal Agency, banks are regulated by a state commission, the Federal Reserve determines the economic policy through mechanisms like the rate of interest.

[3] The scourge of corruption is clear proof of the omnipresence of the state. In the United States, as in Spain or China, the ABC of the enterprise culture is that business can only prosper by having contacts inside the state ministries, and by sucking up to the political ‘men of the moment'.

[4] In the articles on ‘30 years of capitalist crisis', published in nos 96, 97 and 98 of the International Review, we analysed the techniques and methods with which state capitalism has accompanied this fall into the abyss so as to slow it down, succeeding in doing this in successive stages.

[5] Keynes is especially famous for his support for an interventionist state policy in which the state would use fiscal and monetary measures with the aim of offsetting the unfavourable effects of periods of cyclical recession in economic activity. The economists consider that he is one of the main founders of modern macro-economics. 

[6] We should remember here that, contrary to what is stated by all kinds of ideologues, this policy is not a characteristic of ‘neo-liberal' governments but was approved one hundred per cent by ‘socialist' or ‘progressive' governments. In France, the Mitterand government, supported by the Communist Party until 1984, had adopted measures as tough as those adopted by Reagan or Thatcher. In Spain, the ‘socialist' government of Gonzalez organised a ‘redeployment' that led to one million jobs being lost. 

[7] It is particularly stupid to think that this deluge of billions will not have any consequences. It is in fact preparing an even more uncertain future. Sooner or later, this folly will have to be paid for. The generalised scepticism that has met Paulson's financial rescue plan, the most gigantic in history (700 billion dollars!), demonstrates that the remedy is going to create new mine fields, more powerful and devastating than ever, in the subsoil of the capitalist economy.

After months in the political doldrums, Gordon Brown finally has something to be cheerful about. At one point nearly removed by an internal Labour Party coup, he's now feted by Nobel Prize winning economists for saving the world economy through the example set in the bailout of British banks.

The key components of Brown's UK bank rescue package are: (a) £200 billion made available for short-term loans through the Bank of England; (b) support for interbank lending between British banks to the tune of £250 billion; and (c) a recapitalisation programme for the banks of £50 billion (£25 billion initially, more later if needed). This has meant the effective nationalisation of big High Street banks including LloydsTSB-HBOS, RBS (owner of NatWest) and others, a total cost of £500 billion, approximately 37% of current UK GDP. To put this figure in perspective, the UK's total government expenditure for the 07-08 year is estimated at around £519 billion!

Although a large proportion of the money is not necessarily being given away or actually spent, but issued as loans and/or guarantees which the government hopes to be able to recoup, this is still a massive plan. So why has the UK bourgeoisie found it necessary to effectively nationalise large proportions of its financial apparatus?

The importance of finance to Britain

Britain's productive sectors have suffered from a century of decline since the end of the 19th Century as other capitalist nations began to industrialise and compete with Britain on the world market. After World War 1, Britain stagnated throughout the ‘roaring 20s' and was then savaged by the Great Depression. World War 2 saw its dependence on the US colossus grow to the point of ultimate submission. It emerged from the conflagration in hock to Uncle Sam and was forced to surrender the British Empire.

Even the post-war boom saw several short-but-sharp slowdowns and when the boom came to an end in the late 60s, Britain was one of the worst hit by the new crisis. British manufacturing is now seriously diminished, with some sectors reduced to next to nothing. Today, British industry is a moribund shadow of its former self and for all the blather about the ‘knowledge economy', the principle method of survival for UK manufacturing is not through the development of new technology but through attempts to increase the productivity of the working class.

In August 2008 the UK had an overall trade deficit of around £4.8 billion. The deficit in goods is a staggering £8.2 billion but is countered by the £3.5 billion surplus in services. What are the ‘services' that prevent the deficit position from becoming an outright disaster? In large part those are provided by the financial sector. London is the world's largest financial centre, while Edinburgh is the 5th largest in Europe. Over 500 banks have offices in London and the UK exported over £21 billion of financial services in 2005. The finance industry accounts for approximately 9.4% of GDP.

Britain is thus acutely exposed to the current financial crisis. It has the potential to annihilate the main sector that has allowed the British bourgeoisie to keep its head above water in the face of chronic economic stagnation.

State intervention is no solution

The British bourgeoisie has moved quickly to prevent the last of the family silver - the financial industry - being destroyed by the ‘credit crunch'. It has been followed by similar efforts in the other main capitalist states. However, the ‘credit crunch' is only a symptom of a far deeper problem: the economic crisis that has been unfolding since the end of the post-war boom. The credit bubble that is now exploding is the result of a series of state capitalist policies employed in an effort to contain this ever deepening crisis of overproduction. It is this very strategy that is now blowing up in the bourgeoisie's face.

To make matters worse, the vast bailouts orchestrated by the state must ultimately be paid for by increasing taxes on wages and profits. They may prevent outright collapse - although this is far from certain - but only by placing further burdens on real wages and capital accumulation, thus pushing the contradictions of capitalism even further to the edge of disaster.

Workers should not be fooled by the rhetoric of the bourgeoisie. The bailout does not represent a ‘solution' to the crisis. It is simply a vast IOU by the state on behalf of the working class. Workers will pay it in the form of a brutal decline in jobs, wages and working conditions. The only alternative is for the working class to present its own bill to the bourgeoisie - the communist revolution.  

Silver 30/10/8

On Nov 4th 1918, at Kiel, a port on the German Baltic Sea, thousands of marines mutinied against the order of the army to steam off for another sea battle.

A culminating point of discontent and rejection of the war had been reached. After four years of murder with more than 20 million dead, innumerable injured, the exhausting trench warfare involving heavy losses, with their gas attacks in Northern France and Belgium, the starvation of the working population; after this endless carnage, the working class had become totally fed up with the war and it was no longer ready to sacrifice itself for the imperialist war. However, the military command wanted to force the continuation of the war with brutal repression and it was ready to use draconian punishment against the mutinous marines.

In reaction, a broad wave of solidarity unfolded, starting in Kiel and immediately spreading to other towns in Germany. Workers downed tools, soldiers refused to follow orders, and as they had done already in January 1918 in Berlin they formed soldiers' and workers' councils which spread rapidly to other cities. On November 5/6th Hamburg, Bremen and Lübeck started moving; Dresden, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Frankfurt, Cologne, Hanover, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Munich were taken over by the workers' and soldiers' councils on Nov. 7/8th. Within one week there was no German big city where there was no workers' and soldiers' council.

During this initial phase Berlin quickly became the centre of the rising: "On Nov 9th, thousands of workers and soldiers took to the streets in massive demonstrations. Only shortly beforehand the government had ordered the ‘reliable' battalions to hurry to Berlin for the protection of the government. But on the morning of November 9th, the factories were deserted at an incredible speed. The streets filled with huge masses of people. At the periphery, where the biggest plants were located, large demonstrations were formed, merging towards the centre. Wherever soldiers gathered, it was usually not necessary to make a special appeal; they just joined the marches of the workers. Men, women, soldiers, a people under arms flooded through the streets towards the neighbouring barracks" (R. Müller, November Revolution, Vol. 2, p. 11). Under the influence of the huge masses  gathered in the streets, the last remnants of troops loyal to the government changed sides; they joined the mutineers and handed over their weapons to them. The police headquarters, the big newspaper printing offices, the telegraph offices, the parliamentary and government buildings were all occupied that day by armed soldiers and workers; prisoners were liberated. Many government employees ran away. A few hours were sufficient to occupy these posts of bourgeois power. In Berlin a central council of workers' and soldiers' councils was formed - the Vollzugsrat (executive council).

The workers in Germany thus followed in the footsteps of their class brothers and sisters in Russia, who in February 1917 had also formed workers' and soldiers' councils and who had successfully taken power in October 1917. The workers in Germany were about to embark upon the same road as the workers in Russia: overcoming the capitalist system by taking power through the workers' and soldiers' councils. The perspective was opening the gate towards world wide revolution, after the workers in Russia had made the first step in this direction.

Through this insurrectionary movement the workers in Germany had started the biggest ever mass struggles in Germany. All the ‘social peace' deals agreed upon by the trade unions during the war were smashed by the workers' struggles. By rising up in this way, the workers in Germany shook off the effects of the defeat of August 1914. The myth that the working class in Germany was totally paralysed by reformism was broken. The workers in Germany used the same methods of struggle which were going to mark the period of decadence and which previously had already been tested by the workers in Russia in 1905 and 1917: mass strikes, general assemblies, formation of workers' councils, in short the self-initiative of the working class. Next to the workers in Russia, the workers in Germany formed the spearhead of the first big international revolutionary wave of struggles which had emerged from the war. In Hungary and in Austria in 1918 the workers had risen as well and started to form workers' councils. 

Social Democracy: spearhead against the proletariat

While proletarian initiatives were spreading, the ruling class did not remain passive. The exploiters and the army needed a force able to sabotage and curb the movement. Having learned from the experience in Russia, the German bourgeoisie through the leaders of the military command pulled the strings. General Groener, supreme commander of the army later put it like this: ".. in Germany there was no party which had enough influence with the masses to re-establish government power with the supreme military command. The parties of the right had collapsed and of course it was unthinkable to form an alliance with the extreme Left. The supreme military command had no other choice but to form an alliance with Social Democracy. We united in our common struggle against revolution, in our struggle against Bolshevism. It was unthinkable to aim at the restoration of monarchy. The goals of our alliance which we formed on the evening of November 10th were: total struggle against revolution, reinstalling a government of order, supporting the government through the power of troops and the earliest possible formation of the national assembly" (W. Groener on the accord between the Supreme Military command and F. Ebert of November 10th 1918).

The cloak of ‘unity' to blur class antagonisms

In order to avoid the mistake by the ruling class in Russia following the February rising, when the Provisional Government continued the imperialist war and thus sharpened the resistance of the workers, peasants and soldiers against the regime, preparing the successful insurrection of October 1917, the capitalist class in Germany reacted swiftly and in a more cunning way. On November 9th, the Kaiser was forced to abdicate and sent abroad; on November 11th an armistice was signed, which helped to pull out the thorn of war from the flesh of the working class - the first factor which had compelled the workers and soldiers to fight. Thus the ruling class in Germany managed to take the wind out of the revolution's sails at an early stage. But apart from the forced abdication of the Kaiser and the signing of the armistice, the handing of government power to Social Democracy was a decisive step in sabotaging the struggle.

On November 9th, three leaders of the SPD (Ebert, Scheidemann, Landsberg), together with three leaders of the USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party[1]) formed the Council of People's Commissars, actually a bourgeois government loyal to capitalism. The same day, while Karl Liebknecht, the most famous Spartacist leader, proclaimed the Socialist Republic in front of thousands of workers, calling for the unification of the workers in Germany with the workers in Russia, the SPD leader Ebert proclaimed "a free German Republic" with the new Council of People's Commissars at its head. This self-proclaimed (bourgeois) government was set up to sabotage the movement. "By joining the government, Social Democracy comes to the rescue of capitalism, confronting the coming proletarian revolution. The proletarian revolution will have to march over its corpse", Rosa Luxemburg had already warned in October 1918 in Spartacus Letters. And on November 10th, Rote Fahne (Red Flag) the paper of the Spartacists, warned: "For four years the Scheidemans, the government socialists, pushed you into the horrors of war; they told you it was necessary to defend the ‘fatherland', although it was only a struggle for naked imperialist interests. Now that German imperialism is collapsing, they try to rescue for the bourgeoisie what still can be rescued and they try to squash the revolutionary energy of the masses. No unity with those who betrayed you for four years. Down with capitalism and its agents".

But the SPD now tried to mask the real class divide. The SPD brought up the slogan: "no fratricide" . It wrote: "if one group fights against another group, one sect fights against another sect, then we will have the Russian chaos, general decline, misery instead of happiness. Will the world, after the fantastic triumph of the abdication of the Kaiser, now witness the spectacle of self-mutilation of the working class in a pointless fratricide? Yesterday showed the necessity of inner unity within the working class. From almost all cities we hear the call for the re-establishment of unity between the old SPD and the newly founded USPD" (Vorwärts, 10.11.1918). Drawing on these illusions in unity between the SPD and the USPD, the SPD insisted at the Berlin Workers' and Soldiers' Council that since the Council of People's Commissars was composed of three members of SPD and USPD, the delegates to the Berlin workers' council should also be composed on such party proportions. It even managed to receive a mandate from the Berlin Workers' and Soldiers' Council to "head the provisional government", which in reality was the direct force opposing the workers' councils. Rosa Luxemburg later drew a balance sheet of the struggles in that phase: "We could hardly expect that in the Germany which had known the terrible spectacle of August 4, and which during more than four years had reaped the harvest sown on that day, there should suddenly occur on November 9, 1918, a glorious revolution, inspired with definite class consciousness, and directed towards a clearly conceived aim. What happened on November 9 was to a very small extent the victory of new principles; it was little more than a collapse of the extant system of imperialism. The moment had come for the collapse of imperialism, a colossus with feet of clay, crumbling from within. The sequel of this collapse was a more or less chaotic movement, one practically devoid of reasoned plan. The only source of union, the only persistent and saving principle was the watchword ‘Form workers' and soldiers' councils'" (Founding Congress of the KPD, 1918/19).

Political sabotage of the workers' councils by the SPD

In November and December, when the revolutionary élan of the soldiers was ebbing away, more strikes in the factories started to occur. But this dynamic was only at its beginning. And at that moment the council movement was still inevitably dispersed. Seizing its chance, the SPD took the initiative to call for a national congress of workers' and soldiers' councils to be held in Berlin on December 16. Thus at a moment when the movement in the factories had not yet come into full swing and the centralisation of the councils was still premature, the SPD wanted to use the opportunity of such a national congress of councils to disarm it politically. In addition, the SPD drew on the illusion, widespread at the time, that the councils would have to work according to the principles of bourgeois parliamentarianism. At the opening of the congress the delegation formed fractions (of the 490 delegates, 298 were members of the SPD, 101 of the USPD (amongst them 10 Spartacists), 100 belonged to other groups). Thus the working class had to confront a self-proclaimed congress of councils which claimed to speak on behalf of the working class but immediately laid all power into the hands of the newly self-proclaimed "provisional government". For example: a delegation of Russian workers who came to attend the congress was held back at the border under the instruction of the SPD. The presidium used tactical ruses to prevent leading Spartacists such as Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg from participating in the work of the congress and they even prevented them from speaking under the pretext that they were not workers from Berlin factories. The congress pronounced its own death sentence when it decided to support the call for the formation of a national assembly. This abdication of power to a bourgeois parliament disarmed the councils. 

The Spartacists, who wanted to put pressure on the congress, organised a massive street demonstration of 250,000 workers in Berlin on December 16. The national congress allowed the ruling class to score an important point over the proletariat. The Spartacists concluded: "This first congress finally destroyed the workers' only acquisition - the formation of the workers' and soldiers' councils - thus snatching away power from the working class, throwing back the process of revolution. The congress, by condemning the workers' and soldiers' councils to impotence (through the decision to hand over power to national assembly) has violated and betrayed its mandate. The workers and soldiers councils must declare the results of this congress as null and void" (Rosa Luxemburg, 20.12.1918). In some cities workers' and soldiers' councils protested against the decisions of the national congress.

Encouraged and strengthened by the results of the congress, the provisional government started to initiate military provocations. In an attack by Freikorps in Berlin (counter-revolutionary troops set up by the SPD) several dozen workers were killed on December 24. This provoked the outrage of the workers in Berlin. On December 25 thousands of workers took to the streets in protest. Given these openly counter-revolutionary actions of the SPD, the USPD commissars withdrew from the Council of Commissars on December 29. On December 30th/ January 1st the Spartacists, together with the International Communists of Germany (IKD), formed the German Communist Party (KPD) in the heat of the fire. Drawing a first balance sheet and drawing up the perspective, Rosa Luxemburg on January 3 1919 insisted: "the change from the predominantly ‘soldiers' revolution' of November 9 to a clear workers' revolution, the change from a superficial, merely political change of regime to a long drawn out process of economic and general confrontation between capital and labour, requires from the working class quite a different degree of political maturity, training, and tenacity than what we saw in this first phase of struggles" (3.1.1919, Red Flag).

The movement was then to enter a crucial stage in January 1919, which
we will take up in the next article.         

Dino (2/11/08) 

---

[1]. The USPD was a centrist party, composed of at least of two wings fighting against each other: a right wing, whose aim was to reintegrate into the old party, which had gone over to the bourgeoisie, and another wing, which was striving towards the camp of revolution. The Spartacists joined the USPD in order to reach more workers and to push them forward. In December 1918 the Spartacists split from the USPD to found the KPD.

16 October was World Food Day. It was marked by a fresh supply of statistics and analyses on the cause of food price rises, the state of food stocks and the impact on those in the most vulnerable situations. World food stocks haven't been at such a low level since the 1970s. They've halved since 2002. Recent assessments suggest there's about two months in reserve, the minimum amount recommended by the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation. The World Bank estimates that 119 million additional people have been thrown into famine conditions this year because of food price rises. That makes an ‘official' total of 967 million people, nearly a sixth of the world's population.

Among the factors identified as being behind the food crisis[1] are: poor harvests attributed to climate change, high energy and other production costs, lack of investment in agriculture, the subsidies put into bio-fuels, speculation, ‘unfair' trade, changes in diet, and the disruption caused by wars and ‘natural disasters'. Some of these elements have indeed contributed to current circumstances. But understanding that the food crisis is serious, and seeing some of the things behind it, doesn't mean that any of capitalism's ‘experts' can come up with a solution.

After all, there have, during the last 30 years, been Food Summits, Millennium Goals and UN initiatives designed to cut or even eradicate serious hunger and malnutrition. In reality, the FAO's High-Level Conference on World Food Security this year had to admit that, instead of reaching the target of 400 million people, hunger has been increasing. The World Bank's projection for those living in extreme poverty has been revised upward to 1.4 billion. At present it calculates that there are over three billion people living on less than $2 a day.

The World Bank is among the institutions that have been criticised in the past for putting pressure on the poorest countries to dismantle various systems of state support for agriculture and local food production. Now, with the clamour over unregulated markets and financial speculation, with massive state intervention in the face of the financial crisis, calls are being made for help for the hungry, as there was help for banks, money markets and currencies. "Bailout the needy, not the greedy" is the cry of Socialist Worker sellers.

Ingeborg Schäuble, the President of Welthungerhilfe (14/10/8) said: "Almost a billion starving people is a scandal for the world. In contrast to the banks, they themselves are not guilty for their plight. The general rethinking about the role of the state and the international community, brought about by the financial crisis, must be extended to also cover the hunger crisis. The world needs a rescue package to combat global hunger, and we therefore demand that funding for the development of agriculture in developing countries be increased by at least ten billion euros every year and that fairer trading conditions should be created."

From Oxfam (16/10/8) we hear similar demands "Developing country governments must invest more in supporting agriculture, focused on small farmers and women. They should have social protection policies, such as minimum income guarantees, and support for schooling and health. Developed country governments and other donors like the IMF, World Bank and other multilateral agencies and NGOs, should support developing countries to implement these policies and not pressure them to open up their markets too quickly."

Past experience indicates that there are not going to be any rescue packages or fundamental changes in governments' priorities.

The history of failed hunger initiatives over the decades is something that Oxfam is well aware of. It recently said "The international community's response to the crisis has been inadequate, both in terms of the amount of aid promised and its coordination. At an emergency meeting in Rome earlier this year, $12.3bn was pledged for the food crisis, but little more than $1bn has so far seen the light of day."

Experience shows that the ‘international community' is capable of promising the earth, but each individual capitalist state will only act in what it deems to be its own interests. This can be a straightforward defence of immediate economic self-interest, or something that fits in with an overall imperialist strategy. A deepening financial crisis in the ‘developed' countries means that aid will be one of the first items to be either cut or eliminated. As for the ‘developing' countries, they are often tied up in imperialist conflicts, or reliant on the sale of raw materials that are subject to wide price fluctuations. Their precarious situation determines their priorities, and the military option usually comes first. The example of Zimbabwe, from where, at great expense, despite a worsening economic situation, from 1998-2002, troops were sent to fight in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is typical.

As for the myth of ‘fair trade', the reality of competition in capitalism means that the weaker economies lose out to the stronger. The most powerful national capitals have enough of their own problems at present and are hardly likely to favour less advantageous trading conditions. Competition isn't supposed to be ‘fair.' Someone has to lose.

The fundamental material reality is that the ruling classes of every capitalist state will only defend their own interests, against all rivals and regardless of people starving. The deaths of millions do not figure in the profit and loss accounting of the bourgeoisie.

A global crisis hitting every country

The worldwide nature of the food crisis also demonstrates that, while national specificities can be significant, the reality of a global crisis is the dominant factor, alongside the fact that all present day nations are divided into classes.

In India, for example, despite self-sufficiency in food grains, substantial economic growth rates in recent years, and rising industrial output, there are more than 200 million people going to bed hungry every night. In Madhya Pradesh food shortages are so severe they have brought comparisons to conditions in Chad and Ethiopia. Despite its much-acclaimed economic progress, more than three quarters of the Indian population live on only 30 pence a day. Commentators suggest that corruption and bureaucracy in distribution, as well as discrimination against the lower castes and ethnic minorities, have contributed to the situation. They certainly have; but, in a class divided society, those who are already poor, marginalised or exploited will always suffer first the crushing impact of a global crisis.

Or take the example of Venezuela, to a certain extent cushioned from events by the extent of its oil supplies. Corruption, 30% inflation, and the imposition of price controls have all exacerbated existing food shortages and led to food hoarding - these are specific to Venezuela, as is Chávez's ‘socialist' rhetoric. But Venezuela is in no way immune from the effects of the world economic crisis, and it's the poorest that will be affected, not Señor Chávez.

The food crisis has also hit the Middle East and North Africa, an area rich in valuable raw materials, but also the region of the world that most depends on imports for food staples. Food riots, strikes and other protests have hit Egypt, the UAE, Yemen and Lebanon this year. The region is the scene of a number of conflicts, but when prices jump or food becomes scarce those who are most affected have shown they will not accept it passively.

The crisis of world capitalism hits every country. The trouble with the food crisis is that it is literally a matter of life and death in the weakest economies. "At a time when the productive capacities of the planet would make it possible to feed 12 billion human beings, millions and millions are dying of hunger because of the laws of capitalism ... a system of production aimed not at satisfying human need but at generating profit; a system totally incapable of responding to the needs of humanity" (IR 134).    

Car 29/10/8

---

[1]. Previous ICC articles on this question include ‘Capitalism can't feed the world' (WR 314), ‘What lies behind rise in global food prices?' (WR 316) and ‘Only the proletarian class struggle can put an end to famine' (International Review 134).

The ‘financial crisis' is the top story in the bourgeois media. Wall to wall coverage helps to obscure the international movement of the working class which alone can provide a solution to the crisis.

The International Labour Organisation has said that in industrialised countries wages will fall 0.5% during 2009. Based on past research the Global Wage Report 2008/9 shows that for each 1% drop in GDP per capita average wages fall by 1.55%. Recessions hit workers hardest. The Director General of the ILO admitted that "For the world's 1.5 billion wage-earners, difficult times lie ahead." In particular "Slow or negative economic growth, combined with highly volatile food and energy prices, will erode the real wages of many workers, particularly the low-wage and poorer households." In addition the ILO predicts that that the global financial crisis will make at least 20 million more people unemployed. Already, in November the US economy lost 533,000 jobs, the biggest monthly job loss since 1974; and at the time of writing the ‘Big Three' car companies in the US, Ford, GM and Chrysler are on the verge of collapse and have gone cap in hand to Washington, desperate for the government to bail them out. In Britain, unemployment figures for November were the worst for 11 years. The same story could be told all over the world.

For the working class the crisis arrived a long time before banks started collapsing and stock markets panicked. Workers have already been struggling against the impact of the economic crisis throughout the last five years. These struggles are not yet massive, but they are already significant, facing the manoeuvres of the unions and repression from the state.

Who controls the struggle?

In Italy government plans to cut more than 130,000 jobs in the education sector (two thirds of them actual teaching posts) led to a wave of protests for several weeks in October and November. There were hundreds of occupations of schools and universities, hundreds of demonstrations, all sorts of meetings, and lecturers taking their lessons into public places, open to all. Despite government accusations that this was all a left-wing plot, the protests were mostly not run by traditional opposition parties. Occupations involved both teachers and pupils. Demonstrations attracted parents, teachers, pupils, students and other workers. At the end of October there was a massive demonstration in Rome. Even allowing for the exaggerations of demo organisers (they claimed more then a million were on the street) this attracted hundreds of thousands from a whole range of sectors.

Alongside the protests were strikes in other sectors, both private and public; in particular, in early November, a one-day national transport strike that affected trains, buses and metros. There have also been unofficial strikes by Alitalia staff. As an article in the International Herald Tribune (11/11/8) said of unrest at the bankrupt airline: "The unions themselves dissociated themselves from the strike." It also quoted an academic airline analyst: "My feeling is that these wildcat strikes are semi-spontaneous and the results of a small minority, which seems to point to the fact that the various unions have increasingly diminished control over their members." Here's a frank acknowledgement that a) the unions' function is to control workers, not fight for them and b) increasingly they're finding it difficult to do this job. This describes a situation that's not unique to Italy, but has worldwide relevance.

Unions sell the crisis

600,000 engineering workers were involved in a series of rolling strikes, demonstrations and rallies in Germany in early November. With different actions in different places or in different companies on different days, this divided workers' energies and undermined the possibility of a united struggle. It was organised that way by the IGMetall union as part of its strategy before negotiations with employers that would affect 3.6 million workers. IGMetall threatened an all-out strike to back up an 8 percent pay demand, but in the end settled for an 18-month deal that give a 2.1% rise from February followed by another 2.1% from May. Having limited the potential of workers' struggles in the first place "Berthold Huber, IG Metall general secretary, said the result was ‘fair' given the ‘historically difficult situation'" (Financial Times 12/11/8). The plea for workers to make sacrifices for capitalism's ‘difficult situation' will surely soon wear thin through repetition.

Echoing the protests in Italy, in mid-November school students walked out of classes and 100,000 joined protest demonstrations in over 40 German cities. The anger at the conditions in which they work (overcrowded classes, not enough teachers, the intense pressure of exams etc) shows that the education system has not yet succeeded in preparing them to passively accept their future conditions when they will be working for wages.

Struggles across Europe

During October there was a wave of strikes in Greece. It culminated in a nationwide one-day strike that involved the public sector, transport etc, as well as hundreds of thousands of workers from the private sector. Still dominated by the unions, the demands ranged from those that directly affected workers (pay, pensions) to issues that the ruling class builds campaigns around, like privatisation and opposition to government bail-outs of the main banks. It is noteworthy that there was also a general strike of shop workers - the day after. Yet again the unions divide and rule

There was also a wave of school occupations, some 300 across Greece during October. The government challenged the occupations' legality and arrested students involved in demonstrations. Similar protests have been going on since new legislation was introduced in 2005.

In France during November there was a 4-day strike on Air France, and a national 36-hour rail strike.

During October there was a nationwide strike in Belgium affecting a number of sectors protesting over rising prices.

China is no exception

There was once foolish speculation that the Chinese economy could rescue the rest of world capitalism, or at least withstand the deepening crisis. In reality, such an export-led economy was bound to suffer when its customers started cutting back. Far from remaining aloof from the financial crisis, in mid-November "China unveiled a huge fiscal stimulus package designed to prevent its economy from slumping next year" (Financial Times 10/11/8). This involved a massive package of projects aimed at increasing domestic demand in the face of declining exports. With a value of nearly a fifth of Chinese GDP it rivals the measures introduced by states in Europe and the US.

In October the Financial Times (29/10/8) had already reported that "Signs are growing that China's economy could be cooling quicker than expected, with a string of big industrial companies announcing production cuts over the past week." This, in turn, should be put in the context of the official statistics for the first half of the year that admitted at least 67,000 factory closures. This could easily be in six-figures by the end of the year. With millions having left the country for the cities no wonder the Chinese Minister of Human Resources and Social Security said the employment situation in China is "grim."

This is the real state of the economy and there have already been extensive responses.

"China has told police to ensure stability amid the global financial crisis after thousands of people attacked police and government offices in a northwestern city in unrest triggered by a plan to resettle residents. After decades of solid economic growth, China is battling an unknown as falling demand for its products triggers factory closures, sparks protests and raises fears of popular unrest." There have already been "labour protests in the country's major export regions, where thousands of factories have closed in recent months, prompting fears the global financial crisis could stir wider popular unrest (Reuters 19/11/8)."

Today in China there are protests against rising prices and unemployment. With future job losses already forecast in their millions it is easy to see why the Chinese state is concerned about the prospects for social stability. The fact that the police are its weapon of choice shows that Chinese capitalism doesn't expect to have an economic answer to the effects of the global crisis, and will have to resort, as usual, to repression against workers' struggles. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the ruling class there will allow a certain development of ‘independent' trade unions, since the latter would be far more effective at absorbing social discontent than the official unions.

The crisis of capitalism is worldwide. But so is the response of the working class. What is needed above all is for workers to become conscious of the real dimension and significance of their struggles, because they contain the seeds of a global challenge to this tottering social order.  

Car 6/12/8

Around the end of November, a number of desperate and traumatised Congolese refugees, fleeing this way and then that from rebel forces on one side and government troops on the other, turned on the soldiers of the UN and began stoning and abusing them. The hapless troops of Monuc (their French acronym), supposed to be there to protect civilians from the conflict, are poorly paid, ill-equipped, untrained for such a mission and, if previous UN ‘peacekeeping' missions are anything to go by, some of the 17,000 troops probably don't even know where they are, let alone what they are supposed to be doing there. The killing fields of the Great Lakes region of Africa are symbolic of the ‘humanitarianism' of the ruling class and the fact that the United Nations is not just well meaning and useless, but part of the cynical murders and genocides that are more and more a feature of decomposing capitalism.

All the relief agencies in the region of the Congo agree that it's the worst conflict since World War Two: over 6 million dead, around 1500 a day dying for the last 15 years, half of them children; 1.5 million refugees and displaced; hundreds of thousands of rapes; shocking atrocities including forced cannibalism and overwhelming insecurity and stress for the great mass of the poor. If anything should engage what's called the international community, surely it's this? Don't bet on it. What the international community, i.e., each of the major powers, is engaged in is a gigantic whitewash in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the working class about their involvement in stirring up this conflict and using ethnic divisions and hatreds in the Congo; and for this the United Nations is their weapon of choice.

There's plenty of raw materials in this region to attract the various armed gangs and the major imperialist states of Britain, France, the USA, South Africa and latterly China: timber, diamonds, coltan, copper, gold and so on. But the main stakes in and around the Great Lakes of the Democratic Republic of Congo are strategic. Its size is massive and nine countries share its borders, and this is the reason why these major countries have unleashed no holds barred warfare through their direct involvement and through their respective cliques over the last fifteen years. The very gangsters that are making war are the ones that are running the United Nations and sending in their shambolic so-called peacekeeping forces as part of their imperialist rivalries.

France, Britain and the USA have been involved in fomenting this war since it began with the massacres in Rwanda (a country now backed by Britain and generally accepted to be behind the current military developments) in 1994. Since then, despite all the pious talks and the ‘never agains', various UN initiatives have only been a cover for particular imperialist attempts to move their pawns forward; for example the early 2002 initiative by South Africa was in fact dependent on the US in its rivalry with French imperialism. Similarly the recent moves by France and Britain through the UN (foreign ministers Kouchner and Miliband) are aimed at strengthening their respective countries' positions. The 3000 extra troops that both have proposed (and won't deliver) would be totally inadequate to protect civilians.

Across the globe, the UN is involved in imperialist massacres

It's not only around the Democratic Republic of Congo that the UN, with its legal cover and its ideology of humanitarianism, is designed to mystify the role of the great powers in their war of each against all. The same is true of Sudan and the ongoing horrors of Darfur. In Afghanistan the ‘humanitarianism' of the UN is a crime against humanity. Lording it up over the local populations the UN is known here as the ‘Toyota Taliban'. For two years from 1992 in ex-Yugoslavia, Germany, France, Russia, Britain and America acted under the aegis of the UN and Nato, calling for peace while defending their own imperialist interests and giving both overt and covert assistance to their local gangsters. Thus Britain and France, as UN peacekeepers, helped enforce the murderous Serbian siege of Sarajevo. The massacre of Srebrencia included the complicity of UN forces on the ground, notably Dutch troops and British SAS ‘observers'. Either could have called in an immediate air strike to prevent the massacre but didn't. The upper echelons of the UN knew what was going on but was more concerned with their own infighting and positioning of their pawns. The whole war, tripped initially by Germany, was at least a three-way fight between German, American and Russian, French and British imperialisms using their local pawns while claiming their humanitarianism and desire for peace.

The Gulf War of 1991 was similarly carried out under the sinister diplomatic farce of the authority of the UN. The "coalition" against Saddam was a façade of unity in order to fool the working class about the ‘defence of human rights' against ‘evil dictators'. This US-led display of imperialist might was designed to its assert its right to do and go wherever it pleased in a world where it was it was the only superpower. The UN itself was a battleground for unleashing the 2003 Gulf War, with the US paying only lip service to its resolutions, with Germany and France using United Nation legality in order to stymie US ‘unilateralism', and Britain stuck in the middle before eventually aligning itself (for its own imperialist interests) with the US under the guise of UN legality. The bombing of the UN's HQ in Baghdad in August 2003, which largely represented French interests, served the diplomatic and military interests of the US. And although the latter had to maintain some concern for the ‘international community', this did not stop it exposing the UN's ‘oil for food' programme as gangrened with corruption, going to the very top of the organisation and affecting the Secretary General's office.

How could an organisation representing the filth of the earth not be corrupt? The United Nations is not just useless and ineffectual but rotten to the core and an ideological weapon against the working class with its legalism and false humanitarianism. It is also a weapon for the ruling classes in their imperialist manoeuvres against their rivals. Following its nature, its forces on the ground are increasingly involved in racketeering, prostitution, drug running, sex trafficking and child abuse. Its higher level echelons are secretive and self-serving. Its appointments at this level are on a ‘who you know' basis with diplomats appointing themselves, presidents' cousins, government loyalists, spies, hacks and the like. In 1920, Lenin called the precursor to the UN, the League of Nations, "a den of thieves in which everyone is trying to grab what they can at their neighbours expense". This is even more so today. There can be no ‘United Nations' because, increasingly with the New World Order of capitalist decomposition, we are in the imperialist world of the war of each against all.   

Baboon, 29.11.08

"Through press and parliament, television and trade union apparatus, all factions of the bourgeoisie are screaming with one voice: the lorry drivers, sewerage workers, ‘public sector' employees, Leyland car workers, dockers and dustmen are endangering the health of the ailing British economy with their strikes and militant actions.

It's true!

Just like the lorry drivers in Belgium, oil workers in Iran, steelworkers in Germany, miners in America and China, or the unemployed steelworkers in the north of France, the workers in Britain are answering the onslaught of capitalism's world-wide crisis by refusing to bow down before the ‘national interest', and are instead putting their own class interests first.

We salute these ‘wreckers' of the capitalist system!" (WR 22, February 1979)

Introduction

Thirty years ago the working class in Britain launched a wave of militant strikes against crisis-ridden British capital in what became known as the ‘winter of discontent'. At its height this strike wave involved over 1.5 million workers in the largest work stoppage since the 1926 General Strike, and threatened to get out of the control of the trade unions; there was widespread use of the police as scabs and the army was put on standby.

For the British bourgeoisie, the ‘winter of discontent' has become a stark warning of what happens when ‘selfish' workers are allowed to fight for their own interests. Its propaganda about ‘the dead left unburied' and images of rubbish piled in the streets are wheeled out whenever trade unions make militant noises about pay claims.

For revolutionaries on the other hand, the ‘winter of discontent' shows very clearly that the working class can and must respond to the capitalist crisis; and that when it does, it will find itself facing not just individual employers but the full strength of the capitalist state apparatus. And above all it shows that when they wage their own struggle, the workers will confront the trade unions at all levels as an implacable enemy, forcing them to go beyond and against the unions and take control of the struggle themselves.

The ICC's section in Britain intervened actively in this strike wave, and this article draws heavily on the leaflets produced and articles appearing in World Revolution at the time.

The historical context of the ‘winter of discontent'

The winter of discontent was first and foremost part of an international wave of workers' struggles that shook the capitalist heartlands in the late 1970s. The key significance of these struggles was that they were primarily directed against the left and the unions.

After its right-wing factions proved poorly equipped to deal with the upsurge of class struggle in 1968-74, the bourgeoisie had made more and more use of its left-wing parties and of the trade unions in government, for example in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Britain, France, and West Germany. But after four years of implementing austerity measures, these left teams were becoming more and more exposed.

By the late 1970s the stakes were also getting higher for both classes. It was becoming clear to many workers that the capitalist crisis was here to stay: the bourgeoisie's economic ‘solutions' had been exposed as worthless and growing numbers of workers were refusing to go on accepting austerity measures which offered them nothing but a continual decline in living standards.

After 1974, the focus of class confrontation had shifted from the advanced centres of capital to the regions of the periphery. Throughout 1978 violent explosions of class struggle continued to occur in Tunisia, Peru, Brazil, India, and above all in Iran, but in the most decisive centres of world capital the proletariat also began to flex its muscles:

-in the USA, the militancy of a coal miners' strike inspired a rash of strikes throughout the summer on the railways, among municipal workers, papermill workers and in other sectors;

-in West Germany, strikes by printers, dockers and steelworkers shattered the Federal Republic's post-war image as a land free of social conflict;

-in Italy, the hospital sector was shaken by strikes which openly proclaimed their anti-union character;

-in France, elections were followed by a series of strikes in the car industry and among municipal workers. In Caen and Longwy demonstrating steel workers clashed violently with the police, and the unions and leftists did not hesitate in denouncing ‘irresponsible elements acting against the wishes of the unions' for daring to shatter the calm of the union-controlled demonstrations.

The resurgence of the class struggle in Britain

With less and less room for manoeuvre, economically and politically, the bourgeoisie increasingly needed to impose harsher austerity measures. Having picked off some of the weaker sectors of the working class and slashed the living standards of the petty bourgeoisie, the capitalist state had no option but to move in to attack the heart of the working class - the industrial proletariat.

In Britain, a Labour government had been working closely with the trade unions to impose austerity on the working class since 1974. Pressure was mounting from the working class for pay rises to catch up with inflation, which at its height in 1975 had reached over 26%. In an attempt to head off growing workers' anger, the TGWU union put in a claim for a 30% pay rise, and nationally the TUC took up a more militant pose against a further phase of pay limits. But the unions had lost a lot of credibility with the workers due to their collaboration with the government and their actions in isolating and undermining strikes. 

In the winter of 1978 the Labour government introduced a 5% limit on wage increases. The TUC rejected this and called for a return to ‘free collective bargaining' between unions and employers, so the unions could be given the job of policing wage cuts, agreeing productivity rises, ending restrictive practices, imposing no strike clauses and job flexibility, etc.

In September 1978, after they rejected a pay offer within the 5% limit, the Ford car workers became a test case to see how far the capitalist state could go in imposing the cuts demanded by the deepening crisis. If Labour succeeded in holding the Ford workers to the 5%, it could use this as an exemplary lesson to the rest of the class in the coming round of public sector pay claims; if the unions managed to break through the limit they would get a facelift and capital would get the money back through increased productivity ... with the whole package presented as a victory for the workers.

WR described the workers' reaction:

 "On Thursday 22 September, the toolmakers at Ford Halewood heard about the management's offer of 5% ... They packed up their tools and walked out. On Friday morning, 9,000 other Ford workers joined them; by Friday night it was 18,000 and soon after the weekend it was 57,000, following mass meetings at plants all over the country. All this with still one month to go on the last wages contract with its ‘no strike' clause." (WR 20, October 1978).

The Ford workers' action was unofficial. They were demanding a 25% pay increase and a 35 hour working week. The union ran to catch up and take control, making the strike official on 5 October. After negotiations between the union and the employers a 17% pay increase was agreed, but the shortening of hours was dropped. On the union's recommendation the workers returned to work on 22 November. 

There were also strikes at this time at other major industrial employers including Mackies, Reynalds, SU carburettors and Bathgate.

At the beginning of January 1979, fuel tanker drivers began an unofficial strike, after BP and Esso tanker drivers banned overtime in order to support a 40% pay increase.  Thousands of petrol stations were shut. Militant use of flying pickets ensured that the strike was effective, calling on other sectors of workers like the dockers to support the struggle. Picketing spread to refineries, ports, factories and even in some cases to entire towns which were ringed by determined workers. In Northern Ireland a state of emergency was declared and army called in. Again, the unions had to run to catch up. After just less than a month, with supplies transported by road brought to a virtual standstill, the drivers accepted a 20% pay deal.

In the weeks during and after the lorry drivers' strike, public sector workers, including low paid workers like gravediggers, also took strike action over pay. Several strikes of engine drivers and railway workers began, demanding 20% and a new bonus scheme. On 22 January a ‘day of action' organised by public sector unions saw mass demonstrations in many cities and 1.5 million workers out: the largest individual day's strike action since the 1926 general strike. Following the day of action many workers remained out on strike indefinitely. Some traditionally non-militant sectors of workers like the nurses and ambulance drivers also took action demanding pay increases.

By mid-February after weeks of negotiation the strikes officially came to an end with an agreement between the Labour government and the TUC. But many strikes did not end immediately and the strike wave only declined by the end of February, after a total of 29,474 million working days had been lost to strike action.

The trade unions: spearhead of the capitalist state's response

In its response to the strike wave, the bourgeoisie made selective use of repression, using the police and soldiers as scab labour, and putting the army on standby for use against the lorry drivers. Moves to strengthen anti-picketing laws were also put in hand. A relentless propaganda campaign was also orchestrated against the strikers, with all the media spreading the lie that the strikers were against the population, and against other workers, a selfish minority seeking to destroy the livelihoods of millions, and happy to watch the old and sick rot and die... As WR pointed out at the time, to create these lies, the bourgeoisie had only to describe its own attitude to society; in fact it was the capitalist state that was deliberately deflecting the effects of the strikes on to the population in order to mobilise opposition to the strikers.

But in the face of such strong militancy, it was the trade unions which acted as the spearhead against the workers' struggles. The unions had two aims: to maintain the isolation of different sectors from each other to prevent the strike wave generalising, and to curb the effects of the picketing to limit its extension. In the lorry drivers' strike, for example, regional emergency committees and patrols of union officials did their utmost to blunt the picketing.

Within the union apparatus a typical division of labour was revealed: the shop stewards were busy on the front-line trying to dampen the militancy of the strikes, while the higher echelons of the union machine attempted to tie down the struggles in a web of ‘negotiations' and agreements with the government and employers ... including a ‘code of conduct' for the class struggle! WR described how the shop stewards in particular helped to sabotage the Ford workers' action after the first spontaneous walk out:

"On the following Tuesday, the AUEW moved in to make the strike official for its 8,000 members, while the other unions dragged their feet. But although the union leadership took a bit of time to move in and take control of the situation, they had no need to worry. Their guard dogs on the shop floor - the shop stewards - had been quick off the mark. After the mass meetings called to back the walkout against the 5%, pickets were set up and everyone else went home. The whole momentum of the action was stopped like a billiard ball dropping into a pocket - the unions' pocket." (WR 20, October 1978).

The real lessons of the ‘winter of discontent'

For the British bourgeoisie, the resurgence of class struggle in 1978-79 showed the need for a new strategy that involved putting the Labour Party into opposition.

For the working class, the real lesson of the ‘winter of discontent' was that workers must spread their strikes across sectors and call on other workers to join the struggle, creating their own general assemblies and strike committees to coordinate the struggle outside of union control, including that of the shop stewards.

The defiance demonstrated by the working class in the ‘winter of discontent' amply reaffirmed the tendency towards self-consciousness and self-organisation within the proletariat's struggle. Despite a strong attachment to the trade unions as ‘their' organisations, the strike wave of 1978-9 revealed the increasing capacity of the British workers to challenge the unions' grip and take control of the struggle themselves, as shown in:

-the lorry drivers' so-called ‘secondary picketing' and their numerous refusals to acknowledge union dispensations

-the ambulance drivers' rejections of their stewards' calls to provide emergency cover

-the public sector workers' refusals to return to work after the union-organised ‘day of action'.

Above all, the strike wave in Britain in the winter of 1978-79 showed the real power of the working class to paralyse capitalism, and its potential to pose an alternative to a crisis-torn, decaying mode of production, as WR highlighted at the time:

"In the present wave of class struggle, the immense power of the working class is becoming an ever-more tangible reality. In Britain, the militancy of the lorry drivers' pickets threatened to bring the economy to a grinding halt in a few weeks: and it was the unions which saved the day for capital with their open attacks on the extension of the struggle. The frenzied response of the British bourgeoisie to these strikes was, in large measure, an expression of the real fear that the power of the working class instils in its class enemy. The present round of ‘industrial anarchy' proves beyond a doubt that only the working class has the capacity to paralyse the bourgeoisie and forestall its murderous designs." (WR 22, February 1979).

Thirty years on, while the threat of a third world war is not the same as it was in the 1970s, capitalism's ‘murderous designs' on the planet are even more apparent. And the need for the proletariat to exercise its power to paralyse capitalism is even greater. In the battles to come, the trade unions everywhere will once again be called upon to save the day for capital. The working class will need to draw the lessons of its past experience and take its struggle outside of and against the unions, and into its own hands.  

MH 26/11/8

The first article in this series (WR 319) examined the beginning of the revolution in Germany in November 1918. In this second part, we look at how the ruling class used its most powerful weapons - not only armed repression, but also the ideological campaigns of the former workers' party, the SPD, to inflict a major defeat on the revolutionary movement. 

When it made its insurrection in November 1918 the working class forced the bourgeoisie in Germany to end the war. In order to sabotage the radicalisation of the movement and prevent a repeat of the ‘Russian events' the capitalist class used the SPD within the struggles as a spearhead against the working class. Thanks to a particularly effective policy of sabotage the SPD, with the help of the unions, did all it could to sap the strength of the workers' councils.

In the face of the explosive develop­ment of the movement with soldiers' mutinying everywhere and going over to the side of the insurrectionary workers, the bourgeoisie could not possibly envis­age an immediate policy of repression. It had first to act politically against the working class and then go on to obtain a military victory.

However the preparations for military action were made from the very begin­ning. It was not the right wing parties of the bourgeoisie which organised this re­pression but rather the one that still passed for ‘the great Party of the proletariat', the SPD, and it did so in tight collabora­tion with the army. It was these famous democrats who went into action as capitalism's last line of defence. They were the ones who turned out to be the most effective rampart of capital. The SPD began by systematically setting up commando units as the companies of regular troops infected by the ‘virus of the workers' struggles' were less and less inclined to follow the bourgeois govern­ment. These companies of volunteers, privileged with special pay, would act as auxiliaries for the repression.

The military provocations of 6 & 24 December 1918

Just one month after the start of the struggles the SPD ordered the police to enter by force the offices of Spartakus' newspaper, Die Rote Fahne. Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and other Spartakists, but also members of the Berlin Executive Council, were arrested. At the same time troops loyal to the government attacked a demonstration of soldiers who had been demobilised or had deserted; fourteen demonstrators were killed. In response several factories went on strike on 7 December; general assemblies were held everywhere in the factories. For the first time on 8 December there was a demonstration of workers and armed soldiers in which more that 150,000 participated. In the towns of the Ruhr, like Mülheim, workers and soldiers arrested some industrialists.

Confronted with these provocations from the government, the revolutionaries did not push for an immediate insurrec­tion but called for the massive mobilisa­tion of the workers. The Spartakists made the analysis that the conditions were not yet ripe for the overthrow of the bour­geois government, particularly in so far as the capacities of the working class were concerned.

The national Congress of the councils that took place in the middle of December 1918 showed that this was in fact the case and the bourgeoisie profited from the situation. The delegates to this Congress decided to submit their deci­sions to a National Assembly that was to be elected. At the same time a Central Council (Zentralrat) was set up that was composed exclusively of members of the SPD who pretended to speak in the name of the workers' councils and the soldiers in Germany. The bourgeoisie realised that they could use this political weakness of the working class by unleashing an­other military provocation following the Congress: on 24 December the com­mando units and the governmental troop went onto the offensive. Eleven sailors and several soldiers were killed. Once more there was great indignation among the workers. Those of the Daimler mo­tor company and several other Berlin factories formed a Red Guard. On 25 December powerful demonstrations took place in response to this attack. The government was forced to retreat. Now that the governing team was being in­creasingly discredited, the USPD, which up to then had participated in it along with the SPD, withdrew.

The bourgeoisie did not give way how­ever. It continued to push for the disarmament of the proletariat which was still armed in Berlin and it made preparations to deliver it up to the decisive blow.

The SPD calls for death to the Communists

In order to set the population against the class movement, the SPD became the mouthpiece of a powerful campaign of slander against the revolutionaries and even went so far as to call for death to the Spartakists in particular.

At the end of December the Spartakus group left the USPD and joined with the IKD to form the KPD. And so the working class possessed a Communist Party that was born in the heat of the movement and which was the target of attacks from the SPD, the main defender of capital.

For the KPD the activity of as large a number as possible of the working masses was indispensable if this tactic of capital was to be opposed. "After the initial phase of the revolution, that of the essen­tially political struggle, there opens up a phase of strengthened, intensified and mainly economic struggle." (Rosa Luxemburg at the founding Congress of the KPD). The SPD government "won't approach the lively flames of the eco­nomic class struggle"(ibid). That is why capital, with the SPD at its head, did all it could to prevent any extension of the struggles on this terrain by provoking premature armed uprisings of the work­ers and then repressing them. They needed to weaken the movement at its centre, Berlin, in the early days in order to then go on to attack the rest of the working class.

The trap of the premature insurrection in Berlin

In January the bourgeoisie reorganised its troops stationed in Berlin. In all they had more than 80,000 soldiers throughout the City, of which 10,000 were storm troops. At the beginning of the month they launched another provocation against the workers in order to disperse them militarily. On 4 January the prefect of police in Berlin, Eichhorn, who had been nominated by the workers in November, was relieved of his functions by the bourgeois government. This was seen as an attack by the working class. In the evening of 4 January the Revolutionäre Obleute held a meeting which Liebknecht and Pieck attended in the name of the newly formed KPD.

The KPD, Revolutionäre Obleute and USPD called for a protest gathering for Sunday 5 January. About 150,000 work­ers attended following a demonstration in front of the prefecture of police. On the evening of 5 January some of the dem­onstrators occupied the offices of the SPD paper, Vorwärts, and other pub­lishing houses. These actions were prob­ably incited by agents provocateurs, at any rate they took place without the knowledge or approval of the committee.

But the conditions were not ripe for overthrowing the government and the KPD made this clear in a leaflet put out at the beginning of January:

"If the Berlin workers dissolve the National Assembly today, if they throw the Ebert-Scheidemanns in prison while the workers of the Ruhr, Upper Silesia and the agricultural workers on the lands east of the Elba remain calm, tomorrow the capitalists will be able to starve out Berlin. The offensive of the working class against the bourgeoisie, the battle for the workers' and soldiers' councils to take power must be the work of all working people throughout the Reich. Only the struggle of the workers of town and country, everywhere and permanently, accelerating and growing until it becomes a powerful wave that spreads resound­ingly over the whole of Germany, only a wave initiated by the victims of exploita­tion and oppression and covering the whole country can explode the capitalist government, disperse the National As­sembly and build on the ruins the power of the working class which will lead the proletariat to complete victory in the ultimate struggle against the bourgeoisie. (...)

Workers, male and female, soldiers and sailors! Call assemblies everywhere and make it clear to the masses that the National Assembly is a bluff. In every workshop, in every military unit, in every town take a look at and check whether your workers' and soldiers' council has really been elected, whether it doesn't contain representatives of the capitalist system, traitors to the working class such as Scheidemann's men, or inconsistent and oscillating elements such as the Inde­pendents." It follows from this analy­sis that the KPD saw clearly that the overthrow of the capitalist class was not yet immediately possible and that the insurrection wasn't yet on the agenda.

After the huge mass demonstration on 5 January another meeting of the Obleute was held the same evening, at­tended by delegates from the KPD and the USPD as well as representatives of the garrison troops. Carried away by the powerful demonstration that day, those present elected a Revolutionary Committee of 52 members led by Ledebour as president, Scholze for the Revolutionäre Obleute and Karl Liebknecht for the KPD. They decided on a general strike and another demonstra­tion for the following day, 6 January.

The Revolutionary Committee distributed a leaflet calling for insurrection: "Fight for the power of the revo­lutionary proletariat! Down with the Ebert-Scheidemann government!"

Soldiers came to declare their solidar­ity with the Revolutionary Committee. A delega­tion of soldiers declared that they would take the side of the revolution as soon as the bankruptcy of the current Ebert-Scheidemann government was declared. At that, Liebknecht for the KPD, Scholze for the Obleute signed a decree declaring that it was bankrupt and that government affairs would be taken in hand by the Revolutionary Com­mittee. On 6 January about 500,000 people demonstrated in the street. Dem­onstrations and gatherings took place in every sector of the city; the workers of Greater Berlin demanded their weapons back. The KPD demanded the arming of the proletariat and the disarming of the counter-revolutionaries. Although the Revolutionary Committee had produced the slo­gan "Down with the government" it took no serious initiative to carry out this orientation. In the factories no combat troops were organised, no attempt was made to take the affairs of the state in hand and paralyse the old govern­ment. Not only did the Revolutionary Committee have no plan of action but on the 6 January the navy forced it to leave its headquarters.

The mass of demonstrating workers awaited directions in the streets while their leaders were disabled. Although the proletarian leadership held back, hesi­tated, had no plan of action, the SPD-led government for its part rapidly got over the shock caused by this initial workers' offensive. Help came to rally round it on all sides. The SPD called for strikes and supporting demonstrations in favour of the government. A bitter and perfidious campaign was launched against the com­munists.

The SPD and its accomplices were thus preparing to massacre the revolu­tionaries of the KPD in the name of the revolution and the proletariat's interests. With the basest duplicity, it called on councils to stand behind the government in acting against what it called "armed gangs". The SPD even supplied a mili­tary section, which received weapons from the barracks, and Noske was placed at the head of the forces of repression with the words: "We need a bloodhound, I will not draw back from such a responsibil­ity."

By 6 January, isolated skirmishes were taking place. While the government massed its troops around Berlin, on the evening of the 6th the Executive of the Berlin councils was in session. Domi­nated by the SPD and the USPD, it proposed that there should be nego­tiations between the Revolutionäre Obleute and the government, for whose overthrow the Revolutionary Com­mittee had just been calling. The Execu­tive played the ‘conciliator', by propos­ing to reconcile the irreconcilable. This attitude confused the workers, and espe­cially the soldiers who were already hesi­tant. The sailors thus decided to adopt a policy of ‘neutrality'. In a situation of direct class confrontation, any indecision can rapidly lead the working class to lose confidence in its own capacities, and to adopt a suspicious attitude towards its own political organisations. By playing this card, the SPD helped to weaken the proletariat dramatically. At the same time, it used agents provocateurs (as was proven later) to push the workers into a confron­tation.

Faced with this situation, the KPD leadership, unlike the Revolutionary Committee, had a very clear posi­tion: based on the analysis of the situation made at its founding Congress, it consid­ered the insurrection to be premature.

The KPD thus called on the work­ers first and foremost to strengthen the councils by developing the struggle on their own class terrain, in the factories, and by getting rid of Ebert, Scheidemann, and Co. By intensifying their pressure through the councils, they could give the movement a new impetus, and then launch into the battle for the seizure of political power.

On the same day, Luxemburg and Jogiches violently criticised the slogan of immediate overthrow of the govern­ment put forward by the Revolutionary Committee, but also and above all the fact that the latter had shown itself, by its hesitant and even capitulationist attitude, incapable of directing the class movement. In particu­lar, they reproached Liebknecht for act­ing on his own authority, letting himself be carried away by his enthusiasm and impatience, instead of referring to the Party leadership, and basing himself on the KPD's programme and analyses.

This situation shows that it was neither the programme nor the political analysis that were lacking, but the Party's ability as an organisation, to fulfil its role as the proletariat's political leadership. Founded only a few days before, the KPD had not the influence in the class, much less the solidity and organisational cohesion of the Bolshevik party one year earlier in Russia. The Communist Party's immaturity in Germany was at the heart of the dispersal in its ranks, which was to weigh heavily and dramatically in the events that followed.

In the night of 8/9 January, the government troops went on the attack. The Revolutionary Committee, which had still not correctly analysed the balance of forces, called for action against the government: "General strike! To arms! There is no choice! We must fight to the last man!" Many workers answered the call but once again they waited in vain for precise instructions from the Committee. In fact, nothing was done to organise the masses, to push for fraternisation between the revolutionary workers and the troops... And so the government's troops entered Berlin, and for several days engaged in violent street fighting with armed workers. Many were killed or wounded in scattered confrontations in different parts of the city. On 13 January, the USPD declared the general strike at an end, and on 15 January Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were assassinated by the thugs of the Social-Democrat regime! The SPD's criminal campaign "Kill Liebknecht!" thus ended in a success for the bourgeoisie. The KPD was deprived of its most important leaders

The KPD did not have the strength to hold the movement back, as the Bolsheviks had done in July 1917. In the words of Ernst, the new Social-Democratic chief of police who replaced the ousted Eichhorn: "Any success for the Spartakus people was out of the question from the start, since by our preparation we had forced them to strike prematurely. Their cards were uncovered sooner they wished, and that is why we were able to combat them".

Following this military success, the bourgeoisie immediately understood that it should build on its advantage. It launched a bloody wave of repression in which thousands of Berlin workers and commu­nists were assassinated, tortured, and thrown into prison. The murders of Liebknecht and Luxemburg were no ex­ception, but revealed the bourgeoisie's vile determination to eliminate its mortal en­emies: the revolutionaries.

On 19th January, ‘democracy' tri­umphed: elections were held for the Na­tional Assembly. Under the pressure of the workers' struggles, the government in the meantime had transferred its sittings to Weimar. The Weimar Republic was established on the corpses of thou­sands of workers.

Insurrection is based on the revolutionary élan of the masses

At its founding Congress, the KPD held that the class was not yet ripe for insurrection. After the movement initially dominated by the soldiers, a new impetus based on the factories, mass assemblies, and demonstrations was vital. This was a precondition for the class to gain, through its movement, greater strength and greater self-confidence. It was a condition for the revolution to be more than the affair of just a minority, or of a few desperate or impatient elements, but based on the revolutionary élan of the great majority of workers.

Moreover, in January the workers' councils did not exercise a real dual power, in that the SPD had succeeded in sabotaging them from within. As we showed in WR 319, the coun­cils' National Congress held in mid-De­cember had been a victory for the bour­geoisie, and unfortunately nothing new had come to stimulate the councils since then. The KPD's appreciation of the class movement and the balance of forces was perfectly lucid and realistic.

Some think that it is the party that takes power. But then, we would have to ex­plain how a revolutionary organisation, no matter how strong, could do so when the great majority of the working class has not yet sufficiently developed its class consciousness, is hesitant and oscillating, and has not yet been able to create work­ers' councils with enough strength to oppose the bourgeois regime. Such a position completely misunderstands the fundamental characteristics of the prole­tarian revolution, and of the insurrection, which Lenin was the first to point out: "the insurrection must be based, not on a plot, not on a party, but on the vanguard class". Even in October 1917, the Bol­sheviks were particularly concerned that it should be the Petrograd Soviet that took power, not the Bolshevik Party.

The proletarian insurrection cannot be ‘decreed from on high'. On the contrary, it is a conscious action of the masses, which must first develop their initiative, and achieve a mastery of their own strug­gles. Only on this basis will the directives and orientations given by the councils and the party be followed.

The proletarian insurrection cannot be a putsch, as the bourgeois ideologues try to make us believe. It is the work of the entire working class. To shake off capi­talism's yoke, the will of a few, even the class's clearest and most determined ele­ments, is not enough: "the insurgent pro­letariat can only count on its numbers, its cohesion, its cadres, and its general staff' (Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolu­tion, "The Art of Insurrection").

In January, the working class in Ger­many had not yet reached this level of maturity. (To be continued)

(This is a shortened version of an article published in International Review 83, 1995)

The article published in WR320 is section A of the Report on the British situation fo the 18th WR congress. The whole of this report (which also covers the class struggle, British imperialism and the political problems of the British ruling class) can be found here in ICC Online [132] .

The horrific attacks on people in Mumbai, at a hospital, in a café and hotels, at a Jewish centre, and at random bystanders in a railway station, was soon headlined "India's 9/11" across the world.

Since the USA used the 9/11 atrocities to justify its own military barbarism in Afghanistan and Iraq, this comparison had a definite significance: it contains the implicit threat that India's status as ‘victim' would be used to justify putting pressure on, or even renewing conflict with, Pakistan. Not only had the US already warned India of potential attacks, but Indian intelligence had, on a number of occasions, in its own right, advised of the possibility of attacks on Mumbai. There has been the suggestion that the Indian state let the attacks go ahead in order to justify future aggression - which also bears comparison to the US state's behaviour in September 2001.

On the other hand, if it's looking for pretexts for war, the Indian state can already point to a number of other bomb attacks on a number of Indian cities in the last six months, including New Delhi, Jaipur, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, and Guwahati; and, so far this year, more than 400 have died from such attacks. Terrorism in Mumbai is therefore just the latest, if most dramatic, expression of a conflict between India and Pakistan that has continued, in one form or another, since before independence from Britain. In particular India and Pakistan fought over Kashmir in 1947, 1965, 1971 and, again, following Indian air attacks on Muslim insurgents in May 1999. After the latter there were continuing incidents for some years, including the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001 in which 14 people died. This led to the 2002 mobilisation of the armed forces of both nuclear powers to face each other at their frontier, on the brink of all-out war.

The conflict has not only been undertaken by the ‘official' armed forces of each country but also by terrorist groups often set up by the secret services of each state. In particular the ISI (the Pakistan secret services) set up Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed initially to operate in Kashmir; and, although the Pakistani state formally outlawed these groups in 2002, they still act in a way that is approved by important factions of the Pakistani ruling class. It was not surprising that the Indian state (and the world's media) accused these groups of responsibility for the Mumbai attacks. Whoever was responsible for the attacks was definitely acting in continuity with the history of brutality and barbarity that has marked the conflict.

The United States is not a disinterested party to events. One of Barack Obama's foreign policy priorities (in continuity with Bush and Defense Secretary Gates, whom Obama is retaining) is the offensive against forces fighting in Afghanistan that are based in Pakistan. Needing Pakistan's assistance in the ‘war against terror', Washington doesn't want Pakistani forces abandoning their current positions to go to the Kashmir border. Anything that worsens relations between Pakistan and India undermines US strategy in the area. It's also difficult for the US to hold India back, as the Indian ruling class can point out that the US itself has hardly been restrained with its attacks on al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Some commentators have suggested that India will not attack Pakistan as it would strengthen the position of the army within that very brittle state, and that there is at least some possibility of dialogue with the Pakistani ruling class in its current configuration. Others have insisted that all-out imperialist conflict is inevitable, sooner or later, and that things are already out of the control of Indian and Pakistani policy-makers.

One thing that is certain is the danger inherent in the situation. Both countries have nuclear weapons. Both have armed forces that are already mobilised, not only for Kashmir: Pakistan fighting in its North-West and in Balochistan, and India in Nagaland and in a number of states against the Naxalite insurgency. Most importantly, both countries have links with more powerful imperialisms: India in a developing alliance with the US and Pakistan with a long-standing anti-Indian understanding with China.

Maybe, at this stage, India and Pakistan, with the US lurking in the background, will be able to contain the impulse toward open military conflict, but the imperialist drive to war is fundamental to capitalism, and, in this instance, potentially threatens to convulse one of the most populous regions in the world. The attacks in Mumbai were dreadful enough, the potential massacre that capitalism has in store when it unleashes its full armoury of destruction confirms it as a system of social organisation which ultimately has only oblivion to offer humanity. 

Car 5/12/8

From a working class point of view denouncing the terrorist attacks on people in Mumbai and the repression of the Indian state is the absolute ABC of class politics. Our comrades in India (Communist Internationalist, statement here in ICC Online [135] ) have not only done that but also insisted that the working class can not "take sides in intensifying conflict between the Indian and Pakistani bourgeoisie". To oppose the division of the working class and reject support for any imperialism is a fundamental responsibility for revolutionaries.

In contrast to this internationalist approach the Socialist Workers Party has made it very clear which side of the Indo-Pakistan conflict it supports.

In a "Statement on Mumbai attacks" (27/11/8, online only) it says its "appalled" by the attacks and "offers its condolences to the families of all those who have been killed or injured". But it doesn't have a word to say against the killers or whoever might be behind them. It focuses exclusively on "the actions of the Indian state", in particular "its vicious repression in Kashmir" ("Indian armed forces have been pounding the disputed territory of Kashmir with mortars, shells and missiles for decades") and "its support for the US-led ‘war on terror'".

The fact that one imperialist nuclear power, India, confronts another, Pakistan, is ignored. So although "India and Pakistan have been to war four times since 1947" ("War threats will only fuel terror" (2/12/8)) the SWP can't bring itself to mention the extent of Pakistani military activity, its victims and its imperialist allies (which include the US in some contexts). In a country where divisions of caste, class, religion and ethnicity are among the most complex in the world, it chooses "the widespread discrimination against Muslims in India" as key to the situation. It uses this to justify ‘Islamic' terrorism even though of the "factors [that] could have motivated the terror attacks in Mumbai" the most likely is "the longstanding conflict between India and Pakistan over the state of Kashmir."

While it takes sides in imperialist and religious conflicts it has the cheek to say:  "Mumbai has seen terrible carnage over decades as politicians manipulate religious and ethnic divisions for their own ends. The hope must be that the city's working class will be strong enough to resist any attempt to repeat the cycle of violence."

Politicians do manipulate religious and ethnic divisions. The example of the SWP comes to mind. It says the "escalation of war in the region will increase the grievances that led to the carnage in Mumbai and make further terror attacks more likely." So, when there's an "escalation of war", presumably, in the SWP's view, caused by Indian imperialism, then it's to be expected that Pakistani imperialism (in whatever form, official or illegal, nuclear or terrorist) will have "grievances".

Hopefully the working class will be strong enough to resist leftists who try to sell them ideas of a ‘lesser evil.' According to the SWP ("What's behind the Mumbai attacks?" (2/12/8)) the "story of the workers' movement in India is full of examples of Hindus and Muslims uniting against their bosses, the government and Hindu chauvinist gangs." Why only "Hindu chauvinist gangs"? Is this the only other force that workers will come up against apart from the bosses and the government? Muslim workers, for example, face constant propaganda that they should not see themselves as workers but as Muslims, with a loyalty to Muslim states and those military forces who say they are fighting a holy war in defence of Islam. It's unlikely that Muslim workers will have illusions in the "Hindu chauvinist gangs" that savagely attack them. However, illusions in sacrificing yourself for an Islamic jihad are all too common among such workers.

The SWP is one of the main elements in the Stop The War Campaign. Yet far from wanting to stop wars it finds a side to support in every conflict. In the 1960s and 70s it supported North Vietnam, as backed by Russian imperialism, against South Vietnam backed by the US. In the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s it supported Iran. During Israel's battles with Hezbollah in the Lebanon in 2006 it handed out placards proclaiming ‘we are all Hezbollah'. Today it is preparing to justify critical support for Pakistan or its ‘Mujahidin' in any future imperialist conflict with India.

The SWP has been working hard to recruit among disaffected Muslim youth through front groups like Respect and Stop the War. In reality, it is only providing a ‘left' cover for a much bigger recruitment drive - the one waged by capitalist states in their incessant imperialist rivalries.    

Car 4/12/8