This article is available as a leaflet here [1] to download and distribute

After two years of strangling the economy of Gaza - blockading fuel and medicines, preventing exports and stopping workers from leaving Gaza to find work on the Israeli side of the border - after turning the whole of Gaza into a vast prison camp, from which desperate Palestinians have already tried to escape by breaking through the border into Egypt, Israel's military machine is subjecting this densely populated, impoverished area to all the savagery of a virtually continuous aerial bombardment. Hundreds have already been killed and the already exhausted hospitals cannot cope with the endless stream of wounded. Israel's claims that it is trying to limit civilian casualties are a sinister joke when every ‘military' target is situated next to a  cluster of houses; and since mosques and the Islamic university have been openly selected as targets, the distinction between civil and military has been made entirely meaningless. The results are evident: scores of civilians, many of them children, killed and maimed, even greater numbers terrified and traumatised by the non-stop raids. At the time of writing, the Israeli PM Ehud Olmert is describing this offensive as only the first stage. Tanks are waiting at the border and a full-scale land invasion has not been ruled out. 

Israel's justification for this atrocity - supported by the Bush administration in the US - is that Hamas has not stopped firing rockets at Israeli civilians despite the so-called ceasefire.  The same argument was used to support the invasion of southern Lebanon two years ago.  And it is true that both Hizbollah and Hamas hide behind the Palestinian and Lebanese population and cynically expose them to Israeli revenge, falsely presenting the killing of a handful of Israeli civilians as an example of ‘resistance' to Israel's military occupation.  But Israel's response is absolutely typical of any occupying power: punish the entire population for the activity of a minority of armed fighters. They did this with the economic blockade, imposed after Hamas ousted Fatah from control of the Gaza administration; they did it in Lebanon and they are doing it today with the bombing of Gaza. It is the barbaric logic of all imperialist wars, in which civilians are used by both sides as shields and targets, and almost invariably end up dying in far greater numbers than the uniformed soldiers.   

And as with all imperialist wars, the suffering inflicted on the population, the wanton destruction of houses, hospitals and schools, has no result except to prepare the ground for further rounds of destruction. Israel's proclaimed aim is to smash Hamas and open the door to a more ‘moderate' Palestinian leadership in Gaza, but even former Israeli intelligence officers (at least one of the more...intelligent) can see the futility of this approach. Speaking about the economic blockade, ex-Mossad officer Yossi Alpher said "The economic siege of Gaza has not brought any of the desired political results. It has not manipulated Palestinians into hating Hams, but has probably been counter-productive. It is just useless collective punishment". This is even more true of the air raids. As Israeli historian Tom Segev put it, "Israel has always believed that causing suffering to Palestinian civilians would make them rebel against their national leaders. This assumption has proved wrong over and over" (both quotes from The Guardian 30.12.08). Hizbollah in Lebanon was strengthened by the Israeli attack in 2006; the Gaza offensive may well have the same result for Hamas. But whether strengthened or weakened it will no doubt respond with further attacks on Israeli civilians, if not through rocket attacks, then through a revival of suicide bombings.

The ‘spiral of violence' expresses the decay of capitalism

‘Concerned' world leaders like the Pope or UN general secretary Ban Ki-moon often talk about how such actions as Israel's only serve to inflame national hatred and ratchet up the ‘spiral of violence' in the Middle East. All this is true: the whole cycle of terrorism and state violence in Israel/Palestine brutalises the populations and the combatants on both sides and creates new generations of fanatics and ‘martyrs'. But what the Vatican and the UN don't tell us is that this descent into the hell of national hatred is the product of a social system which everywhere is in profound decay. The story is not very different in Iraq where Sunni and Shia are set at each other's throats, in the Balkans where Serbs are pitched against Albanians or Croats, in India/Pakistan where it's Hindu against Muslim or in Africa's myriad wars where violent ethnic divisions are too numerous to mention. The explosion of these conflicts across the globe is the expression of a society which has no future for mankind.   

And what we are also not told very much about is the involvement of the concerned, humanitarian, democratic world powers in stirring up these conflicts, unless we hear it from the other side of an imperialist divide. The press in Britain was not silent about the support France gave to the Hutu murder gangs in Rwanda in 1994. It is less forthcoming about the role British and American secret forces have played in manipulating the Shia/Sunni divide in Iraq. In the Middle East, America's backing for Israel and Iran and Syria's backing for Hizbollah and Hamas is out in the open, but the more ‘even-handed' role played by France, Germany, Russia and other powers is no less self-serving.    

The conflict in the Middle East has its own specific aspects and causes, but it can only be understood in the context of a global capitalist machine that is dangerously out of control. The proliferation of wars around the planet, the uncontrollable economic crisis, and the accelerating environmental catastrophe are all evidence of this reality. But while capitalism offers us no hope of peace and prosperity, there is a source of hope in the world: the revolt of the exploited class against the brutality of the system, a revolt expressed most graphically in Europe in the last few weeks in the movements of young proletarians in Italy, France, Germany and above all Greece. These are movements which by their very nature have put forward the need for class solidarity and the overcoming of all national and ethnic divisions. Although only in their infancy, they provide an example that can eventually be followed in those areas of the planet which are most ravaged by divisions inside the exploited class. This is no utopia: already in the past few years public sector workers in Gaza have come out on strike against the non-payment of wages almost simultaneously with public sector workers in Israel striking against the effects of austerity, itself a direct product of Israel's top-heavy war economy. These movements were hardly conscious of each other, but they still show the objective community of interests among workers of both sides of an imperialist divide. 

Solidarity with the suffering populations of capitalism's war zones does not mean choosing the ‘lesser evil' or supporting the ‘weaker' capitalist gangs like Hizbollah or Hamas against the more obviously aggressive powers like the US or Israel.  Hamas has already shown itself to be a bourgeois force oppressing the Palestinian workers - especially when it condemned the public sector strikes as being against "national interests" and when, along with Fatah, it subjected the population of Gaza to a murderous faction fight for control of the region. Solidarity with those caught up in imperialist war means rejecting both warring camps and developing the class struggle against all the world's rulers and exploiters.

WR, 1/1/09.

What is happening to the workers of Giardini del Sole is also happening in many factories, not only in Cebu, not only in the Philippines, but also around the world. In fact our brothers/sisters in America are the first to suffer the attacks of the capitalists - retrenchments, rotation of work, reduction of working days and reduction of wages and benefits.

Why are these happening? Because the capitalist system that rules the country and the world is currently in acute crisis of over-production. It means, there are so many unsold products in the world market. There is over-production because in capitalism we produced beyond our capacity to consume; beyond the capacity of our wages as slaves.

Also, capitalism reduced our wages to gain more profits. Result: we are sunk in debts that make it more difficult for us to buy the basic necessities of our production. Thus, over-production becomes more acute.

To prevent the slow death that capitalism forces on us through retrenchments, rotation of work and reduction of wages and benefits, we need to struggle. To prevent the attacks of the capitalists we need to unite and help each other in different factories/companies. No one helps us other than our own class brothers/sisters. We cannot expect anything from the government, Department of Labour and politicians. All of them are instruments and collude with the capitalist class. We cannot expect anything from TIPC1 or any tripartite meetings between us, capitalists and government. We cannot expect a bailout from a corrupt, debt-ridden and rabidly pro-capitalist government.

Our only hope is our unity and to spread our struggle in several factories!

The government and capitalists want us to sacrifice, to accept retrenchments, rotation of work, reduction of working days and reduction of wages and benefits and to suffer more to save the exploitative system! This is a defeat because what we need as slaves of capitalism are PERMANENT work, ADEQUATE wages and HUMAN conditions of work!

If workers struggle in several factories, there is a strong possibility that we can defend our jobs and salaries. WE SHOULD NOT SACRIFICE TO SAVE CAPITALISM FROM ITS CRISIS!

But if we are fragmented and act separately in our different factories, if we let our brothers/sisters in one or two companies struggle on their own, the capitalists can win and we are forced to shoulder the crisis they themselves created!

We should unite in assemblies where all workers could participate. Regular and contractual, unionists and not, we are all members of the WORKERS' ASSEMBLIES. These are the only form of organization for our struggle. We ourselves should discuss and decide for our future and not the few!

Even if we accept the sacrifices, these cannot solve the crisis of the rotten system. Instead, it becomes worse. The problem resides in the nature itself of capitalism and there is no solution to the crisis of over-production. The ultimate solution is to OVERTHROW capitalism and replace it with a system for us as workers. A system which we are not slaves anymore of the capitalists.

INTERNASYONALISMO

1 TIPC - Tripartite Industrial Peace Council

In a press release of the leftist Partido ng Manggagawa (Labor Party) published in Manila Indymedia last January 9, it claimed, which is its title also,"Furniture workers win major concessions as dispute settled".

According to the press release, "The workers of Giardini del Sole, (...) one of the biggest furniture exporting company in the country, won major concessions in negotiations at the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Region 7..."

What are these "victories" that the union claimed?

"Management and the union agreed on the following points:

1. Establishment of a joint evaluation team that includes the union, management and the DOLE/NCMB to rotate work among as many of the workers as possible. The joint evaluation team will also monitor the company's performance and recall the workers when demand picks up.
2. Granting of financial assistance of PhP 5,000 and one sack of rice per month for the duration of the temporary shutdown. It will be deductible from separation pay in case of permanent closure.
3. No worker will be terminated and only voluntary resignations will be accepted.
4. Release of backwages for the holiday pay last December equivalent to three days salary."

Because of this settlement, PM joyfully said "The settlement averted the Giardini union's plan to file a notice of strike on the basis that the temporary shutdown was illegal and a ruse for union busting."

Since the union is now part of the evaluation team with the management and the state agency in discussing on how many workers will be "retain in rotation work" and recall the workers (those who will be retrenched or out of the job) when "demand picks up", the union's vice president proudly proclaimed, "workers [ie the union and not the workers] now have a voice in how the company will cope with the crisis." It means that the union is now officially recognized as partner of the management and government in implementing the retrenchment for the employees to accept voluntarily!

What the unions are doing here in the Philippines is the same as what the unions doing in Europe and in other parts of the world: police in the company to prevent the workers in extending and generalizing their struggles.

In addition, unions help to sow reformist calls and actions helping to save the dying capitalist system as what the PM-Cebu spokesperson said on the "victory" of the Giardini workers: "the Cebu, Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu unions that have been preparing for solidarity actions to the Giardini workers will now shift to campaigning for a bailout scheme for workers". According to PM-Cebu spokesperson, "The plight and fight of the Giardini workers highlight the imperative of a bailout package for workers affected by the crisis."

Internasyonalismo, 10/01/2009 

This article was originally published on Israel's Indymedia site and on Libcom.org [10] . It was written by a comrade in Israel who, despite being in an extreme minority, felt the need to respond to the patriotic war fever sweeping Israel/Palestine in the wake of the Israeli assault on Gaza. His decision to issue a statement was in part the result of the encouragement and solidarity offered by a number of posters on Libcom (including members of the Libcom collective, the ICC and the Turkish left communist group EKS). This is a modest but signficant contribution to the emergence of a real opposition to the pernicious nationalism that currently dominates the Middle East.  WR, 10/1/09.

What's in a flag? An attempt to present an internationalist perspective on the current situation in the West Bank, following Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip. 

Most people in Israel will remember one thing about the protest later today (Sat 3/1/2009): that the organizers went to the Supreme Court in order to make sure they are allowed to present a Palestinian flag.

Now, I am in favor of anyone being able to present any kind of flag or no flag at any time. But one should ask what purpose a Palestinian (former PLO) flag would serve.

This protest is allegedly aimed at stopping the attack on Gaza. What does the Palestinian flag have to do with that? One would reply: "well, it represents support for the Palestinian resistance." To that I would have to further ask: what Palestinian resistance? Most sensible Palestinians in Gaza would like to get the hell out of the bombing area, not resist being bombed. What does it even mean to resist being bombed? Wave your hand against the incoming fighters?

This flag represents Palestinian nationalism, in the same way that the Israeli flag represents Israeli nationalism. Now, most readers of this website would probably associate Israeli nationalism with violence, oppression, and a thin veil covering up the rule of capitalists over our country. Why doesn't the same apply to Palestinian nationalism?

As we speak, Palestinians in the West Bank are being brutally oppressed and restrained, Palestinians who wish to protest against this same war. Why? Because the Palestinian Authority will not hear criticism, and will not step away from its only raison d'etre, being a subcontractor of Israeli control over the Occupied Territories.

Just months ago, these same Hamas leaders who are now hiding in bunkers and safehouses and recording messages of resistance to "their" people were refusing pay to teachers, wrecking Palestinian trade unions, killing innocent Palestinians in the streets as they fought their Fatah competitors, and shooting rockets at random civilian targets, in lieu of actual attempts at bettering the lives of hard-working and unemployed Palestinians.

While we are protesting the brutal bombing of Gaza by Israeli nationalism, we have to remember that Palestinian nationalism is merely less powerful, not less brutal. Unfortunately, this flag incident just plays into the hand of nationalism as an ideal, making it easier to dismiss dissent against the government as automatic support for "the enemy".

Of course, to be cynical, there is a very good reason why this fiasco came about. This protest, organized by the Israeli Communist Party's front Hadash, comes a day before the official launching of this party's election campaign. And Hadash needs to pander to its Palestinian nationalist base inside the Green Line in order to maintain its electoral power in the next elections against the Secular Nationalists (Al-Tajmua3) and the Muslim Movement. And this, again, plays into nationalism's hand, and ultimately, into the capitalists` hand.

This will only result in repeating cycles of violence, that will not end until it is realized that these nationalisms are there to cloud our judgment and to prevent us from focusing on the real issue, namely, that we are being sent to kill and die, and compete in the service of people who do not serve our interests, but their own. And that goes for both Israelis and Palestinians. Untie the Gordian knot of nationalism, and we will be on our way to have better lives for all.

(The Indymedia version of this article ended with a link to the ICC's article on Gaza [11] )

The idea that capitalism, like Roman slavery or mediaeval feudalism, is a transient system, condemned to disappear through the working out of its own contradictions, is fundamental to what Marx called the materialist conception of history. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marx and Engels discerned in the crises of overproduction that regularly shook the edifice of capitalism the fatal disease that would lead to the decline of a system then still marching triumphantly across the globe; and this in turn would confront the revolutionary class in capitalism, the proletariat, with the necessity to overthrow it and build a new form of society. In that famous text, in fact, they made a premature diagnosis that already "the conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them". This plainly contradicted other elements of the Manifesto where they still saw the bourgeoisie playing a revolutionary role and thus defended the need for the proletariat to support its more progressive elements in the struggle against the remnants of feudal rule.  Capitalism's formidable growth following the crises of 1848 led them to revise the diagnosis, but they never abandoned the view that the communist revolution was only placed on the agenda of history at the point where "the productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property".

In the last decades of the 19th century, as capitalism continued to conquer the globe, bringing with it substantial increases in working class living standards, the ‘revisionist' current within the workers' movement began to argue that capitalism would be able to grow indefinitely and that as a result the movement should be more realistic, renouncing its revolutionary goals in favour of a gradual struggle for reforms or, at best, a struggle for a gradual evolution towards socialism. In the German social democratic party, Rosa Luxemburg led the fight against this current, especially in her pamphlet Social Reform or Revolution, written in 1900, where she reaffirmed the Marxist thesis that the socialist revolution could only be a "historic necessity" imposed by the opening of a period in which capitalism had become an out and out obstacle to the needs of humanity. And indeed the conditions of the 1890s - in particular, the development of imperialism - allowed her to put forward a very clear assessment of the period on the horizon:  

"on the one hand we now have behind us the sudden and large opening up of new areas of the capitalist economy, as occurred periodically until the 1870s; and we have behind us, so to speak, the previous youthful crises which followed these periodic developments. On the other hand, we still have not progressed to that degree of development and exhaustion of the world market which would produce the fatal, periodic collision of the forces of production with the limits of the market, which is the actual capitalist crisis of old age. We are in a phase in which the crises are no longer the accompaniment of the growth of capitalism, and not yet that of its decline".

As it turned out, the first decisive evidence that the system had entered into its epoch of decline was not an overt economic crisis, but an imperialist war of unprecedented savagery and destructiveness. But the vast majority of the revolutionaries, who - unlike the revisionist trend and the right wing of social democracy - remained loyal to internationalist principles when the war broke out in 1914, were also emphatic that the war demonstrated precisely that capitalism had now entered a new epoch: as the Communist International put it at its founding congress in 1919." The epoch of capitalism's decay, its internal disintegration, the epoch of the proletarian communist revolution". Their conclusions were confirmed by the revolutionary events that followed the war, by the economic stagnation which, with the exception of the US, affected the advanced capitalist countries in the 1920s, the cataclysmic stock market crash of 1929 and the world-wide depression that followed, and by the outbreak of a second world war which proved to be even more barbaric and destructive than the first. Virtually all the political currents which laid claim to Marx's historical method concluded from these events that capitalism was indeed a mode of production in decay.

It was only with the economic boom that followed the second world war that groups which more or less located themselves within the Marxist tradition - most notably the French group Socialisme ou Barbarie - began to question the ‘dogma' of the inevitable economic crisis and to look for other possible driving forces of the proletarian revolution: in the case of SouB, the rebellion of ‘order takers' against the small caste of ‘order givers', or with the Situationists, a movement of revolt against the sheer boredom of the ‘spectacular commodity society'.

It should be recalled that these new ‘revisions' of Marx's theory were formulated in a general ideological atmosphere in which the bourgeoisie itself was also proclaiming the end of economic crises, the advent of a more or less classless consumer society, the ‘embourgoisement' of the working class, and so on. This ideology was severely shaken by the return of the open economic crisis, which had been noted by a few in the late 60s but which had become embarrassingly obvious after 1973, and by the wave of workers' struggles which swept the globe in the wake of the events of May-June 1968 in France. This resurgence of class consciousness also expressed itself in the appearance of new revolutionary groups, a number of which, in rediscovering the traditions of the workers' movement, also came upon the lost history of the communist left, the current which, in the 1920s-40s, had most clearly drawn out all the political consequences of the decadence of capitalism.

But the crisis which came to the surface in the late 60s showed that the bourgeoisie had learned a great deal from the experience of the great depression. Unlike the discredited Hoovers and Coolidges of the late 20s, it would never again trust to the unfettered operation of the market to restore the economic balance disrupted by the crisis. Implicitly or explicitly, it had recognised that it was now living in the epoch of state capitalism and that there was no going back to the ‘laisser faire' approach of the 19th century. With the state intervening to support the economy with massive injections of credit, openly nationalising the weakest sectors and coordinating these manipulations on an international scale, the crisis has unfolded above all as a ‘slow motion' descent, with periods of recession punctuated with bursts of credit-led boom.   

This is the context in which a new generation of individuals searching for revolutionary ideas have been born, and it has profoundly affected their view of the real depth of capitalism's crisis - along with other factors, such as the weight of anarchist ideas engendered in reaction to the nightmare of Stalinism: anarchism has always had a strong tendency to insist that the revolution is possible at any moment, regardless of the historical, material conditions of the day. It has been a hard struggle convincing many of these elements that capitalism is indeed locked in a historic crisis; in the online debates on www.libcom.org [12], for example, we find ourselves again and again coming up against the view that capitalism passes from one crisis to the next in a purely cyclical manner - in essence that the crises of the 20th and 21st centuries are no different from the youthful crises of capitalism, and remain a necessary precondition for the further expansion of the system.

Goldner's view of crisis and decadence

In our view, the latest phase of the crisis, summed up under the short-hand ‘credit crunch', will certainly be a factor in challenging such views and convincing people that we are seeing the real putrefaction of capitalism as a mode of production. In this context, we welcome a recent contribution by Loren Goldner, who would describe himself as part of a "left communist mood" which has been growing in the recent period.  The essential approach of The Biggest ‘October Surprise' Of All: A World Capitalist Crash (home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/october.html) is to show:

• - that behind the financial crisis, the whole mad spiral of toxic debt which Goldner aptly describes as the world's biggest ever ‘Ponzi scheme' (or pyramid-selling scam) lies something far more fundamental: "a crisis of social reproduction" as Goldner puts it;
• - that this crisis is not a passing affair but has been more or less permanent since the end of the 1960s: "I would argue that from these late 1960's signals of the end of the previous era of expansion onward, world capitalism has been basically ‘running on empty', with ever increasing credit pyramiding of unbelievable and unprecedented proportions being the main ‘motor' of ‘growth', paid for by ever-increasingly social retrogression of every kind, that we can call CONTRACTED social reproduction, or non-reproduction on a world scale."
   
• - that this in turn is the expression of capitalism's decadence as a mode of production: "Around the time of World War I in 1914, capitalism reached a certain point in history at which it ceased to be a progressive mode of production on a world scale. Historically we see that in the first century of capitalism's existence from the early 19th century to 1914, there was a steady development of productive forces, and a growth of the productive working class on a world scale, in those areas that were fully capitalist. In that period, capitalism got to a stage where that kind of development could no longer happen in a peaceful evolutionary manner. (To periodize capitalism in this way is in no way to overlook its historical crimes, including the centuries of the African slave trade and the pillage and depopulation of the New World.)"
  The article does not deny that within this epoch, there have been periods or areas of considerable growth (Japan and the USSR in the 30s, western capitalism during the post-war boom, China today), but these phenomena have to be seen in the wider context of the barbaric history of the 20th and 21st centuries as a whole: "Starting in the 1970's and particularly 1980s, South Korea and Taiwan did in fact evolve into effectively first world countries, but these were special cases permitted by the U.S. as showcases to compete with the appeal of China and North Korea (the latter being more developed than South Korea until the 1970's). Since then, Hong Kong, Singapore and later China and Vietnam have followed the South Korean and Taiwan models, but this has to be offset against decline and stagnation in the US and Europe, as well as against outright retrogression in Eastern Europe, Russia, Central Asia, the non-oil countries of the Middle East, black Africa and Latin America. So,unlike the period prior to 1914, the rise of the Asian Tigers has not been expansion on a world scale but it was growth here and decline there.
  
  Historically, we can consider the period from 1914 to 1945 to be mainly lost decades for capitalism as a system, just more or less permanent crisis, war, reaction, destruction, and so on. There was to be sure exceptional growth in Japan, tied to its expansion into China, and some technological innovation, as in the US and Germany during the ‘rationalization movements' of the 1920's (always tied to historically high unemployment of 8-10%, that being the point), and even (e.g. the US auto industry) during the 1930's depression. Latin America from 1929 to 1945 built its ‘import substitution' populism behind high tariff walls. And we should not forget the Stalinist forced-march industrialization of the Soviet Union which killed upwards of 10 million peasants in the collectivizations, crippling Russian agriculture for the remainder of the Soviet period, and which placed factory speedup under the management of the GPU (the Soviet secret police). Quiet aside from World War I (20 million dead) and World War II (80 million dead), the ‘purely economic' character of the period was these local spurts of growth offset by the larger preponderance of crisis, stagnation and retrogression in the world as a whole".

• - that the roots of this decadence has to be sought in the underlying contradictions of capital - in the very relationship between wage labour and capital, and can only be overcome by abolishing that relationship. Basically Goldner shows that capital, which operates through the generalisation of the law of value, has become a fundamental barrier to the development of the potential locked up in the very productive forces it has set in motion, providing several concrete examples: the fantastic waste involved in unproductive economic activity (finance, arms, etc), the inability of capitalism to introduce non-polluting technology and to reduce the working day to what is already technically feasible if production was geared to need and not profit. Here Goldner's view corresponds to a very lucid passage in Marx's Grundrisse, which clearly anticipates the obsolescence of capitalism by viewing it from the angle of labour productivity: "Beyond a certain point, the development of the powers of production becomes a barrier for capital; hence the capital relation a barrier for the development of the productive powers of labour. When it has reached this point, capital, i.e. wage labour, enters into the same relation towards the development of social wealth and of the forces of production as the guild system, serfdom, slavery, and is necessarily stripped off as a fetter."

• - that abolishing capitalist social relations requires a restatement of the communist programme, which Goldner tries to concretise in a series of revolutionary measures which have as their basic aim the overcoming of the criminal waste and destructiveness inscribed in the present system, and using humanity's productive powers for human ends.

These elements are fundamental: they help to show that the crisis today is not the same as it was in the 19th century; and although Goldner somewhat ambiguously keeps open the possibility of a new boom based on the reorganisation of the world market, he sees no way that this can happen peacefully. In fact (and Goldner does not really draw this out), a new violent re-division of the world market would unleash such destructive powers that it is extremely unlikely that there could be any ‘recovery' in its wake - far from being a re-run of the second world war and the ensuing boom, it would more likely end in the destruction of civilisation.

The roots of the crisis

Naturally there are other points in the text which we don't share or find inadequate. Goldner bases his analysis of the origins of decadence on the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which results from the necessity for capital, driven by competition, to reduce the amount of living labour, sole source of profit, in favour of the dead labour of machines. Marx certainly saw this as one of the contradictions which would transform capital into a barrier to itself (the passage from Grundrisse cited above comes precisely after a section explaining the consequences of the falling rate of profit). But Marx also looked deeply into the crisis of overproduction, no less rooted in the wage relation since the working class in the very act of producing surplus value produces a surplus of commodities for which it can never constitute a sufficient market. This ‘market problem' was further analysed by Rosa Luxemburg in her Accumulation of Capital; and although Goldner has recently written fairly extensively about the "continuing relevance of Rosa Luxemburg" there is no hint of her analyses in this text. It is important to relate these two sources of capitalist crisis because Marx saw ‘foreign trade' (the opening up of new markets by an outwardly expanding capitalism) as one of the factors that would offset the falling rate of profit. The question posed by the historical development of the world economy is this: what happens when capital considered as a totality no longer has any ‘foreign trade' - no relations outside itself. This is actually hinted at in Goldner's text when he writes "In the world then dominated by the capitalist system, the total productivity of labour was too high to be contained within the capitalist form", but he doesn't develop the point any further in relation to the problem of realising surplus value on the market. 

Marx in Vol 34 of the Collected Works (page 221) touches on this question with regard to the relationship between a single country and the world market; but the same problem is posed again and indeed magnified if we treat the whole of capitalism as a single country:  " The domination of production by exchange value appears for the individual in such a way that his production 1) is not directed towards his own needs, 2) does not directly satisfy his needs; in a word, he produces commodities, which can only be converted into use value for him after their conversion into money. But this now appears in such a way that the production of a whole country is not measured by its direct needs, or by such a distribution of the different parts of production as would be required for the valorisation of the production. With this, the reproduction process is dependent not on the production of mutually complementary equivalents in the same country, but on the production of these equivalents in foreign markets, on the power of absorption and degree of extension of the world market. This provides an increased possibility of non-correspondence, hence a possibility of crises". If the world market's "power of absorption and degree of extension" comes up against definite limits, as it began to do at the beginning of the 20th century, then crises become more than a possibility, they become a fatal disease, and no longer constitute the growing pains needed for an automatic phase of further expansion as they did in the 19th century. Hence the chronic and semi-permanent nature of crises in the 20th and 21st centuries.

On the conditions of the class struggle

When it comes to the perspectives for the class struggle that the deepening of the crisis is opening up, we are in substantial agreement with Goldner when he writes:  "This crisis, expressing the profound disarray of the capitalist class, offers the anti-capitalist radical left its biggest opening since the defeat of the world working-class upsurge following World War I.  Then, it was a century of British world domination and a phase of capitalist accumulation that was tottering, with rising American dominance in the wings; today, it is the decades of American world domination and of the 30+ years of decay represented by the ‘Washington consensus' that are up for grabs, and-most crucially, and for reasons indicated by the preceding analysis-NO SUCCESSOR POWER waiting in the wings.  That ‘fact' throws open a struggle for both a reorganization of world capital and a possible new working-class ‘storming of heaven'. The biggest capitalist crisis since 1929 may just be preparing the biggest working-class revolt since 1919".

In contrast to the crash of 1929, the present convulsions of the capitalist system are being experienced by a working class that is historically undefeated and far less likely to make the sacrifices that capitalism will demand of it, whether economic or military.

However, when it comes to grasping the dynamic of the movement towards a revolutionary outcome, it seems to us that Goldner draws some questionable conclusions from the consequences of the ‘deindustrialisation' which has dissipated many of the core industrial sectors of the working class in the advanced countries.  It is certainly true this process has posed serious problems for the working class in terms of retaining and developing its sense of class identity; and it is also true, as Goldner points out, that that the bloating of unproductive and useless forms of economic activity over the past few decades means that it makes little sense for workers to simply take over a good proportion of the enterprises that function for capital today - many of them will have to be simply dismantled. But in the following passage, Goldner seems to be in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater:

"The old ‘imagination' of working-class revolution was a general strike or mass strike, occupation of the factories, establishment of workers' councils and soviets, the political overthrow of the capitalist class, and henceforth a direct democratic management of socialized production. This ‘imagination' was based on the experiences of the Russian, German, Spanish and Hungarian revolutions and revitalized by the American, British and French wildcat movement from the 1950's onward, the French May-June general strike of 1968, the Italian worker rebellion from 1969 to 1973, the worker rebellions in Portugal and Spain in the mid-1970's ‘transitions'...I think this model has lost touch with contemporary reality, at least in the West (in contrast to China and Vietnam) because capital-intensive technological development, downsizing and outsourcing have reduced the ‘immediate process of production' (the ‘volume I' reality of capitalism) to a relatively small part of the total work force (not to mention total population), and even the production workers who remain are often involved in making things (e.g. armaments) that would have no place in a society beyond capitalism. More contemporary workplaces would be abolished by a successful revolution than would be placed under ‘workers' control'."

The problem with this is that too many different things are thrown together. In the first place, occupying the factories - regardless of whether they produce useful or noxious products - was never more than a tactic that could be used by the workers to take the revolution forward provided that the immediate ‘self-management' of production did not become a goal in itself, turning isolated occupations into a trap. By contrast, the dynamic of the mass strike, the formation of the workers' councils, and the political overthrow of the capitalist class remain crucial to any future revolutionary process. It is true that the forms taken by the mass strike and by the councils may well differ from those we have seen in previous revolutionary upsurges. Indeed recent massive upsurges - such as the anti-CPE movement in France in 2006 and the steelworkers' strikes in Vigo in Spain the same year - have given us some indication of how mass assemblies and council-type bodies may appear in the future. But despite the changes that have taken place (the Spanish steel workers, for example, used the form of the street assembly to bring together workers from smaller enterprises; in the anti-CPE movement the universities functioned as a nodal point for discussions that were open to other sectors of the class, and so on) the essential content underlying these forms remains the same as in 1905 or 1917.  Goldner himself still refers to ‘soviets' when he talks about the bodies that will undertake the revolutionary transformation. The problem is that by sweepingly dismissing the ‘old model' rather than asking which elements of the class struggle remain constant and which more ephemeral, he leaves little point of connection between today's defensive struggles and the post-revolutionary stage when the social and economic transformation of the world can be posed in earnest.  The list of measures in the final section thus appear somewhat abstract and separated from the ‘real movement'; and at the same time, there is actually little attempt in the text to draw out what can be learned from some of the recent experience self-organisation. No doubt the development of movements like the revolt of the young proletarians in Greece will provide much material for reflection about the forms and methods that the class struggle is going to adopt in the period ahead of us.

We could say more about the specific social and economic measures which Goldner advocates, but that could be discussed another time. The most important issue of the day is the nature of the present crisis, and it is here that Goldner has made his most useful contribution.

Amos 12/08

The strike that began on 20th January in Guadeloupe has made its mark in Martinique from the 5th February and threatens to spread to Reunion and Guyana, the other overseas ‘départements' of the old French empire. This is not an exotic conflict: it is truly an authentic expression of the international resurgence of class struggle, a testimony to a general rise in anger and militancy amongst workers faced with high living expenses and worsening conditions and wages.

Average prices in the Antilles are between 35 and 50% higher than in France (carrots 164%, endives 135%, leeks 107%, meat or chicken more than 50% and apples for example are double the price); unemployment is at 24% officially - 56% amongst people under 25. The territory also has more than 52 000 on income support.  Despite the strength of nationalist (autonomist" or "indépendantist") feeling amongst strikers, the 146 demands put forward by the strikers are all linked to the question of attacks on the standard of living: for an immediate reduction in the price and of all the most important products, for lower taxes and impositions, freeze rents, raise wages by 200 euros for all workers and also pensions for the retired and income support, lower the price of water and public transport, bring in formal contracts for insecure private sector workers comparable to those in the public sector. The popularity of these demands and the obstinacy of the struggle testifies also to the level of the mobilisation and fighting spirit of the workers; the same can be said of the demonstrations in France on 29th January, the recent riots of young proletarians in Greece, the demonstrations in Iceland and the recent strikes in Great Britain.

Despite the media propaganda stressing the importance of local identity, a theme put forward in particular by cultural associations (demonstrations and rhythmic chants to the traditional drum), and above all with their hype around demands about being "creoles" confronted by the "békés" and a nationalist or anti-colonial tone, these traditional characteristics of the movement in the Antilles have been constantly relegated to the second level. The LKP (Union against Super-profits) which includes 49 organisations, unions, political groups, cultural associations and clubs, and its charismatic leader Elie Domota has searched to channel a struggle which clearly puts the exploitation of the workers at the forefront.

We must salute the solidarity of this massive and unified strike which shows the way forward for the whole of the working class in the face of a general deterioration of its living conditions.

Since the start of the strike there are no buses running, schools, universities, hypermarkets, administrative offices and most businesses have been shut. The port, the commercial centre and the industrial zone at Pointe-a-Pitre have been deserted. There again, faced with lack of food or petrol, a true class solidarity has been expressed, exercised at all levels between parents, friends or neighbours. The protest movements against the high cost of living started on the 16th and 17th December 2008 with some protests in the streets of Pointe-a-Pitre and of Basse-Terre, when the prefect refused to receive a delegation of strikers which was judged to be too large and their access to the prefecture was stopped by the deployment of numerous police officers.

In Guadaloupe the demonstration of the 30th January at Pointe-a-Pitre started with some thousands and quickly reached 65000 demonstrators in the centre of the town. It was the biggest demonstration ever in the islands (relative to the population of the island). It's equivalent to having 10 million in the streets of Paris.

One thousand school children and college students joined the workers on strike. Le Palais de La Mutualité de Pointe-a-Pitre became a rallying point, a place for expression and debate where numerous workers have spoken up, expressing their anger or disarray about their living conditions. In one of the first negotiation meetings, on the 26th January, some journalists and striking technicians from Radio-France Outre-mer (RFO) had placed cameras in the meeting room and loudspeakers on the outside of the building in order to allow everyone to follow directly all of the negotiations.

Just as in Guadaloupe, on the basis of the same demands and with the same slogans there were 20000 demonstrators in the streets of Fort-de-France on the 9th February.

The arrival of Yves Jégo, the Seretary of State for Overseas on the island has allowed most of 115 fuel stations to be re-opened (the owners were on strike as well) on the promise that the opening of certain new automatic stations by the big petrol companies will be limited. The sub-ministry has made many other promises in order to attempt to defuse the conflict (lower taxes on petrol products, on dairy foods, reduction of tax on dwellings and local taxes) and has even undertaken to help the negotiations with the equivalent of 130 euros of exonerations per worker. However, the negotiations on the 200 euros of monthly wage increase were already underway between the bosses and the unions, under the aegis of the prefect. Jégo was reminded of this by the Prime Minister, Fillon, and was called back to Paris in short order. On his departure he made contradictory declarations (he later maintained that he had never promised anything on the subject of wage rises: "It is for the employers and the unions to negotiate in this field"), his lightening return to the island, this time practically taken off the case, flanked by two "mediators", only stirred greater anger in the population, shocked by such contempt and such lies.

Under the pressure of the anger of the strikers and of the population in general, the unions and the LKP have been forced to take up radical positions. The call has been made for general assemblies in all businesses, the "marching delegations" from one business to another have been increasing, the strengthening of the pickets has been decided upon. The proposition by the regional council (supported by the local Socialist party) to defuse the conflict by offering 100 euros as a monthly bonus for three months has been refused by the strikers.

On the 14th February a demonstration of more than 10, 000 people took place at Moule to commemorate the events of 1952 when, after a strike which had lasted three and a half months, the CRS fired on demonstrators, killing four sugar cane workers and wounding fourteen others. There is still a sugar cane factory at the place, Gardel, close to a power station; it employs more than 9000 people. In May 1967 a bloodier repression of a construction workers' demonstration saw more than one hundred die at Pointe-a-Pitre.
For some weeks, the numerous manoeuvres and trip wires used to ruin and divide the strike and defuse the movement, to move it on to a purely nationalist terrain have not succeeded. On the 16th February even though the LKP was trying to tame the road blocks in order "to denounce the blockage of negotiations", the French Government was raising the pitch, declaring that "the continuing situation is intolerable", and police had started charging demonstrators (though up to that point there had been no injuries), wounding two and proceeding to arrest fifty even if everyone was released three hours later.
In the Antilles, like in mainland France and elsewhere the social tempest has started to blow and this frightens the bourgeoisie. Everywhere, through the hard experience of struggle aggravated by the crisis and the failure of capitalism, and despite all the traps and the obstacles that its implacable enemies place before it, the working class is in the process of rediscovering its class identity and of waking up to the power of unity and of solidarity in its ranks. It is entering a historic period in which nothing will be able any longer to remain as before, "when those above can't go on as before and those below won't go on as before" as Lenin already put it nearly a century ago.

W 17/2/09

The following article about the recent strike at the Giardini del Sole factory in the Philippines is published by the ICC's section Internasyonalismo

After two days strike of Giardini[1] workers led by the union last February 3-4, the union and the leftist party[2] that control them agreed with the management and local government of Mandaue City to lift the strike and accept the retrenchment package.

This is another defeat of the workers who are united to fight and defy capitalist laws to defend their jobs in the midst of crisis of over-production. Worst, even the separation pay and back wages that has been promised will depend on the capacity of the company to "recover" from the crisis[3].

Before the strike, the union led them to its first defeat by agreeing on the work rotation. But it was a trap by the capitalist because the real aim of the latter is to kick them out from the company.

The lessons of this defeat:

1. For an effective and powerful resistance against capitalist attacks - redundancies, work rotation, reduction of working days - united workers must DEFY the capitalist laws that prevent them to launch strikes and paralyse the production of the company. For two days strike, Giardini workers defied capitalist laws that make their struggle effective. Militant Filipino workers in the ‘70s and ‘80s had many experience of defying the dictatorial and military rule of the state in launching strikes.

2. Isolated strike, like what the union did to Giardini workers leads to defeat and submission to what the bosses and government want. Giardini workers struggle by defying capitalist laws. But they struggle alone....that's why they were defeated.

The only effective militant struggles today are widespread struggles in as many companies as possible like what happened in Bangladesh textile workers strike last 2006 or Egypt's textile workers mass strike in 2006-2007. Only through the extension of struggle to many factories and companies that the anti-working class laws and the suppressive apparatus of the state could be prevented.

3. The workers themselves must be the one to decide and lead their own struggles through their assemblies and factory strike committees or inter-strike committees at the city level, at the very least. They must struggle outside the control of the union or any electoral party of the Right or Left of the bourgeoisie. Unions and electoral parties in the Philippines are only interested in the projection of their own organization for more union membership or electoral gains. As the economic and political crisis worsens as never before, their competition also worsens. Intense competition within the unions of Right and Left and electoral parties against each other continue to grow deeper. Unions and parties prevent the extension and widespread unity of the workers because it means self-organization of the latter outside the unions and reformist parties. Most of all, unions already become an appendage of the state to protect the interests of national capitalism.

4. They must coordinate their struggle in the international level and learn the experience of their brothers/sisters in other countries, especially in countries where the workers have more experience in struggle - Western Europe. International workers' solidarity is the best weapon to win the struggle against world-wide attacks of the bosses. Filipino proletariat could learn well the experience of the militant workers around the world in launching "illegal" strikes (ie wildcat strikes) which are increasing today and mass meetings or general assemblies which are the main forms of organization in struggle.

The defeat of Giardini workers gave valuable lessons to the militant Filipino proletariat in their future struggles against national capitalism and attacks by their bosses. With this, the struggle of the workers of Giardini has not been in vain. More than ever before, the clarion call, "THE EMANCIPATION OF THE WORKING CLASS MUST BE THE WORK OF THE WORKERS THEMSELVES" is valid and necessary, especially in the epoch of decadent capitalism where communist revolution is already on the historical agenda.

[1] Giardini del Sole, an Italian-owned furniture export company based in Cebu, Philippines. It has 485 workers. But because of the world crisis, it sacrificed 245 workers by kicking them out of the street and let them die in hunger.

[2] They are led by Partido ng Manggagawa (Labor Party), a leftist electoral party.

[3] "NCMB 7 Director Edmundo Mirasol Jr. expressed optimism that the labor dispute will be settled soon. Mirasol said that once the company can afford to give the separation pay, payments will be coursed through the Dole 7." (Source URL: www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/jonas-steps-row-strikers-management-come-deal [24])

During the ICC's last congresses, we pointed out an international trend towards the emergence of new groups and individuals moving towards the positions of the Communist Left, and we highlighted both the importance of this process and the responsibility that this imposes on our organisation:

"The work of the 16th Congress [had as its] main preoccupation (...) to examine the revival of class struggle and the responsibilities this imposes on our organisation, particularly as we are confronted with the development of a new generation of elements looking for a revolutionary political perspective".[1]

"It is the responsibility of revolutionary organisations, and of the ICC in particular, to be an active part in the process of reflection that is already going on within the class, not only by intervening actively in the struggles when they start to develop but also in stimulating the development of the groups and elements who are seeking to join the struggle."[2]

"The congress (...) drew a very positive balance sheet of our policy towards groups and elements working towards the defence of the positions of the communist left (...) the most positive aspect of this policy has without doubt been our capacity to establish or strengthen links with other groups based on revolutionary positions, as illustrated by the participation of four of these groups in our congress".[3]

It was thus that our last international congress, for the first time in a quarter century, was able to welcome the delegations of different groups that stood clearly on internationalist class positions (OPOP from Brazil, the SPA from Korea, EKS from Turkey, and the Internasyonalismo group from the Philippines,[4] although the latter was unable to be present physically). Contacts and discussions have continued since with other groups and elements from other parts of the world, especially in Latin America where we have been able to hold public meetings in Peru, Ecuador, and Santo Domingo.[5] The discussions with the comrades of EKS and Internasyonalismo led them to pose their candidature to join the ICC, given their growing agreement with our positions. For some time, these discussions have been continuing within the framework of an integration process whose general lines are described in the text published on our web site: "How do you join the ICC?".[6]

During this period, the comrades have thus undertaken in-depth discussions on our Platform, and kept us informed with accounts of their discussions. Several delegations from the ICC have visited them on the spot to discuss with them and were able to see for themselves the comrades' profound militant commitment and the clarity of their agreement with our organisational principles. At the conclusion of these discussions, the latest plenary session of the ICC's central organ was therefore able to take the decision to integrate both groups as new sections of our organisation.

Most of the ICC's sections are based in Europe[7] or in the Americas,[8] and until now the only section outside these two continents was the one in India. The integration of these two new sections into our organisation thus considerably broadens the ICC's geographical extension.

The Philippines is a vast country in a region of the world that has recently undergone a rapid industrial growth, and a resulting growth in the number of workers - not to mention the diaspora of 8 million Filipino migrant workers around the world. In recent years, this growth has fed many illusions about capitalism getting its "second wind"; today on the contrary it is clear that the "emerging" countries have no more chance of escaping the ravages of the developing crisis than the "old" capitalist countries. Capitalism's contradictions will thus be violently sharpened in the coming period throughout this region, and this will inevitably provoke social movements, which will not be limited to the hunger riots that we witnessed in the spring of 2007 but will also involve the struggles of the working class.

The formation of a section in Turkey strengthens the ICC's presence on the Asian continent, more especially in a region close to one of the most critical flashpoints in today's imperialist tensions: the Middle East. Indeed, the comrades of EKS were already intervening by leaflet last year to denounce the military manoeuvres of the Turkish bourgeoisie in northern Iraq (see "EKS leaflet: against the Turkish army's latest ‘Operation' [25]" on our web site).

The ICC has been accused on more than one occasion of having a "Euro-centrist" view of the development of workers' struggles and the revolutionary perspective because it has insisted on the decisive role of the proletariat in the countries of Western Europe:

"It's not until the proletarian struggle hits the economic heart of capital,

-- when it's no longer possible to set up an economic cordon sanitaire, since it will be the richest economies that will be effected;

-- when the setting up of a political cor­don sanitaire will have no more effect because it will be the most developed proletariat con­fronting the most powerful bourgeoisie; only then will the struggle give the signal for the world revolutionary conflagration (...)

Only by attacking its heart and head will the proletariat be able to defeat the capitalist beast.

For centuries, history has placed the heart and head of the capitalist world in Western Europe. The world revolution will take its first steps where capitalism took its first steps. It's here that the conditions for the revolut­ion, enumerated above, can be found in the most developed form (...)

It is thus only in Western Europe, where the proletariat has the longest experience of struggle, where it has already been confronted for decades with all the ‘working class' mystifications of the most elaborate kind, that there can be a full development of the political consciousness which is indispensable in its struggle for revolution".[9]

Our organisation has already answered this accusation of "Euro-centrism":

"This is in no way a ‘Euro-centrist' view. It is the bourgeois world itself which began in Europe, which developed the oldest proletariat with the greatest amount of experience." (ibid.).

Above all, we have always considered that revolutionaries have a vital part to play in the countries of capitalism's periphery:

"This does not mean that the class struggle or the activity of revolutionaries has no sense in the other parts of the world. The working class is one class. The class strug­gle exists everywhere that labour and capital face each other. The lessons of the different manifestations of this struggle are valid for the whole class no matter where they are drawn from: in particular, the experience of the struggle in the peripheral countries will influ­ence the struggle in the central ones. The revolution will be worldwide and will involve all countries. The revolutionary currents of the class are precious wherever the proletariat takes on the bourgeoisie, ie, all over the world" (ibid).

This obviously applies for countries like Turkey or the Philippines.

In these countries, the struggle to defend communist ideas is difficult indeed. It has to confront the classic mystifications that the ruling class uses to block the development of the struggle and consciousness of the working class (democratic and electoral illusions, the sabotage of workers' struggles by the union apparatus, and the poison of nationalism). But more than that, the struggle of the working class and of revolutionaries comes up directly and immediately not only against the government's official forces of repression but also against armed forces opposed to the government, such as the PKK in Turkey or the different guerrilla movements in the Philippines, whose brutality and lack of scruples is fully the equal of the government's, for the simple reason that they too defend capitalism, even though under a different guise. This situation makes the activity of the ICC's two new sections more dangerous than it is in the countries of Europe and North America.

Before its integration into the ICC, the section in the Philippines was already publishing its own web site in Tagalog (the country's official language) as well as in English (widely used in the Philippines). Present conditions make it impossible for the comrades to publish a regular printed press (other than occasional leaflets) and our web site will thus become the main means for the spread of our positions in there.

The section in Turkey will continue to publish the review Dunya Devrimi, which now becomes the ICC's publication in that country.

As we wrote in International Review n°122: "We salute these comrades who are moving towards communist positions and towards our organisation. We say to them: "You have made a good choice, the only one possible if you aim to integrate yourselves into the struggle for the proletarian revolution. But this is not the easiest of choices: you will not have a lot of immediate success, you need patience and tenacity and to learn not to be put off when the results you obtain don't quite live up to your hopes. But you will not be alone: the militants of the ICC are at your side and they are conscious of the responsibility that your approach confers on them. Their will, expressed at the 16th Congress, is to live up to these responsibilities"." (ICC 16th Congress, op.cit.). These words were addressed to all the elements and groups who had made the choice to take up the defence of the positions of the Communist Left. They obviously apply first and foremost to the two new sections that have just joined our organisation.

To the two new sections, and to the comrades who have formed them, the whole ICC addresses a heartfelt and fraternal welcome.

ICC

[1] International Review n°122 [26]

[2] International Review n°130, "Resolution on the international situation [27]".

[3] International Review n°130, "The proletarian camp reinforced worldwide" [28]

[4] OPOP: Oposição Operária (Workers' Opposition); SPA: Socialist Political Alliance; EKS: Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol (Internationalist Communist Left); Internasyonalismo (Internationalism).

[5] See on our web site "Internationalist debate in the Dominican Republic [29]", "Reunión Pública de la CCI en Perú: Hacia la construcción de un medio de debate y clarificación [30]" and "Reunion pública de la CCI en Ecuador: un momento del debate internacionalista [31]".

[6] "The ICC has always enthusiastically welcomed the new elements who want to join us (...) However, this enthusiasm does not at all imply that we have a policy of recruitment for its own sake, like the Trotskyist organisations (...) Our policy is not one of premature integrations on an unclear, opportunist basis (...)The ICC is not a bed and breakfast stopover and it's not interested in fishing for members.

Neither do we peddle illusions. This is why those readers who pose the question 'how do you go about joining the ICC?' have to understand that becoming part of the ICC takes time. Every comrade who poses his candidature must therefore be prepared to be patient. The process of integration is a means whereby the candidate finds out for himself the depth of his conviction, so that the decision to become a militant is not taken lightly or on the spur of the moment. This is also the best guarantee we can offer that his will towards militant engagement does not end up in failure and demoralisation".

[7] Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Britain, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland.

[8] USA, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela.

[9] International Review n°31, "The proletariat of Western Europe at the centre of the generalization of the class struggle" [32]

This year sees the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth (and the passing of 150 years since the publication of Origin of Species). The marxist wing of the workers' movement has always saluted Darwin's outstanding contributions to humanity's understanding of itself and nature.

In many ways Darwin was typical of his time, interested in observing nature and happy to conduct experiments on animal and plant life. His empirical work with, among other things, bees, beetles, worms, pigeons and barnacles, was scrupulous and detailed. Darwin's dogged attention to the latter was such that his younger children "began to think that all adults must be similarly employed, leading one to ask of a neighbour ‘Where does he do his barnacles?'" (Darwin, Desmond & Moore).

What distinguished Darwin was his ability to go beyond details, to theorise and look for historical processes when others were content just to categorise phenomena or accept existing explanations. A typical example of this was his response to discovering marine fossils thousands of feet up in the Andes. Armed with the experience of an earthquake and Lyell's Principles of Geology he was able to speculate on the scale of earth movements that had caused the contents of the sea bed to end up in the mountains, without having to resort to Biblical accounts of a Great Flood. "I am a firm believer, that without speculation there is no good & original observations" (as he wrote in a letter to AR Wallace, 22/12/1857)

He was also not afraid to take observations from one field and use them in other areas. Although Marx held most of the writings of Thomas Malthus in contempt, Darwin was able to use his ideas on human population growth in developing his theory of evolution. "In October 1838 I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstance favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation on new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work" (Darwin's ‘Recollections of the Development of my mind and character').

It was 20 years before this theory made its public appearance in Origin of Species, but the essentials are already there. In Origin Darwin explains that he uses "the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense" and "for convenience sake" and that by Natural Selection he means the "preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations." The idea of evolution was not new, but, already, in 1838, Darwin was already developing an explanation of how species evolved. He compared the techniques of greyhound breeders and pigeon fanciers (artificial selection) with natural selection and thought it the most "beautiful part of my theory" (Darwin quoted in Desmond & Moore).

The method of historical materialism

Within three weeks of the publication of Origin of Species Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin, whom I am just reading, is magnificent. Teleology had not been demolished in one respect, but this has now been done. Furthermore, there has never been until now so splendid an attempt to prove historical development in nature, at least with so much success." The ‘demolition of teleology' refers to the clout that Origin delivered to all religious, idealist or metaphysical ideas that try to ‘explain' phenomena by their purpose rather than their cause. This is fundamental to a materialist view of the world. As Engels wrote in Anti-Dürhing (chapter 1), Darwin "dealt the metaphysical conception of nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all organic beings, plants, animals and man himself, are the products of a process of evolution going on through millions of years,"

In draft materials for Dialectics of Nature Engels set out the significance of Origin of Species. "Darwin, in his epoch-making work, set out from the widest existing basis of chance. Precisely the infinite, accidental differences between individuals within a single species, differences which become accentuated until they break through the character of the species, ... compelled him to question the previous basis of all regularity in biology, viz, the concept of species in its previous metaphysical rigidity and unchangeability."

Marx read Origin a year after it was published, and at once wrote to Engels (19/12/1860) "this is the book that contains the basis in natural history for our ideas". He later wrote that the book served "as a natural-scientific basis for the class struggle in history" (letter to Lasalle, 16/1/1862).

Despite their enthusiasm for Darwin, Marx and Engels were not without their criticisms. They were very aware of the influence of Malthus, and also that the insights of Darwin were used in ‘Social Darwinism' to justify the status quo of Victorian society with great wealth for some and prison, the work-house, disease, starvation or emigration for the poor. In his introduction to Dialectics of Nature Engels draws out some of the implications. "Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind,... when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom." It's only the "conscious organisation of social production" that can take humanity from the struggle for survival to the expansion of the means of production as the basis of life, enjoyment and development; and that ‘conscious organisation' requires a revolution by the producers, the working class.

Engels also saw where the struggles of humanity (and the marxist understanding of them) went beyond Darwin's framework "The conception of history as a series of class struggles is already much richer in content and deeper than merely reducing it to weakly distinguished phases of the struggle for existence"(Dialectics of Nature ‘Notes and Fragments').

However, such criticisms don't undermine Darwin's status in the history of scientific thought. In a speech at Marx's graveside Engels emphasised that "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history"

Marxism after Darwin

While Darwin has been in and out of fashion in bourgeois thought (but not with serious scientists) the marxist wing of the workers' movement has never deserted him.

Plekhanov, in a footnote to The Development of the Monist View of History (chapter 5) describes the relationship between the thinking of Darwin and Marx: "Darwin succeeded in solving the problem of how there originate vegetable and animal species in the struggle for existence. Marx succeeded in solving the problem of how there arise different types of social organisation in the struggle of men for their existence. Logically, the investigation of Marx begins precisely where the investigation of Darwin ends [...]The spirit of their research is absolutely the same in both thinkers. That is why one can say that Marxism is Darwinism in its application to social science."

An example of the interrelation between marxism and the contributions of Darwin comes in Kautsky's Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History. Although Kautsky overstates the importance of Darwin, he draws on The Descent of Man when trying to outline the importance of altruistic feelings, of social instincts in the development of morality. In Chapter 5 of Descent, Darwin describes how "primeval man" became social and how "they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and courage". He outlines "When two tribes of primeval man ... came into competition, if one included ... a greater number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would without doubt succeed best and conquer the other. Let it be borne in mind how all-important, in the never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. The advantage which disciplined soldiers have over undisciplined hordes follows chiefly from the confidence which each man feels in his comrades. ... Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected." Darwin no doubt exaggerates the degree to which primitive societies were engaged in constant warfare against each other, but the necessity for cooperation as a basis for survival was no less important in activities such as the hunt and in the distribution of the social product. This is the other side of the ‘struggle for existence', where we see the triumph of mutual solidarity and confidence over fractiousness and egoism.

From Darwin to a communist future

Anton Pannekoek was not only a great marxist, but also an astronomer of distinction (a crater on the far side of the moon and an asteroid are named after him). No discussion of ‘Marxism and Darwinism' would be complete without some reference to his 1909 text of that name. For a start, Pannekoek refines our understanding of the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism.

The "struggle for existence, formulated by Darwin and emphasized by Spencer, has a different effect on men than on animals. The principle that struggle leads to the perfection of the weapons used in the strife, leads to different results between men and animals. In the animal, it leads to a continuous development of natural organs; that is the foundation of the theory of descent, the essence of Darwinism. In men, it leads to a continuous development of tools, of the means of production. This, however, is the foundation of Marxism. Here we see that Marxism and Darwinism are not two independent theories, each of which applies to its special domain, without having anything in common with the other. In reality, the same principle underlies both theories. They form one unit. The new course taken by men, the substitution of tools for natural organs, causes this fundamental principle to manifest itself differently in the two domains; that of the animal world to develop according to Darwinian principles, while among mankind the Marxian principle applies."

Pannekoek also expanded on the idea of the social instinct on the basis of Kautsky and Darwin's contributions.

"That group in which the social instinct is better developed will be able to hold its ground, while the group in which social instinct is low will either fall an easy prey to its enemies or will not be in a position to find favourable feeding places. These social instincts become therefore the most important and decisive factors that determine who shall survive in the struggle for existence. It is owing to this that the social instincts have been elevated to the position of predominant factors."

"The sociable animals are in a position to beat those that carry on the struggle individually"

The distinction between the sociable animals and homo sapiens lies, among other things, in consciousness.

"Everything that applies to the social animals applies also to man. Our ape-like ancestors and the primitive men developing from them were all defenceless, weak animals who, as almost all apes do, lived in tribes. Here the same social motives and instincts had to arise which later developed to moral feelings. That our customs and morals are nothing other than social feelings, feelings that we find among animals, is known to all; even Darwin spoke about ‘the habits of animals which would be called moral among men.' The difference is only in the measure of consciousness; as soon as these social feelings become clear to men, they assume the character of moral feelings."

‘Social Darwinism' also comes under attack from Pannekoek as he shows how ‘bourgeois Darwinists' came full circle - the world described by Malthus and Hobbes is unsurprisingly like the world described by Hobbes and Malthus! "Under capitalism, the human world resembles mostly the world of rapacious animals and it is for this very reason that the bourgeois Darwinists looked for men's prototype among animals living isolated. To this they were led by their own experience. Their mistake, however, consisted in considering capitalist conditions as everlasting. The relation existing between our capitalist competitive system and animals living isolated, was thus expressed by Engels in his book, Anti-Dühring as follows:

‘Finally, modern industry and the opening of the world market made the struggle universal and at the same time gave it unheard-of virulence. Advantages in natural or artificial conditions of production now decide the existence or non-existence of individual capitalists as well as of whole industries and countries. He that falls is remorselessly cast aside. It is the Darwinian struggle of the individual for existence transferred from Nature to society with intensified violence. The conditions of existence natural to the animal appear as the final term of human development.'"

But capitalist conditions are not everlasting, and the working class has the capacity to overthrow them and end the division of society into classes with antagonistic interests.

"With the abolition of classes the entire civilised world will become one great productive community. Within this community mutual struggle among members will cease and will be carried on with the outside world. It will no longer be a struggle against our own kind, but a struggle for subsistence, a struggle against nature. But owing to development of technique and science, this can hardly be called a struggle. Nature is subject to man and with very little exertion from his side she supplies him with abundance. Here a new career opens for man: man's rising from the animal world and carrying on his struggle for existence by the use of tools, ceases, and a new chapter of human history begins."  

Car 28/1/9

David Attenborough's contribution to the BBC's Darwin bi-centenary season (‘Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life', 1/2/9) was a masterly defence of the theory of evolution, delivered with Attenborough's customary ability to convey complex scientific ideas using straightforward language and copious, beautifully filmed illustrations, and with his usual infectious enthusiasm and respect for the natural world.

Placing Darwin's ideas in their historical context, Attenborough brought out the subversive implications of the theory of evolution by natural selection, given that the scientific establishment that Darwin was forced to confront was still, in the 1840s and 1850s, deeply influenced by a static view of nature in which species were created once and for all by divine decree, and in which the vast expanses of Earth's past history were only beginning to be revealed by developments in the study of geology. Attenborough showed very clearly how the force of this new forward-step in man's awareness of his place in nature carried Darwin along, despite his reluctance to offend his devout wife and to cause a scandal in polite society; the simultaneous formulation of a theory of natural selection by Alfred Wallace was, apart from being a potent personal spur for Darwin to finally publish his findings, testimony to the irresistible power of the evolution of ideas when the conditions underlying them are ripe.

In taking up the contemporary objections to Darwin's theory, Attenborough did not treat them with contempt; he merely located them within their own historical limitations and demonstrated with utter conviction how new finds in palaeontology and zoology demolished their foundations - enjoying with particular relish the opportunity to recount the story of archaeopteryx and the duck-billed platypus, transitional forms between reptile and bird and reptile and mammal which provided a solid answer to the question: ‘if species evolve, where are the missing links?'

Of course Darwin was the product of a bourgeoisie that was still very much in its ascendant phase. A clear sign that this phase is long behind us is the fact that, today, in the 21st century, highly influential factions of this ruling class - whether the Christian Right in the USA or the various Islamic parties around the globe - have regressed into the most literal version of Biblical and Koranic creationism and continue to vilify Darwin despite the mass of evidence in favour of his basic ideas that has accrued in this past century and a half. But, as Pannekoek and others have pointed out, the bourgeoisie's tendency to take refuge in religion and to abandon the bold, iconoclastic views of its revolutionary hey-day was noticeable as soon as the proletariat overtly affirmed itself as a dangerously antagonistic force within capitalist society (above all after the uprisings of 1848). And by the same token, the workers' movement immediately cottoned on to the revolutionary implications of a theory which showed that consciousness can emerge out of the unconscious layers of life in response to material circumstances and not through the mediation of a Director from on high: the obvious implication being that the largely unconscious masses could also come to self-awareness through the struggle to satisfy their own material needs.

Of course it is not true that the whole of the bourgeoisie has sunk back into creationism; there is also a bourgeois consensus which sees science and technology as progressive in themselves and which, by abstracting them from the social relations that allowed them to develop, is incapable of explaining why so much of scientific research and so many technological breakthroughs have been used to make a total mess of society and nature. And it is precisely this reality which has driven large numbers of those who do not profit from the present social system to look for answers in the mythologies of the past. The same phenomenon of repulsion also applies to the vision of man's place in the universe put forward by so many bourgeois ‘defenders' of science, an outlook that is unremittingly bleak because it gives vent to a deeply alienated conception of man's essential separation from a hostile nature. But Attenborough cannot be put in this category. Marvelling at birds in flight or laughing at chimpanzees at play, Attenborough concluded his presentation by reminding us of another implication of Darwin's theory - its challenge to the Biblical view of man as a being who has ‘dominion' over nature, and its confirmation, instead, of our deep relationship with the rest of life and our total inter-dependence with it. At this point, Attenborough sounded not a little like Engels, in that passage from ‘The part played by labour in the transition from ape to man', which contains a warning against hubris but also a perspective for the future:

"Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus 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 of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly".   

Amos 6/2/9

War or revolution. Barbarism or socialism. In our epoch, these are the only choices facing the international proletarian movement.

Because we choose revolution and socialism, we chose to integrate ourselves into the ICC. To make the world proletarian revolution a reality and to achieve communism, communists must have an organization which is world-wide in scope and level. Most of all, an organization which has a clear and coherent Marxist platform.

We have undergone a long, serious and collective process of theoretical clarification basing itself on the experience of the international workers' movement and on our own experience in the Philippines as militants within the proletarian movement. This is not easy for us considering that there has been no left-communist influence in the Philippines for over 80 years. For almost a century, it is inculcated in our minds and to the entire workers' movement that Stalinism-Maoism is the "theory of communism".

For us, the most important thing is theoretical clarification and discussion for the regroupment of revolutionaries. Numbers in an organization are useless unless it is based on a clear and strong theoretical foundation from more than 200 years experience of the proletariat around the world.

It is a leap for revolutionary minorities on the understanding of the theory of decadent capitalism in order to firmly uphold the living Marxism in the epoch of imperialism. The theory of decadence is the foundation of why we are convinced that the ICC is the most correct and has the most steadfast Marxist platform in line with the actual evolution of capitalism and in summing-up the lessons of the practice of the international proletariat for more than two centuries.

However, the ICC's platform is not a dead platform. It is a living platform tested in the actual and dynamics of class struggle and evolution of capitalism. That is why it is very important the continuing and widespread internal debate not only inside the ICC but also within the proletarian camp in general. We witness how the ICC uphold and practice this.

Our understanding of left-communism might not as deep as in our comrades in Europe where the longest and richest experienced proletarian class resides. But we are confident that our theoretical clarification is enough to integrate in an international communist organization.

As a new section of a unified and centralized international organization - ICC - continuing living discussions and debates among communists to analyze and study the crucial questions for the advancement of the world communist revolution would be more organized, centralized and widespread. Most of all, the interventions of revolutionary minorities would be more effective.

We know that we will confront a high risk in the Philippines because we firmly uphold internationalism and communist revolution. Both the Right and Left of the bourgeoisie in the Philippines, with their own armed organizations, hate the Marxist revolutionaries because we are a barrier to their mystifications to divert the struggles of the Filipino proletariat away from international proletarian revolution. Left-communists are mortal enemy of all the factions of the Filipino bourgeoisie.

This is the challenge for the internationalist-communists in the Philippines: surmount all difficulties and continue the theoretical clarification, interventions in the workers' struggles in the Philippines and relate with all the communist comrades in other countries, especially in Asia.

We want also to convey our whole-hearted greetings to the comrades in Turkey (EKS) in their integration to the ICC as the new section in that country. The formation of the two new sections of ICC in the Philippines and Turkey in times where the system is in its very deep crisis and there are widespread resistance of the working class is the concrete indication that elements and groups around the world searching for revolutionary alternative to the decadent and decomposing capitalism are growing; elements who are conscious of the deceptions and mystifications of nationalism, democracy, parliamentarism and unionism.

INTERNASYONALISMO

Pebrero 13, 2009.

In the first issue of Dünya Devrimi, dated September 2008 we have written: "...the reason we have chosen the name Dünya Devrimi is that we have organizationally entered a direction regarding our international future. Based on our conclusions that a communist organization can't exist on a national or regional level and that communist militants functioning in a locality has to be a part of an internationally centralized communist organization, we have been discussing the platform of the International Communist Current which at the moment has sections in fourteen countries and with whom we have already been working together and in solidarity with, with the perspective of forming a section of this organization in Turkey. Just as there is no room for impatience in any activity of revolutionaries, there is no room for impatience in this process of discussion, clarification and integration into the ICC. An integration made in a hasty and artificial way rather than a solid and organic way would not do any good and we continue the process of integration which we knew to have been a long term process with patience and the purpose of developing real clarity. On the other hand, we are clarifying within this process as well and we feel it would be helpful to draw our activities closer to those of an organization whose political principles as well as conception of an internationally centralized organization we share. For this reason we have found giving the name of ICC papers World Revolution in England, Revolución Mundial in Mexico, Weltrevolution in Germany and Switzerland and Wereld Revolutie in Netherlands to our publication. Also in this context we have found the opportunity to anounce that we are working in order to be integrated into the ICC."

We want to inform our readers with great happiness that as a result of deep discussions held with patience we have been integrated into the International Communist Current and formed the section of the International Communist Current in Turkey named Dünya Devrimi by dissolving our previous group, Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol. Thus Dünya Devrimi is no longer the publication brought out by a small number of militants in one country but is the publication of an organization centralized on the international level. Our organization is now one organization united on the world level around our programatic principles, our platform, it is a world organization and with this mode of centralization it differs from international roof-like foundations in which different national organizations aren't even properly aware of one another.

The decision of militants who formed Enternasyonalist Komünist to join the ICC is not an isolated incident on the international level. It was thus that our last international congress, for the first time in a quarter century, was able to welcome the delegations of different groups that stood clearly on internationalist class positions (OPOP from Brazil, the SPA from Korea, EKS from Turkey, and the Internasyonalismo group from the Philippines[1], although the latter was unable to be present physically). Contacts and discussions have continued since with other groups and elements from other parts of the world, especially in Latin America where we have been able to hold public meetings in Peru, Ecuador, and Santo Domingo[2]. With the same perspective, the militants of the group called Internasyonalismo in the Philippines have, just like us who joined the ICC from Turkey, patiently been through a process of indepth discussions and have became a part of the ICC, forming the section of our organization in this very important country. We hope that with the rise in the class struggles internationally, the fact that the International Communist Current has two new sections now is only a beginning.

Dünya Devrimi

[1] OPOP: Oposição Operária (Workers' Opposition); SPA: Socialist Political Alliance; EKS: Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol (Internationalist Communist Left); Internasyonalismo (Internationalism).

[2] See on our web site "Internationalist debate in the Dominican Republic [29]", "Reunión Pública de la CCI en Perú: Hacia la construcción de un medio de debate y clarificación [30]" and "Reunion pública de la CCI en Ecuador: un momento del debate internacionalista [31]".

This article is available as a leaflet here [49] to download and distribute

The circumstances surrounding the forthcoming G20 meeting are historically unprecedented. Economic crisis wracks the globe, the bourgeoisie seems to be on the ropes. The massive injections of credit into the money markets, the equally massive budget deficits, and now the latest round of ‘quantitative easing' have enabled the bourgeoisie to prevent a total implosion of the financial system in most of the central countries, but this hasn't resolved the underlying crisis.

Internationally the bourgeoisie has been forced to admit that the world is facing its most brutal downward plunge since the Depression of the 1930s. Countries such as Japan and Germany are suffering breath-taking collapses in exports and industrial production. Much of Eastern Europe is threatened with outright disaster on the scale of Iceland, and Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain are not far behind. The ‘emerging markets' are also beginning to show the strain - China's layoffs alone number in the tens of millions - as these economies are caught up in the same tsunami as the rest of the world economy. The OECD and the IMF now predict the world economy as a whole will contract this year - something not seen since World War Two.

40 years since the end of the post-war boom all the policies which the bourgeoisie have used  to manage the crisis are on the brink of failure. Decades of state intervention (i.e. state capitalism) have left the bourgeoisie standing at a precipice. The main mechanism of maintaining demand in the face of massive over-production - ever-increasing amounts of credit - has now left the economy like a patient who has overused antibiotics: the effectiveness of the counter-measure has been reduced to virtually zero. Worse, credit has become part of the problem: the whole of the system is now, literally, bankrupt.

The result of this for the working class is already clear: a vicious assault on jobs, wages and living conditions that will make the last 40 years look like an oasis of prosperity.

Putting people first?

The impulse to come out onto the streets, to meet and discuss with other people who feel the same way about the state of society, to show our indignation with the way the world is being run, all this is healthy. The problem with today's demonstration is that the alternative being offered by its organisers, ‘Put People First', doesn't at all challenge the basics of the capitalist system and its state machine.

They argue that putting pressure on the existing system of governments and states can bring about changes in the society.

- They demand "a transparent and accountable process for reforming the international financial system" as "this will require the consultation of all governments, parliaments, trade unions and civil society, with the United Nations playing a key role".

They claim that "these recommendations provide an integrated package to help world leaders chart a path out of recession", and can open the way to  "a new system that seeks to make the economy work for people and the planet", with "democratic governance of the economy", "decent jobs and public services for all", a "green economy" etc. etc. 

Spreading illusions in the state

What these campaigns fail to recognise is that neither capitalism or the state, which has always expressed the interests of those that rule us in opposition to those it exploits and oppresses, can be reformed. Bourgeois economists from the Left and Right have for the 80 years since the Depression been tinkering with the way the state intervenes in the capitalism system. This is the most obvious lesson from the current crisis: 40 years of state intervention have failed to solve the problems inherent in this system. War, mass unemployment, poverty and the destruction of the environment aren't the result of ‘bad governments'.  They are the direct products of a senile system, a social order that has outlived its usefulness to humanity.

Instead of falling for illusions that capitalism can be made a little more democratic, a little greener, thanks to the intervention of the state, we need to recognise that capitalist social relations are inhuman to the core. They are inseparable from the drive to accumulate profit and this drive will always put people last. This is why the existing relations of production - based on wage labour and production for the market - need to be totally uprooted and replaced with a genuinely new society - communism, a world-wide, stateless and moneyless community where all production is geared towards human need.

The global political apparatus of capitalist states, including the UN, is there to preserve and defend capitalist social relations. If present-day society is to change, that apparatus needs to be dismantled by revolution, in every country on the planet.

There is a real alternative - the class struggle

Revolution is not a utopia. It is contained as a possibility and a necessity in the existing class struggle. And while ‘Put People First' wrestle with the niceties of bourgeois democracy, real class struggles are taking place all around us. Internationally since 2003 the working class has been returning to the stage. From New York to Nanjing workers have been rediscovering the bonds of solidarity that bridge the divisions of age, religion and nation, as they flex their collective muscles in defence of their interests. The demonstrations and assemblies of the students in France and Italy, the general revolt that swept through Greece, the mass strikes in Egypt and Bangladesh, the fight against unemployment by the oil refinery workers in Britain: even if only a minority recognises it as yet, these are all part of an international movement which shows the common interests of workers in all countries in the face of the capitalist crisis. 

These are the struggles we should be putting ‘first', as they are the only ones that have in them the perspective to really change society. To do this workers have to move these struggles beyond their immediate goals and build a movement which can begin to challenge capitalism. Campaigns like 'Put People First' are a barrier to this deepening of consciousness and workers will have to overcome the illusions they peddle if they are to build a real alternative to the barbarity of capitalism.

WR, 28 March 2009.

All across the world people expressed horror and revulsion at the Israeli massacres in Gaza. The purpose of this article is not to go over the details again, but the death toll, an estimated 1,200 or more Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict, shows quite clearly that this was not a struggle between two equal powers, but a massacre pure and simple. This is an important point that needs to be considered when looking at how communists understand conflicts like these.

Although in some countries there was support for Israel's so-called and even some protests supporting the massacres everywhere these were massively outnumbered by those demonstrating against the massacres, with massive demonstrations of hundreds of thousands taking place in Damascus, Madrid, Cairo, Istanbul, and even in Israel itself. Across the world it seems that even though many states refused to condemn or even supported the Israeli attack, there was little public support for it. In the ‘Islamic world' in particular condemnation of the attacks was almost unanimous with the demonstrations in Syria directly organised by the state, and here in Turkey President Gül somehow managing to decide "Israel's bombardment of Gaza shows disrespect to the Turkish Republic", and Tayip managing to become a minor international media star for a moment. In fact in Turkey as well as in the majority of Arab countries all political forces within society were united around the issue.

When this type of ‘national unity' emerges the first questions that revolutionaries need to be asking is whose class interests are being represented here. Invariably the answer will be not those of the working class.

In reality the Turkish political classes and the Israeli ones are in no way different. Anybody who listened to the Israeli politicians justifying the murders committed by their troops would have heard exactly the same line that we in Turkey have been listening to for years. The army was ‘defending innocent civilians against murderous terrorists'. We all know where we have heard those lines before. The lies used by the Israeli state to justify its war are exactly the same one, almost on a word for word basis, as those used by the Turkish state to justify its barbarism in the South-East and in the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq.

Of course, the hypocrisy of the ruling class is blatant for all to see. The arguments of some of the left organisations though are much more subtly. Ultimately they come down to supporting the Palestinian national Liberation movement and in particular HAMAS.  The vast majority of these organisations are well aware that HAMAS is a reactionary anti-working class organisation. Some will even remember the attacks on the teachers and public sector strikes in September 2006. However, they continue to argue that it is necessary for socialists to support HAMAS as they are the only force struggling against the Israelis, and the only force that can protect the Palestinian people.

The facts on the ground tend to dispute this though. The death toll shows that they are absolutely incapable of protecting the Palestinian people. The myth of the Palestinian struggle promoted by the left is one in which eventually these ‘brave national forces' will triumph over the ‘Israeli Zionist regime', and its propaganda tools are pictures of national flags, dead children, and beautiful young women with assault rifles. In fact there only seems to be one main problem with the whole conception, and that is that it has nothing at all to do with reality.

The Palestinian national movement will never be able to destroy Israel by itself. The casualty figures at the start of this article point out the reality very bluntly; for every Israeli that died nearly one hundred Palestinians did. Communists arguing for an internationalist position, no support for either side in the bosses' wars, have been told by members of the leftist organisations that the struggle is absolutely unequal and if you don't support HAMAS' struggle, you are lining up alongside the imperialists. Obviously they have a point here, the sides are unequal. However, whilst supporting the underdog may seem reasonable in a football match, for example when Haccetepe go to Fener, it is not really much of a political analysis.

Imperialism today is not only the USA and its allies. Imperialism is now a world system. All major countries have imperialistic interests. It is not only the USA, the British, and the French. Russia and China also have imperial interests as do much smaller countries like Turkey, Syria, and Iran, and in the struggles between these powers the interests of various national minorities count little more than the interests of pawns on a chessboard. The Kurdish example is a good one. Over the years, Kurdish nationalist organisations have allied themselves with all of the regional and major powers; the example of Syria's past support for the PKK is just one reasonably recent example from this country. National liberation movements in the modern epoch can be little more than tools in the struggles between different powers, and in this case in the struggle of Syria and Iran against Israel.

Let's be very clear about the realities of the situation; there is absolutely no possibility of a Palestinian victory at the moment. The ‘best' that they can hope for is some sort of ‘homeland' like the Bantustans in apartheid South Africa, where Palestinian police enforce Israeli order. At the moment there can not be a military defeat of Israel and its US backers. It is just not going to happen.

The only possibility that such a military defeat could come about would be if there were a massive change in the global balance of power, if the US were knocked down from its throne as overlord of the Middle East. It would need a new power or coalition of powers to arise to challenge American hegemony. Maybe in the future this could be done by China or even a re-emergent Russia. At the moment, though it doesn't seem very likely.

What would it mean if it were to happen? A change in the imperialist balance of power is not something that tends to happen peacefully. At the very least, it would mean a return to the days of the cold war struggle for power with proxy armies confronting each other all across the globe. At worst it would mean generalised war. For the Middle East it would almost certainly mean a further increase in the murderous cycle of national/ethnic/religious conflicts, which are dragging the region deeper and deeper into barbarism. A Palestinian victory in Gaza would mean new massacres, only this time it would be Arabs massacring Jews.

...And for the Palestinian working class? The history of national liberation movements can give us a good idea of what would await them. Victorious nationalist movements have a tendency to turn round and massacre working class or socialist supporters of those movements who want something more. The murder of thousands of workers and communists in Shanghai in 1927 is only one of the best known examples, but it is part of a long history that goes in this part of the world from Mustafa Suphi and the leaders of the TKP to Kurdish nationalists in Iraq shooting down striking cement factory workers today.

It is not the role of communists and revolutionaries to support the weaker side in a struggle. Nor is it their job to mobilise workers to die on behalf of their bosses. We come from a different tradition.

It is a tradition that puts class interests, not national interests first. It is the tradition of Lenin and of the revolutionary upsurges that put an end to the First World War.

It is a tradition that now as then says that workers have no country.

Sabri

A materialist conception of the origins of morals and civilisation 

On the occasion of the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and of the 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species, a multitude of books, each one with titles more mouth-watering than the other, has filled the bookshops. Numerous more or less scientific authors have suddenly discovered an attraction for Darwin, each one trying to earn the best seller of the year slot, especially after the grand success of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (which has sold over two million copies world wide). For the ‘public at large', it is thus rather difficult to find one's bearings among all these books on science. For our part, we have chosen the one by Patrick Tort[1], L'effet Darwin, Selection naturelle et naissance de la civilisation (Editions du Seuil) - The Darwin Effect, Natural Selection and the Birth of Civilisation, which offers us a very enlightening explanation of the materialist conception of morals and of civilisation in Darwin's thought. 

Darwin and the natural selection of social instincts

To our knowledge, Patrick Tort is the only author who has bypassed the media focus on The Origin of Species and presented and explained the second great work of Darwin (less well known and often badly interpreted), The Descent of Man, published in 1871.

Patrick Tort's book shows very clearly how Darwin's epigones grabbed hold of the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, developed in The Origin of Species, and took advantage of Darwin's long silence on the origins of man in order to justify eugenics (theorised by Galton) and ‘social Darwinism' (initiated by Herbert Spencer).

Contrary to an idea that predominated for a long time, Darwin never adhered ideologically to the Malthusian theory of the elimination of the weakest in the social struggle brought about by demographic growth. In The Origin of Species he simply used this theory as a model for explaining the mechanisms of organic evolution. It is thus totally wrong to attribute to Darwin the paternity for all the ultra-liberal ideologies advocating unbridled individualism, capitalist competition and the ‘law of the strongest'.

In his fundamental work, The Descent of Man, Darwin is actually categorically opposed to any mechanical and schematic application of elimination by natural selection to the human species that has embarked on the path of civilisation. Patrick Tort explains in a remarkably well-argued and convincing manner, supported by numerous quotes, how Darwin saw the application of his law of evolution to man and human societies.

In the first place, Darwin connected mankind phylogenetically to the animals, more precisely to the common ancestry it must have had to the catarrhini apes of the distant past. He argued that there was a natural transformation into the human species, showing that natural selection had also fashioned man's biological history. Nevertheless, according to Darwin, natural selection did not only select beneficial organic variations, but also the instincts, and more particularly the social instincts, throughout animal evolution. These social instincts culminated in the human species and have fused together with the development of rational intelligence (and thus of reflective consciousness).

This joint evolution of social instincts and of intelligence was accompanied in man by the ‘indefinite extension' of moral feelings and altruist sympathy. It is the mot altruistic individuals and groups, the ones most capable of showing solidarity, who have an evolutionary advantage over other groups.

As for the supposed ‘racism' which Darwin is accused of to this day, one passage suffices to refute the charge:

"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately show us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures".

(The Descent of Man, chapter IV)[2]

According to Patrick Tort, Darwin gives us a naturalist, and thus materialist explanation for the origins of morality and culture.  

Concerning the origins of morality in particular, it's in the chapters of The Descent of Man that deal with sexual selection that we find his most striking observations.  Patrick Tort explains that, according to Darwin, the prime vector of altruism among numerous animal species (mainly mammals and birds) resides in the indissolubly natural and social instinct of reproduction. Thus the development and ostentatious display of birds' secondary sexual characteristics (bills, nuptial plumage and other decorative excrescences) carries with it a ‘threat of death': "Covered in its heavy and splendid mating plumage, the Bird of Paradise is certainly irresistible, but can hardly fly any more and is thus in great danger from predators. As for the females, they will take care of their progeny and, in order to defend the offspring, may put themselves in danger. The social instincts thus have an evolutionary history, and contain the possibility of self-sacrifice, culminating in human morality. Darwin thus produces a genealogy of morals without any reference to extra-natural agencies" (Patrick Tort, Darwin et la science de l'évolution, Editions Découvertes/Gallimard).

Finally, contrary to the received idea that Darwin was a fervent promoter of the inequality of the sexes by giving an advantage to the ‘stronger' sex, quite the opposite is the case if you look at it from the perspective of evolutionary tendencies. For Darwin (and it is here that he connects to the vision of Engels in The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, as well as August Bebel in his book Woman and Socialism), it is the females (and by extension women) who are the first bearers of the altruistic instincts: in the animal kingdom, it is the females who choose the reproductive male and, as a result, make an ‘object choice' (the first form of the recognition of otherness), just as it is they who most often expose themselves to predators to protect their young.

The theory of the ‘reverse effect of evolution'

Thanks to his remarkable mastery of the work of Darwin and of dialectics, Patrick Tort comes to develop a theory (which he had already elaborated in 1983 in his book La pensée hierarchique et l'évolution) of the ‘reverse effect of evolution'.

What is this theory?

It can be summarised by a very simple phrase: "through the social instincts, natural selection selects culture, which is opposed to natural selection"

To avoid paraphrases, let's cite a passage from Tort's book:

"Through the bias of social instincts, natural selection, without any ‘leap' or rupture, has thus selected its opposite, i.e: an ensemble of normative, anti-eliminatory forms of social behaviour - thus anti-selective in the sense that the term selection is given in the theory developed in the origin of species. And thus, correlatively, an anti-selective ethic (= anti-eliminatory), translated into principles, rules of conduct and laws. The progressive evolution of morality appears therefore as a phenomenon that cannot be disassociated from evolution, and this is a logical conclusion of Darwin's materialism and of the inevitable extension of the theory of natural selection to the explanation for the destiny of human societies. But this extension, which too many theoreticians, their vision distorted by the screen erected around Darwin by the evolutionist philosophy of Spencer, have hastily interpreted through the false and simplistic model of liberal  ‘social Darwinism' (the application to human societies of the principle of the elimination of the weakest in a context of a generalised competition for survival) can only be understood in a rigorous way through the modality of the reverse effect, which obliges us to see the reversal of the selective mechanism as the basis for accessing the stage of ‘civilisation'....The reverse operation is the correct basis for drawing the distinction between nature and culture while avoiding the trap of a magical ‘break' between the two terms: evolutionary continuity, through this mechanism of progressive reversal linked to the development (itself selected) of social instincts, produces in this way not an effective break, but the effect of a break which derives from the fact that natural selection, in the course of its own evolution, subjects itself to its own law - its newly selected form, which favours the protection of the ‘weak', taking over from the previous form of the elimination of the weak because it is more advantageous. The new advantage is thus no longer of a biological nature: it has become social".

The "reverse effect of evolution" is thus this movement of progressive turnaround which produces the "effect of a break" without thereby provoking an effective break in the process of natural selection[3]. As Patrick Tort explains very clearly, the advantage gained from the natural selection of social instincts is no longer, for the human species, of a biological order, but has developed into something social.

In Darwin's thought, there is thus materialist continuity in the link between social instincts, cognitive and rational advances, and morality and civilisation. This theory of the "reverse effect of evolution" provides a scientific explanation of the origins of morality and culture, and thus has the merit of cutting through the false dilemma between nature and culture, continuity and discontinuity, biology and society, the innate and the acquired, etc.

Darwin's anthropology and the perspective of communism

In the article published on our website ‘Darwin and the workers' movement', we recalled how marxists welcomed the work of Darwin, particularly his principal work, The Origin of Species. Marx and Engels, as soon as Darwin's book appeared, immediately recognised in his theory an approach analogous to that of historical materialism. On 11 December 1859, Engels wrote a letter to Marx in which he says "Darwin, by the way, whom I'm reading just now, is absolutely splendid... Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature"

One year later, on 19 December 1860, Marx, after reading The Origin of Species, wrote to Engels: "here is the book which contains the basis, in natural history, for our ideas". Nevertheless, some time afterwards, in another letter to Engels dated 18 June 1862, Marx went back on his judgement by making this unfounded criticism of Darwin: "It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions' and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence'. It is Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel's Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom', whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society".

Engels also took up this criticism by Marx in Anti-Duhring (where Engels alluded to Darwin's "Malthusian blunder") and in The Dialectics of Nature.

Because of Darwin's long silence on the question of human origins (he didn't publish The Descent of Man until 1871, eleven years after The Origin of Species[4]), his epigones, notably Galton and Spencer, exploited the theory of natural selection to apply it schematically to contemporary society. The Origin of Species was thus assimilated in a facile manner to the Malthusian theory of the "law of the strongest" in the struggle for survival.

Unfortunately, Darwin's long silence on the origins of man contributed to sowing confusion for Marx and Engels, who, not having become aware of Darwin's anthropology (which was not developed until 1871[5]) mixed up Darwin's thinking with the fundamentalist liberalism or obsession with purification promulgated by two of Darwin's epigones.

The history of the relations between Marx and Darwin, between Marxism and Darwinism, was thus that of a ‘missed rendez-vous' (to use an expression of Patrick Tort's in certain of his public conferences). Not altogether however, because despite his criticisms of 1862, Marx continued to hold Darwin's materialism in great respect. Although he hadn't yet become aware of The Descent of Man, in 1872 Marx offered a copy of the German edition of his major work, Das Kapital, with this dedication "To Charles Darwin, from a sincere admirer". When this book is opened today (it's in the library of the house where Darwin lived) you can see that only the first few pages have been cut. Darwin thus paid little attention to Marx's theory because economics seemed to him to be outside his sphere of competence. However, one year later, in 1873, he gave evidence of his sympathy in a thank-you letter: "Dear sir; I thank you for the honour that you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital and I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, but understanding more of the deep and important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge and that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of Mankind. I remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, Charles Darwin."

This is how the two rivers, despite the ‘missed rendez-vous', did to some extent mix their waters.

Furthermore, the workers' movement, after Marx, did not take up the latter's criticism of Darwin from 1862. And this was the case even though the great majority of marxist theoreticians (including Anton Pannekoek, in his pamphlet Marxism and Darwinism) rather left The Descent of Man to one side.

Certainly Pannekoek, like Kautsky (in his book Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History) saluted Darwin's theory of social instincts. But they didn't fully understand that Darwin had formulated a theory of the genealogy of morals and civilisation and a materialist vision of their origins. A theory which, in many respects, joins up with the monist conception of history and leads finally to the perspective of communism, that is to say, the aspiration towards the unification of humanity in a world human community. Such was Darwin's ethics, even though he wasn't a marxist and had no revolutionary conception of the class struggle.

In a way, you can say today that if there hadn't been this ‘missed rendez-vous' between Marx and Darwin at the end of the 19th century, it is very probable that Marx and Engels would have accorded to The Descent of Man the same importance as L H Morgan's study of primitive communism, Ancient Society (which Engels drew on heavily on for his Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State).

Neither Morgan nor Darwin were marxists; nevertheless, their contributions (the first in the domain of ethnology, the latter in the domain of the natural sciences) remain a considerable acquisition of the workers' movement.

Today the human species is confronted with the unprecedented outbreak of ‘every man for himself', the ‘war of each against all', of competition exacerbated by the historic bankruptcy of capitalism.

Faced with the decomposition of this decadent system, the world working class, the class of associated producers, must more than ever favour, through its combat against capitalist barbarism, the extension of the social feelings of the human species in order to develop a revolutionary consciousness in its ranks. This is the only way that humanity can go onto the stage that follows civilisation: communist society, the real world human community, founded on unity and solidarity[6].

Sofiane 23. 3 09

[1] Patrick Tort is attached to the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. He is the editor of the monumental Dictionnaire du darwinisme et de l'évolution. He set up and directs the Institut Charles Darwin International (www.charlesdarwin.fr [52]) and has devoted 30 years of his life to the study of the work of Darwin, whose entire work he proposes to translate into French in the framework of the Institut (35 volumes are envisaged , to be published by Slatkine: two volumes have already appeared)

[2] It should also be pointed out that Darwin was ferociously opposed to slavery and on a number of occasions denounced the barbarism of colonisation.

[3] To illustrate his theory, Patrick Tort uses a topological metaphor, that of the Möbius strip, which enables us to understand how, thanks to a gradual reverse process, you can go over to the "other side" of the strip without any discontinuity (see the demonstration of this ‘effect of a break' without a punctual break in The Darwin Effect) 

[4] Darwin didn't want to provoke too quickly a new ‘shock' in the right-minded society of his day. This is why he preferred to wait until the first ‘shock' of The Origin of Species had died down before going any further. It was not at all evident that even among his peers in the scientific community the idea of man having a common ancestor with the great apes would be readily accepted

[5] When Darwin decided to publish The Descent of Man in 1871, Marx and Engels were not paying attention because they were too preoccupied by the events of the Paris Commune and the organisational difficulties in the International Workingmen's Association, which was being subjected to the manoeuvres of Bakunin.

[6] Obviously this ‘communist' society has nothing to do with Stalinism, with the state capitalist regimes which dominated the USSR and the eastern countries up until 1989. Its real contours were presented in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 or Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme (Marx, 1875), especially in the following passage: "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"  

David Blanchflower was the man on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee who correctly predicted that the official figure for unemployment in the UK would reach 2 million when it did. He now says that rising jobless figures have "the taste of something horrible" and he "could easily see unemployment reaching 4 million."

As this forecast seems perfectly possible there will soon be lots of people being put through the indignities of Labour's New Deal scheme, introduced in 1998. If you're under 25 and have been claiming for more than 6 months, or over 25 and claiming for more than 18 months, you can be put on the New Deal, which at some point leads to a 26 week (if under 25) or 13 week (if over 25) period with a "training provider".

Technically speaking you're no longer signing on as you're supposedly on a ‘course', and, therefore, not included in the unemployment statistics. Figures from a year ago show that 1.25 million under-25s have been on New Deal provisions: 890,000 once, 250,000 twice and nearly 80,000 three times. As for future prospects, while there are, at the moment, officially 150,000 long term unemployed (out of work for more than 12 months), very conservative estimates suggest that this is likely to increase by 300 to 400% over the next three years. So, one way or another, there's a reasonable chance that one day you too will end up on an "Intensive Activity Period option" - just like I am at the moment.

Pressure, threats ... but good company

The reason you go on the "programme" is because your Job Seekers Allowance and any other benefits are under threat if you don't. Right from the start it's emphasised that if you miss sessions, or your time keeping is poor, or any other misdemeanour, you could get "exited" from the "programme", which would mean losing benefits.

You are supposed to have an "individually tailored programme to help you back into work." In reality, you are told that during your 30 hours a week you will apply for 5 jobs a day and get 2 interviews a week. In a period of rising unemployment it's a bit of puzzle how this is going to work out. In the 12 Inner London boroughs there are officially 4,000 vacancies but 71,000 claimants. In places like Hackney, Oldham, Redcar and Lewisham the ratio of jobless to vacancies (using the official figures) is about 30 to 1. It's easy to see how hundreds are often chasing one job, but hard to see how we're all going to get an interview.

The facilities for "Job Search Activities" are limited. There are about 150 of us here, but only 100 computers, most of which have been disabled of all but the most basic functions. The only phones are on the desks of "advisers". This means that a lot of people spend all the day, all the week, just reading the paper, listening to music or chatting with fellow inmates. On Friday there's a bit of excitement as we queue for 45 minutes for the £2.90 we can claim for travel expenses. Sometimes you find something funny online, like the post that was mistakenly advertised at "£19k per hour." Also, a lot of us haven't got over the novelty of Google's Street View yet.

The good thing about the experience is that we're an interesting crowd; everyone has their own story. There is a guy who is retiring in 6 weeks time, but has been told to do as much of the 13 weeks of the "programme" as he can. They even want him to do a 4-week placement for "work experience." There's a man who was taken off a horticulture course so he can sit around here all day doing nothing. A man who just wants to stack shelves won't be helped by the notice on the wall listing websites like woolworthscareers.co.uk. A Nigerian woman, in between searching for jobs, finds out where the Anglo-Saxons came from. A musician works out that King Tubby and Bob Marley were both born on a Tuesday. I'm here sitting writing an article, pleased at having worked out that the Tohono O'odham were called Papago by the Spanish.

At some point you have to do a four week placement, where you work for free in the hope that you might get an up-to-date reference. If you're looking for office work they'll send you to a warehouse. If you're a painter/decorator you'll get sent to a charity shop. In fact a lot of people go to charity shops; next time you're in one you'd do well to remember that the staff aren't necessarily there out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they'll lose their benefits if they aren't.

And after our 13 or 26 weeks is over we'll go back to the Job Centre and make a ‘new' claim. We're no longer part of the long-term unemployed because we've been in detention for 3 or 6 months, when, of course, we didn't count as being unemployed at all.

Doleful 30/3/9

Faced with the strike movement that shook Guadeloupe, Martinique, and, to a lesser extent, La Réunion, the French state finally stepped back and gave in to nearly all the workers' demands.

In Guadeloupe, the ‘Jacques Bino' accord (named after the trade unionist murdered during the riots at the end of February) and signed 26 February, and the general text published on 5 March, containing a 200 euro increase in wages for the low paid and integrating the 146 demands of the LKP[1] on buying power (bread prices, employment of teachers...). In Martinique, a similar agreement was signed on 10 March, containing a rise in wages for the low paid and recognition of the 62 demands of the ‘February 5 Collective'[2]. In La Réunion, the situation is more fluid. At the time of writing, the accord proposed by the state (150 euros for the low paid and nothing very precise regarding the 62 other demands) has not yet been signed by COSPAR[3]. Discussions are still underway. But even if these negotiations don't fully bear fruit, they still indicate a certain retreat by the French bourgeoisie.

Why did the bourgeoisie give in? What was it afraid of? How did the workers manage to win these demands? What was the strength of the movement? Replying to these questions will help us prepare for the struggles of the future.

The strength of the movement in the Antilles

Without doubt, the main strength of the struggle in the Antilles was the breadth of the movement. For 44 days in Guadeloupe and 38 days in Martinique, the working class mobilised itself massively, paralysing the whole economy. Enterprises, ports, shops...everything was blocked[4].

If such a long and intense struggle was possible, it is not only because it was carried forward by enormous anger against growing pauperisation, but also by a profound feeling of solidarity. The first demonstration in Guadeloupe, on 20 January, brought 15,000 people together. Three weeks later, there were over 100,000 demonstrators - nearly a quarter of the population! This growing force was to a large extent the result of the workers' permanent quest for solidarity. The strikers did all they could to extend the struggle as rapidly as possible: from 29 January, roaming groups of strikers regularly went around Point-à-Pitre and its environs, street to street, business to business, in order to draw a growing part of the working class and the population behind the movement.  

The second source of strength was the tendency for the workers to take the struggle into their own hands. It is true that the LKP played an important role, that it drew up the platform of demands and that it led all the negotiations. But this said, in the media, everything was presented as if the working class was blindly obeying the LKP and doing nothing but following Elie Domota, the LKP's charismatic leader. But this was quite false! The LKP was set up to control and channel the discontent and prevent the self-organisation of the struggle by the workers from going too far. Thus, one of the crucial elements of the movement in Guadeloupe was the broadcasting of the negotiations between the LKP and the state on radio and TV. In the chronology of events written by the LKP[5], we can read: "Saturday 24 January: a big surge in the streets of Pointe-à-Pitre - 25,000 demonstrators. Invitation to all parties to attend the negotiations at 16:30 at the World Trade Centre...open discussion on the accord. Exceptional presence of Channel 10 who recorded and then broadcast the proceedings" (our emphasis). The next day, another "big surge" pulled in 40,000 people! The broadcasting of the negotiations mobilised so many people because they felt that this was their struggle and it should not just be in the hands of a few ‘trade union experts' negotiating in secret in the offices of the state. The direct public broadcasting of the negotiations (on Channel 10, RFO and Radyo Tambou) was systematised in the week that followed, up until 5 February. On that day, the secretary of state Yves Jégo, seeing with his own eyes how the struggle was unfolding, demanded that the broadcasts stop right away. The LKP only protested very feebly because this ‘collective' was, due to its trade union nature, much more at ease with secret negotiations among ‘experts' (which proves that it only originally accepted the broadcasting of the talks under the pressure of the workers).

This movement therefore had a very considerable intrinsic strength; but this alone doesn't explain why the French state gave in and accepted a 200 euro increase for the lower paid. What's more, the bourgeoisie also made concessions on La Réunion even though the movement there was much weaker. In fact, the unions, via the COSPAR collective, had partly managed to sabotage the movement by calling for the demonstration on 5 March, the day the general strike on Guadeloupe ended, insisting that it was not following the model of the "Antilles movement" (le Point, 4 March). The Collective thus made sure that the strike would be isolated. And in fact without the locomotive of the struggle in Guadeloupe, the demonstrations of 5 and 10 March on La Réunion were semi-failures, with a much smaller participation than expected (around 20,000 and 10,000 people respectively). And yet, as we have said, here too the French state gave in. Why?

Workers' anger and militancy is developing in all countries

In fact, the mobilisations in the Antilles and La Réunion took place in a general context of rising workers' militancy.

In Britain, for example, there were the strikes in the oil refineries at the end of January. Despite all the efforts to create divisions between ‘British' and ‘foreign' workers, the beginnings of a tendency towards unity between the two (for example, the joining of the strike by Polish workers at Langage and the raising of internationalist banners in opposition to the nationalist ones that had predominated at the beginning) convinced the ruling class that it should bring the strike to an end quickly, announcing the creation of 102 new jobs[6].

The bourgeoisie, at the international level, has no desire to see a struggle taking on a real breadth and giving ideas to workers in other countries. Especially when the struggle uses methods like massive delegations going from workplace to workplace, control of the struggle by the workers themselves, using the radio to keep an eye on negotiations, etc....

And this was also the case in France. The French state quickly gave ground in La Réunion because a big demonstration was about to take place in France on 19 March. It was vital for the ruling class to put a stop to this whole general strike business in the Antilles in order to prevent it having a bad influence on the workers in France itself. The paper Libération clearly expressed this fear of the French bourgeoisie in an article written on 6 March: "Contagion. In Paris, this ‘revolt' which has seized hold the overseas départments was poorly understood by the power. Except for Yves Jégo who very quickly got the point. But out of fear of contagion, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Fillon, who after shilly-shallying and hoping the movement would run out of steam, ended up opening the state's coffers"[7].

The real victory is the struggle itself

So the struggle in the islands was victorious. The 200 euro raise for the low paid was not negligible. But there's no room for illusions. The living conditions of the working class in the islands, as everywhere else, are inevitably going to worsen.

Already the bourgeoisie is trying to claw back some of what it's given away. Of the 200 euro increase, 100 will come from the central state, 50 from regional authorities and 50 from the bosses. But the Medef (bosses' organisation) has already announced that it will only give part of the increases, if at all (and even then according to different branches and sectors). The same goes for the regional authorities. As for the central state, it's commitment is only for two years. As Charles Pasqua put it, "the promises were only made to those who were listening": the cynicism and hypocrisy of the ruling class could hardly be more naked.

Under the blows of the crisis, pauperisation is going to increase. Wage increases, even if they make a difference in the short term, will be rapidly wiped out by price rises. And already, in Martinique, 10,000 jobs are about to be cut.

The real victory of the movement is the struggle itself! These experience are so many lessons for the struggles of the future. They show the exploited where their strength really lies: in their unity, solidarity, and confidence, in their ability to take control of their own struggles.

Pawel 26.3.09

[1] The LKP (Lyannaj kont profitasyon - United against Superexploitation) was the collective regrouping 49 trade union, political, cultural and other organisations, which on 20 January drew up a platform of demands.

[2] A collective set up on the model of the LKP at the beginning of the movement in Martinique, on the 5 February. It regrouped 25 union, political and cultural organisations

[3]COSPAR: a similar collective on La Réunion

[4] see our article ‘Massive struggle shows us the way: solidarity with the workers of the Antilles [55]'

[5] Source : www.lkp-gwa.org/chronologie.htm [56]

[6] See our article ‘Oil refinery and power station strikes: Workers begin to challenge nationalism [57]'

[7] Source : www.liberation.fr/politiques/0101513929-la-societe-guadeloupeenne-entre-... [58]

In the first week of April NATO held a summit on both sides of the Rhine. The leaders of this organisation, real imperialist brigands, with Obama, Merkel and Sarkozy at the top, were able to pose in front of the obliging cameras on the bridge between Baden-Baden in Germany and Strasbourg in France. Once again, we were asked to admire the great cordiality and togetherness which supposedly reigns between all these sharks. This summit was being held sixty years after NATO was founded. What was the reason it was created? What use has it been over the decades? Since it was founded the world has moved on and global imperialist relations have profoundly changed. However, NATO is still there. And, what's more, a growing number of countries are asking to join it. So what function does it serve today? To reply to these questions, we have to go beyond the official view put over by the bourgeois media.

The new American president, the very democratic Obama, declared that the priority for US foreign and anti-terrorist policy was to strengthen military intervention in Afghanistan. The US has decided to send 21,000 additional soldiers and, with this in mind, NATO is looking for four new brigades. On the opening day of the summit, the American president gave the keynote for the new tactic of American imperialism, its ‘open hand policy'. It was asserted loud and clear that America does not intend to deal on its own with the Taliban and the nebulous al-Qaida, asking the Europeans in particular to make a particular effort. But the latter remained rather discreet on the sending of new troops, preferring to talk hypocritically about giving aid for reconstruction, and the Afghan police and army. Only Sarkozy revealed his decision to send new French troops in exchange for France returning to the unified NATO command, which it left in 1966 under the de Gaulle presidency in order to express France's desire not to submit passively to American hegemony. In fact, France's return to the unified command is taking place at the moment when the USA is seeing a steady weakening of its world leadership. This summit was itself a clear expression of this loss of influence, even in an essentially military organisation which has always been an instrument of its imperialist domination.

The role of NATO during the Cold War

At the end of the Second World War in 1945, the bourgeoisies of all the most developed countries wanted to get the entire working class, which had been through five years of generalised slaughter, to believe that the world was now entering a period of peace and prosperity. It was simply a question of rolling up your sleeves and getting down to work. Only the world now saw a new period of sharpening imperialist tensions. Once it had completed the military crushing of Germany and Japan, the belligerent opposition between the fascist imperialist powers and those who claimed to be for anti-fascism and democracy was over. But a new antagonism instantly appeared and would provide the framework for the incessant wars which marked the period up to 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet bloc. The world was now divided into two imperialist blocs. On the one hand, there was the western bloc headed by the American superpower, seconded by all the countries of western Europe; on the other side stood the Soviet bloc. This was led by Stalin's USSR and the Russian bourgeoisie, who had taken control of the eastern and part of central Europe. For more than 40 years, these two imperialist blocs would confront each other in battles between client states or local bourgeois armies fighting for control of their own countries. A whole series of conflicts ravaged large sections of the planet during this period - the wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, Africa, wars and massacres used, orchestrated and sometimes directly organised by the two blocs. Altogether these conflicts led to more deaths than the Second World War.

But maintaining cohesion within each bloc called for a great deal of discipline, and thus for each country within the bloc to align itself behind the bloc leader, On the one hand, the USSR imposed the Warsaw pact on all the countries under its heel. On the other hand, the USA, which had emerged as the all-powerful victor of the world war, did the same thing via NATO. The latter was a political-military organisation officially formed in 1949 and is now made up of 28 member countries. At first the declared objective of this organisation was clearly expressed in its article number 3. This enabled the US to aid the military development of Europe, as it was also doing at the economic level. For America it was a question of creating a barrier between the Soviet bloc and Western Europe. But the role of NATO evolved rapidly and on 4 April 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington. This military pact stipulated that any attack on one of the members of this organisation would immediately result in action by all the member states. The treaty was thus aimed at binding the member states behind the USA. The USSR was not taken in and affirmed from the start that the treaty was an instrument of American imperialism. West Germany joined in 1955. To square up to the Soviet bloc, massive military forces were stationed in many regions of the world - land, naval, and air forces, not to mention the massive nuclear arsenal pointed at the USSR. This was the exact meaning of the numerous NATO troops stationed in Europe and above all in West Germany. The alliance was therefore formed as the armed wing of the western bloc and effectively under US command, and it existed as such until 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet bloc.

The evolution of NATO since the disappearance of the blocs

Faced with the loss of a common enemy, the western bloc itself fell apart: in effect, it had lost its reason for existence. Like its counterpart the Warsaw pact, you might have expected NATO to simply disappear. But this organisation has maintained itself and has been reinforced by former countries of the eastern bloc such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, or new regions like Eastern Germany. In 2004, seven new countries joined NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. And today countries like Georgia, Ukraine Albania and Croatia are posing their candidature. Most of these countries are former vassals of the old USSR. For them, the main problem is to protect themselves from the still menacing presence of the Russian bear after the experience of forty years of ferocious Soviet domination. But the decline of the political-military role of NATO has still been spectacular and irreversible.

From the second Iraq war in 2003, the weakening of American leadership has been increasingly obvious. The consequence is that each imperialist power has been more and more contesting the USA and its domination. This has been especially true for France and Germany. For the US, maintaining its control over NATO is therefore a necessity, above all because its authority is now regularly defied at the UN. And because China, a potential rival, has strengthened itself considerably at the imperialist level in the last few years and Russia, even if it can no longer be the power it was in the days of the USSR, still remains a by no means negligible imperialist power. The US is thus forced to keep NATO alive because it is through this organisation that it can continue to put pressure on the European countries and drag them behind it in its wars, as in the case of Afghanistan today.

But even with the control they do exert over NATO, created by them and for them (it's an "American machine" as de Gaulle called it) this organisation is also weakening irredeemably. More and more, each power tries to use NATO for its own ends or to go against American interests. The most dramatic example of this, before the present war in Afghanistan, was the 1999 NATO intervention in the Balkans, which led to the USA, France, Germany and Britain all sending in their military forces, each one aiming to defend their specific imperialist interests.

Each one of these countries, including the USA, strode into the Balkans quagmire without any real capacity for stabilising or reconstructing this region. This war, like the one in Afghanistan today, concretised the weakening of NATO and of US leadership. This process was further exhibited in the recent summit by the problems involved in naming the pro-American Rasmussen, the former Danish president, as NATO secretary given the opposition from Turkey. This general dynamic can only accelerate and deepen in the future, turning this organisation more and more into a theatre of conflict between all the big imperialist sharks, with a mounting challenge to America's imperialist domination.  

Tinto 23/4/09

The Taliban have certainly been emboldened recently, taking over control of a town, Buner, which is just 60 miles from the capital of Pakistan. Since then, there have been daily reports of fighting between Pakistani military forces and radical elements, including the bombing of whole areas: "Heavy fighting raged for a fourth day across north-western Pakistan today, as Pakistani troops battled for control of a strategic valley and Taliban guerrillas struck back with suicide attacks and an assault on a military post that resulted in 10 soldiers being captured. The Pakistan military said it killed up to 60 militants during 24 hours of combat in Buner, a mountainous district 60 miles north of Islamabad, where helicopter gunships pounded Taliban positions and soldiers fended off attacks from an explosive-laden vehicle... Today's fighting brought the death toll from six days of violence to over 170 people, and the unrest was spreading to other parts of Malakand division" (Guardian 01/05/09).

In the wake of the 'peace deal' made by the Pakistani government with the Taliban over the implementation of Sharia law in the Swat area, American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made a speech announcing that Pakistan's government was "basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists."  Despite being toned down after heavy criticism from Islamabad, this speech was the latest recognition of the fact that the Obama government is now firmly focussed on its new so-called 'Afpak' policy: the recognition that the key to control of Asia and the Middle East is not Iraq but Afghanistan and Pakistan. This theme has been taken up by Gordon Brown in a recent visit to British troops stationed in Afghanistan in which he described "..the lawless and contested border area between the two as the new ‘crucible of terrorism'" (Guardian 30/04/09).

British and US ambitions for Afghanistan have now had to be 'toned down' - there is no longer the desire to create a Western style democracy, but a rather more limited aim of helping the Afghan government create a 'functioning state', which may seem like a sick joke given that  roughly 7 years after the official fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan the Karzai government barely controls Kabul, let alone anywhere else. The perspective here is for what used to be called  the war on terror to more and more become actualised in Pakistan with ever increasing dangers, both for its population and the wider region - a potential second 'failed state', a regression to a barbaric implementation of literal Sharia law (already happening in areas under Taliban control) and, most ominously, the question of control over the country's nuclear arsenal.  

Graham 1/5/9

On Wednesday 4 March, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant of arrest for Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan. The president is being formally accused of "war crimes and crimes against humanity".

Who exactly is this Omar al-Bashir, now being judged by the International Criminal Court, a plaything of the imperialist gangs who make up the UN Security Council, in other words, the powers that rule the world and who have allowed the Sudanese president to massacre and impoverish an entire population for nearly 20 years?

It's certainly true that since he came to power, al-Bashir has been carrying out the most barbaric wars and exactions, leaving a trail of hundreds of thousands of deaths.

"In April 1990, ten months after he came to power, he executed 28 officers for their part in a ‘plot'. From 2003, he unleashed the Janjaweed militias on hundreds of villages in Darfur with a mission of killing, raping and pillaging. We know the result: three hundred thousand killed, according to the UN" (Jeune Afrique, 14/3/9).

This is the official balance sheet of the victims of al-Bashir in Darfur, but to complete it we would have to recall that even before doing his hateful work in Darfur, the same killer, as soon as he got into power, re-launched and widened the sinister conflict in South Sudan which has resulted in more than two million deaths.

One criminal can hide others

Omar al-Bashir certainly has a cardinal responsibility for the massacre of the Sudanese populations, but the question is: did this barbarian achieve all this horror on his own, or did he benefit from the support of other criminals hiding behind him?

If you look more closely at the attitude of the great powers in Sudan, it becomes clear that it is the big imperialist powers, squabbling over control of the region, who have armed, supported and closed their eyes to the activities of the ‘dictator of Khartoum'. The same al-Bashir has indeed served the interests of one of them after the other. For example, in the 1990s, he was the instrument of French imperialism in the latter's struggle against the USA for control over the Sudan/Chad region. It was with the military support of the Sudanese regime that French imperialism was able to help the current president of Chad, Idris Déby, seize power from former president Hissène Habré, who, having been the pawn of France, had then become the pawn of Washington. What's more, as Le Monde pointed out on 6 March, Sarkozy was the last western head of state to meet al-Bashir, in Qatar in November 2008. This is because "France wanted to preserve Chad, a friendly regime, from new convulsions linked to the crisis in Darfur". This is why Paris is still so attached to the criminal regime of al-Bashir.

As for the USA, it should be recalled that the Bush administration made friendly overtures to the Sudanese president with the aim of signing a ‘security agreement' for the ‘War on Terror', opening the area of the Sudan to the activities of the CIA and American interests in general. But above all, al-Bashir had been committing the most abject crimes ‘against humanity' in Darfur when he was invited by Washington to negotiate and sign the famous ‘American peace plan' which led to the formation of a ‘unity government' between the power in Khartoum and the former secessionists of the SPLM (the Movement for the Liberation of the People of South Sudan). And the American representative at this ‘negotiating table' avoided mentioning that al-Bashir's hands were still red with the blood of his victims at the time.

As for China, since the 1990s it has been intensifying its relations with Khartoum and today has become its best source of political and diplomatic support, notably at the UN, while buying nearly 70% of its oil and being al-Bashir's main arms supplier. There's no doubt that al-Bashir's Sudan is Chinese imperialism's main pawn for extending its influence in Africa.

We can thus see how this Sudanese ‘monster', so roundly denounced in the western media, who have put it all in the most ‘horrified' tones, continues to survive, as he has always done, under the shadow of an imperialist protector, whether an ‘ex' or a more recent suitor. All of them have done all they can to offer him a way out. As the same article in Jeune Afrique put it:

"'If president al-Bashir thinks that the accusation of the International Criminal Court is unfounded, he can contest it' (USA); ‘there can only be a political solution to the Darfur crisis' (France); ‘Omar al-Bashir enjoys the immunity of a head of state through international law' (Russia); ‘China opposes any action which may disturb the overall peaceful situation in Darfur and Sudan' (China)."

To sum up: the French, the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese and all the other imperialist vultures don't give a toss about what's happening to the population of Darfur, which today as yesterday is being handed over to the butcher of Khartoum. Because this region is one of Africa's geo-strategic high-spots, all the big imperialist powers will go on vying for influence by sowing war and death. With or without the condemnation of Omar al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court, the inhabitants of Darfur will continue to live in hell.  

Amina 23/3/9

The bourgeois journal Le Monde Diplomatique has published an article titled "The New South America",  saluting the coming to power of the left of capital in El Salvador (Mauricio Funes of the FMLN won the presidential elections) and its alliance with other leftist governments headed by Chavez and others. Throughout the world the left  tries to deceive the masses by presenting these governments as an alternative for the workers. This is clearly a typical vile lie of the bourgeoisie and their leftist servants aimed at subjecting the proletariat to the capitalist yoke.

Faced with the situation of crisis  the bourgeoisie has seen the need to use a "new" image, which is not really so new in order to hide the responsibility of the whole decadent capitalist system for leading humanity into barbarism - to obscure the real meaning of the world economic crisis by blaming it on a fraction of the bourgeoisie. These capitalist propagandists are making full use of the rise of bourgeoisie fractions coming from the "left" in order to make them look like an alternative. As if the crisis was one of "Neo-Liberalism", and  as if the implementation of new forms of the state capitalist model are going to resolve a profound problem which has its roots in capitalism, which ever guise it takes. Calling it "neo" doesn't change the fact it is the same old liberalism . It is faced with the increasingly greater contradictions of a society divided into classes. These "left" governments are weapons of the international bourgeoisie for sedating the masses, diverting them from the autonomous struggle for a real social revolution. The left is nothing more than the left of capital, it is a new garrotte for repressing workers who question class oppression and look for international solidarity.

Those models of capitalism based on state planning of the economy, on state intervention to save the interests of business, on the nationalization of exploitation, are nothing but variants of capitalism, and state capitalists are just as much oppressors as private capitalists. For example we already know about the model of the "New Deal", the Stalinst Soviet Union, Fascism and Nazism, etc, etc, all models that have secured the interests of the bourgeoisie, defending capitalist class relations, and Chavez, Lula, Morales etc are doing nothing different from this.

Obviously the article is published in a bourgeois newspaper, which behind its left image defends its class interests. While in Europe the left has been integrated into government for many decades, in order to facilitate its oppression of the worker, in Latin America this process is relatively new. The oldest bourgeoisies on the planet are seeking to revitalise the rhetoric that they use  to oppress the working class, so that capitalism can be "humanised". The "New South America" is nothing more than a new form for telling the same old lies to the workers, with the aim of creating confidence in the national struggle, in the "reform" of capitalism, in the electoral process. In general they seek to revitalise the false idea that the interests of the proletariat are the same as  those of the bourgeoisie.

For the bourgeoisie, its only interest is to continue living off the labour of the working class, whilst for the working class its only interest can be to free itself from the yoke of capitalism, from the exploitation of man by man, whether it be called "Socialism for the 21st century" or whatever. Real Socialism is only possible through an international revolutionary process, a process where the working class must make use of its strength and unity, its independent organisation from the bourgeoisie, its revolutionary violence.

"South America has been transformed into the most progressive region on earth. Where more changes are being produced in favour of the popular classes and where more structural reforms are being adopted  in order to break free from dependency and under-development ". This quote from the article exactly reflects the rhetoric that capital needs in order to continue with its exploitation, in order to create false expectations that capitalism can in some way improve  workers' lives. This  rhetoric is shared by the whole of the left of capital, who support the governments of Chavez and company, albeit critically as the Trotsykists do. This stabs the workers in the back and tries to confuse the working class,  in order to divide it. They have to use  this apparently revolutionary, socialist or communist rhetoric in order to eradicate the exploited class's hopes of advancing towards a really communist society. This society will have to form itself through confronting all the enemies of the proletariat, the whole of the international bourgeoisie, by confronting Chavez and all of his ideology. The real foundation for this is the proletariat's conscious understanding of the need for it to  break with all these falsifiers and flatterers of parliament, of the national struggle, of the unions, in order that it can arm itself against all the traps that capitalism will erect and carry out the international revolutionary process, which is the only answer to capital's crisis, wars and poverty.

Juan K. 19/4/9

Readers of our press are by now well aware that the ICC has gone to great lengths in the last few years to open its internal discussions to the growing numbers of young - and not so young - militants emerging from the working class these days. The emergence of new militants searching for political clarity and the means to contribute to the revolutionary struggle is itself a reflection of the global process of maturation of class consciousness. The working class historically secretes revolutionary minorities from within itself as it develops its capacity to confront the capitalist system and the threat that this outmoded, anachronistic system poses to the very survival of humanity.

This global process of the maturation of class consciousness is demonstrated here in the U.S. by the emergence of a growing number individuals getting in touch with the ICC. To meet face to face with the growing number of readers and sympathizers scattered across the country, Internationalism took the initiative to organize a Days of Discussion conference in New York. Invitations were extended to persons who had been corresponding politically with the ICC, commenting on ICC politics on various web forums and web sites, assisting with distribution efforts, or translations. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 73, some had dabbled in the past with anarchism or Trotskyism, but all were internationalists, who find themselves increasingly interested in the political perspectives of left communism. Collectively they logged an estimated 28,000 miles traveling to and from the conference.

The agenda was determined in consultation with the invited participants and reflected in particular their deep seated commitment to change the rotting world they see around them, to fight back against the economic crisis and advance the class struggle of their class. On Saturday, the discussion focused on the strategy of the bourgeoisie in the present crisis; the response of the working class to the crisis; and how revolutionaries intervene in the class struggle. An additional discussion on Sunday addressed Darwinism and the workers' movement. All presentations were prepared by non-members of the ICC and were designed not so much to lay out specific positions as they were to pose questions for discussion and clarification. Above all, the concern was to take maximum advantage of the opportunity to discuss, to learn from each other, to exchange views, to deepen our understanding, the better to contribute to the development of class consciousness and class struggle in the period ahead. A rotating presidium, comprised of one member of the ICC and one of the invited participants, chaired the sessions and guided the discussions.

The Days of Discussion conference was an extremely significant event because it was convened in the midst of the worst economic crisis in history - even worse than the 1930's since it occurs in spite of all the state capitalist palliative measures that have been used for more than 75 years to mitigate the effects of decadent capitalism. This is an economic crisis that affects us all and creates a situation when the pressure throughout the world for the working class to respond to the onslaughts of the crisis is growing. With an agenda focused on the central issues confronting the working class movement at this crucial juncture, the very occurrence of this conference, of the growing numbers of militants exploring revolutionary left communist perspectives is itself an important manifestation of the process of growing class consciousness. Clearly there are new elements emerging from the working class today who are prepared to confront capitalist exploitation.

The very stimulating discussion on bourgeois strategy stressed the importance of placing the current economic situation in an historic context. In particular it was noted that the present recession is but the latest manifestation of the permanent crisis of capitalist overproduction. Regarding the recent media fixation on the distinction between finance and productive capital and the significance of this differentiation, the conference felt that this campaign was an ideological manipulation needed by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of obscuring the perspective of "no future" that capitalism offers to the working class. The campaign to blame the "evil" bankers for the current crisis seeks to obscure the fact that this is a fundamental crisis of capitalism, a crisis of overproduction. This ideology will be utilized also to try to impose and justify austerity attacks against the working class. Repeatedly it was stressed that the ruling class has no way out the crisis, no choice but to continue to resort to debt, military expansionism, austerity against the working class, and greater state intervention (strengthened state capitalism). A number of points that needed to be deepened in further research and discussion were identified, particularly the growing weight of gangsterism or illegality in economic life.

The discussion on the working class response to the crisis was also situated in the larger international context, noting important developments in class struggle on the international level, especially Greece and Western Europe. While for the moment the Obama mystification weighs on the proletarian struggle in the US, already the pressures for the workers to struggle on their own terrain is increasing. Although there are common characteristics between todays response and the initial struggles at the end of the post reconstruction period, there is an important difference. Contrary to 1968, today there is no generation gap within the working class. We don't have a generation of workers that has gone through an historic, physical and ideological defeat, like that suffered by the workers in the 1930's, who were tied to the state by ideologies of anti-fascism and prepared to accept the horrors of inter-imperialist world war. Instead we have multiple generations of the proletariat that have not been defeated. The older generation is showing that it can pass on the lessons of the struggle to the next generation. And at the same time the younger generation is willing and anxious to learn from the older.  Special attention was directed towards the current campaign to pass legislation (‘Employee Free Choice Act') to strengthen union organizing efforts as a means to control the working class as it becomes increasingly combative. It was also pointed out the refusal to accept austerity and the attacks triggered by the crisis inherently pose a tendency towards politicization of the struggle.

In regard to the intervention of revolutionaries in the class struggle, there was consensus that there is no separation between the class and the revolutionary organization; no separation between theory and practice; and no separation between the immediate struggle and the final goal of communism. It was agreed that the objective of the revolutionaries' intervention in the class struggle is: to help the class to extend the class struggle to other sectors; to strengthen the self confidence of the working class in itself as a class; and to help its tendencies towards self-organization, towards taking conscious control over its own struggle. As one comrade noted, there is a statement by Marx that the revolution is the task of the workers themselves. The organization does not organize the class, does not give orders to the class, as that would contradict the notion that it is the task of the class to make the revolution. It is the responsibility of the revolutionary minority within the class to contribute to the rise of consciousness. The organization is not able to formulate the immediate demands of the class. Indeed it does not have the capacity to do so, and it does not have that function. The dangers of an immediatist approach to our intervention, what to do in our own job, etc. were considered. Sometimes we intervene at locations other than where we work. We have also talked of the need for the working class to draw continuously the lessons of its struggle. We cannot think of intervention as an "individual" thing, but rather as a reflection of the collective struggle of the working class.  

Linking theory to practice, a delegation of four comrades volunteered to intervene at the Left Forum conference, held the same weekend at the Pace University campus in downtown New York where they distributed 27 copies of the current issue of Internationalism and engaged in discussions with a number of interested individuals. Two hours later they rejoined the rest of the group for the fellowship of an informal dinner and conversation. There was even time for a bit of late night tourism for some of the more adventuresome participants.

The discussion on Darwinism stressed the relationship of science to the workers' movement. The materialism of Darwin's scientific approach to the evolutionary process in plants and animals found its parallel in the historical materialism of Marx and Engels in regard to humanity's social/economic sphere. There was an American spin to the discussion, in regard to question of religion and the decomposition of society and fears about the future, as manifest in a religious-based rejection of Darwinism and the theory of evolution which is particularly significant in the US. There was discussion of how science develops in general and especially how it develops in decomposition. We should be clear that the scientific approach is not linear but takes a sometimes difficult searching path.  This is something that we have to deepen on.

In a wrap up discussion on Sunday, comrades were unanimous in the view that the conference was an extremely positive experience. As one young comrade put it, "I have never been with a group of such dedicated Marxists, so serious in their commitment." Another said that "the conference cleared up some misconceptions I had about the ICC. I feel closer to the ICC now that I have participated in these discussions."  A young man who traveled to New York from the Midwest said, "This weekend only confirms that what I like about the ICC is the overall sincerity of the organization. Unlike the leftist groups with their exaggerated self-importance and illusions, the ICC sees itself as a minority in the class, with no pretense to be more than they are. The conception of "class terrain" is an important distinction compared to the typical leftist campaigns."

Al-Jazerra has loudly proclaimed that the protests in Iran are the "biggest unrest since the 1979 revolution". Protests began in Tehran on Saturday 13th, and as the results from the election started to come out, the protests started to turn increasingly violent. Demonstrations at three Tehran universities turned violent, and protesters attacked police and revolutionary guards. The police have sealed off important sites and in turn protesters have attacked shops, government offices, police stations, police vehicles, gas stations and banks. Rumours coming out of Tehran suggest that four or more people have already died in the protests. The state has also reacted by arresting prominent ‘anti-government figures', and more importantly disrupting the internet telecommunications network, which had been used via SMS messages and websites to organise protests. Western journalists have said that ‘Tehran almost looks like a war zone already'.

That people are dissatisfied with what society has to offer them, and that there is an increasing willingness to struggle is very clear, not only from these events, but also from the recent struggles in Greece, as well as last years struggles in places such as Egypt and France. Just turning to the pages of the newspapers shows that the working class is recovering its will to struggle despite the fears caused by the return of open crisis.

However, it is not enough for communists to merely cheer on struggles from afar. It is necessary to analyse and explain and to put forward a perspective. At the moment, this movement is of a very different character from that of 1979. In the struggles leading up to the ‘Islamic revolution', the working class played a huge role. For all the talk of people in the streets overthrowing the regime, what was clear in 1979 was that the strikes of the Iranian workers were the major, political element leading to the overthrow of the Shah's regime. Despite the mass mobilisations, when the ‘popular' movement - regrouping almost all the oppressed strata in Iran - began to exhaust itself, the entry into the struggle of the Iranian proletariat at the beginning of October 1978, most notably in the oil sector, not only refuelled the agitation, but posed a virtually insolvable problem for the national capital, in the absence of a replacement being found for the old governmental team. Repression was enough to cause the retreat of the small merchants, the students and those without work, but it proved a powerless weapon of the bourgeoisie when confronted with the economic paralysis provoked by the strikes of the workers.

This is not to say that the current movement can not develop and can not draw the working class as a class into struggle. The working class struggle in Iran has been especially militant in the past few years, especially with the 100,000 strong unofficial teachers strike which took place in March 2007, which thousands of factory workers joined in solidarity. 1,000 were arrested during this strike. This was the largest recorded workers' struggle in Iran since 1979. The strike was followed in the next months by struggles involving thousands of workers in sugar-cane, tyre, automotive and textile industries. As for now, of course there are workers on the streets today, but they are engaged, at the moment, in the struggle as individuals and not as a collective force. It is important to stress though that the movement can not progress without this, collective force of the working class. A one day national strike has been called for Tuesday. This may give an indication of the level of support within the working class.

Recently the bourgeois media has been full of talk of various so-called revolutions named after various colours or plants. There have been ‘orange' revolutions, ‘rose' revolutions, ‘tulip' revolutions and ‘cedar' revolutions, and all the while the media have bleated like sheep about the ‘struggle' for democracy.

This movement started as a protest about cheating in the elections and protesters were originally mobilised in support of Mousavi. However, the slogans quickly became more radicalised. There is a huge difference between Mousavi's feeble protests to the supreme leader about the ‘unfairness' of the elections, and the crowd's chants of "death to the dictator and the regime". Of course the Mousavi clique is now panicking and has cancelled a demonstration set for Monday. Whether people respect this decision remains to be seen. On the other hand, Mousavi's calls for calm so far have also been met with slogans against him.

In contrast to these sort of coloured ‘revolutions', communism poses the possibility of a completely different type of revolution, and a completely different type of system. What we advocate is not simply a change of management of society with new ‘democratic' bosses performing exactly the same role as the old ‘dictatorial' bosses, but a society of free and equal producers created by the working class itself and based on the needs of humanity and not on the needs of profit, where classes, exploitation and political oppression are done away with.

Sabri 15/6/9 

Even under a system of communism, workplace accidents, sickness and disease can never be completely eliminated but, at the very least, part of the communist programme must be for a reduction of the widespread toll on the working class. In its search for profits, for the maximisation of its profits, capitalism kills, maims and injures on a vast scale. Just by showing up for work alone, the worker ‘lucky' enough to have a job is immediately put at risk, his or her health and safety compromised, and this from a mode of production whose main concern is the relentless drive for profits whatever the human cost.

On 1 April, largely overshadowed by the hoo-hah over the G20, a Super Puma helicopter, flying in good weather, crashed into the North Sea killing the sixteen workers on board. It came just a week or so after another Super Puma had ditched in the North Sea, east of Aberdeen when all eighteen were rescued. Scores of workers have been killed in helicopter crashes in the North Sea since the mid-70s involving all types of helicopters and all types of weather conditions and scores of workers have also been rescued in many close shaves. After the 1 April tragedy, many workers held back from expressing their concerns about helicopter safety, the way these machines are run day in day out with a minimum of maintenance, for fear of being blacklisted. Just as it emerged that many building workers, another industry that's notoriously dangerous, were blacklisted as ‘troublemakers' on a list provided to all the major building firms. After the North Sea Piper Alpha oil rig explosion in 1988 in which 167 workers were killed and no management faced the least prosecution, workers were reluctant to express themselves and a report to the Glasgow authorities ten years later was unable to find evidence of any significant improvement in safety procedures.

But it's not just the ‘dangerous' industries, oil rigs, construction, etc, that are a permanent danger to workers. The Health and Safety Executive has been accused of a major underestimation of deaths and injuries of workers in Britain. The HSE gives a figure of 241 workers killed in the UK 2006/7. The Hazards Campaign estimates between 1600 and 1700 killed each year with up to 50,000 dying from work-related illnesses. In 2007 a report prepared by the HSE "on the burden of occupational cancer in Britain", looking at six types of cancer, attributed over 6000 deaths of men and over 1000 deaths of women in 2004 to workplace environments, i.e., 4.9% of all cancer deaths. Researchers at Stirling University condemned the figures, putting the real cost of work related cancer each year of up to 24 thousand and accused the HSE of "failing to acknowledge or deal effectively with an epidemic of work-related cancers". Respiratory and heart figures can be added to these, without mentioning stress, neurotoxicity, Parkinson's, auto-immune diseases, asthma and the list goes on that the HSE doesn't take full account of. These cancers particularly, occurred in many industries from construction to manufacture, retail, transport, teaching, restaurants, hospitals, offices and hotels. Like the HSE, the Labour Force Survey ignores many illnesses and diseases to arrive at its figure of 2.2 million workers made ill each year by work.

The Labour Party dropped all its promises to improve workers' health and safety in 1997 and its Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2008, has been criticised by safety campaigners as weak. Figures published for 1994 in Britain covering 32 thousand deaths and injuries showed 1507 convictions and an average penalty of £3061.00. Union safety reps on workplace committees, as genuine as some of these are, are simply given the run around by management (and their unions).

Worldwide, for all the millions killed at work, millions more are killed by work-related diseases showing that capitalism is a ruthless killing machine in its drive for profit.  

Baboon 3/6/9

Daily we are told that we have to tighten our belts, accepts jobs losses, pay cuts, lose of pensions, increased work rates for the good of the national economy, to help it cope with the deepening recession. At British Airways they have even pressured workers to work for nothing for a whole month, with the threat of unemployment hanging over them. The idea of struggling against these relentless attacks is faced with the terrible fear of unemployment and the endless media campaign which tells us there is nothing we can do about our worsening living and working conditions.

And yet in the first weeks of June the weight of passivity and fear has been confronted by clear evidence that this does not need to be case. In the second week of June London Underground workers struck in order to protect 1,000 threatened jobs. Then postal workers in London and Scotland staged struggles against lay-offs, broken agreements and cuts in services. At the same time 900 construction workers at the Lindsey oil refinery site walked out in solidarity with 51 of their comrades who were laid off. This struggle burst into a series of wildcat solidarity strikes at major energy sector construction sites across Britain, when Total sacked 640 strikers on the 19th June. These struggles show that we do not have to accept our 'fate'.

Nationalism against the workers, and workers against nationalism

At the beginning of the year the Lindsey refinery workers were at the centre of a similar wave of wildcat strikes [76] over laying off workers on the site. That struggle from its beginning was hampered by the weight of nationalism, epitomised by the slogan ‘British Jobs for British workers' and the appearance of Union Jacks on the picket line, as some of the strikers said that no foreign workers should be employed when British workers were being laid off. The ruling class used these nationalist ideas to great effect, exaggerating its impact and presenting the strike as being against the Portuguese and Italian workers who were employed on the site at the same time as the other workers were being laid off. However, this strike was brought to a very sudden and unforeseen end when banners began to appear calling on the Italian and Portuguese workers to join the struggle or proclaiming ‘workers of the world unite', and Polish construction workers joined the wildcats in Plymouth. Instead of a long-drawn out defeat of the workers, with increasing tension between workers from different countries, the Lindsey workers gained an extra 101 jobs, kept the Italian and Portuguese workers' jobs for them, gained a promise that no workers would be laid off as there were jobs on the site, and went back united.

This new wave of struggles has broken out on a much clearer basis: solidarity with sacked workers. 51 contract workers were laid off at the end of the 2nd week of June because their contracts ended. At the same time, another contractor was taking on workers. The laid-off workers were told by Post-it notes on their clocking on cards that they were no longer needed. This brought an immediate response from hundreds of workers on the site, who walked out in solidarity. It was felt that these workers were being victimised for the role they had played in the earlier strike. Then on June 19th Total, the owners of the site, took the unexpected step of sacking 640 strikers. There had already been solidarity strikes on other sites but with the news of these sackings workers walked out on sites all over the country. "About 1,200 angry workers gathered at the main gates yesterday waving placards castigating ‘greedy bosses'. Fellow workers at power stations, refineries, and plants in Cheshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, South Wales and Teesside walked out in a show of solidarity." (The Independent, 20/6/9). The Times reported that, "There were also signs that the strike action was spreading to the nuclear industry as EDF Energy said that contracted workers at its Hinkley Point reactor in Somerset had walked out." (20/6/9).

Faced with this movement it is harder for the media to play the nationalist card. It would be a surprise if there was not a weight on nationalism on some workers and the media know how to focus their attention on them. The BBC website has a picture of a picket line with workers holding up a banner saying "put British workers first not last", while The Guardian interviewed a striker who said "We've no grievance with foreign workers as such but we feel that they should supplement what we cannot provide" (20/6/9). On the other hand, right wing papers such as The Times and Daily Telegraph who would usually make full use of such sentiments do not mention them - rather they concentrate on Total's action and the danger of the struggles spreading.

The ruling class is extremely concerned about this struggle precisely because they cannot so easily distort it into a nationalist campaign. They fear it could spread into the construction sector generally and maybe beyond. Workers can see that if Total get away with sacking striking workers other bosses will follow suit. This poses the strike as a clear class issue, of real concern to all workers.

The obvious class nature of this struggle also encompasses a vision of solidarity with foreign worker. As a sacked worker makes clear: "Total will soon realise they have unleashed a monster. It is disgraceful that this has happened without any consultation. It is also unlawful and it makes me feel sick. If they get away with this, the rest of the industry will crumble and it will be like a turkey cull. Workers will be decimated and unskilled employees from abroad will be brought in on the cheap, treated like scum and sent back after the job is done. There is a serious possibility that the lights will go out because of this. We just cannot stand by and see workers discarded like an oily cloth." (The Independent 20/6/9).

This worker's indignation is that of the whole working class. Not only because of Total's actions, but all the other attacks they are suffering or seeing. Millions of workers are being cast away like so much rubbish by the ruling class now that they can no longer suck enough surplus value from them. Bosses expecting workers to accept wage cuts or even work for free and to be happy about it! Total's contempt is that of the whole capitalist class: how dare workers be so uppity, they must be crushed!

The need for a common struggle

No matter what happens in the coming days this struggle has demonstrated that workers do not have to accept attacks; that they can resist. More than that, they have seen that the only way we can defend ourselves is by defending each other. For the second time this year we have seen wildcat solidarity strikes. There are reports that the Lindsey strikes sent out flying pickets to Wales and Scotland. There are construction sites all over the country, particularly in the capital, where the Olympic sites group together large numbers of workers from many nationalities. Sending delegations to these sites calling for solidarity action would send out the clearest message yet that this is a question that affects the future for all workers, whatever their origin. The London postal and underground workers are also trying to defend themselves against similar attacks and have every interest in forming a common front.

The old slogan of the workers' movement - workers of the world unite - is often ridiculed by the bosses who can never go beyond their competing national interests. But the world wide crisis of their system is making it clearer and clearer that workers everywhere have the same interests: to unite in defence of our living standards and to raise the perspective of a different form of society, based on world-wide solidarity and cooperation.

Phil 21/6/9.

It is twenty-five years since the massive year long miners' strike in Britain. Nearly 120,000 workers spent an entire year on strike from March 1984 to March 1985. Today we return to look at this strike not as an abstract academic piece of history, but as an opportunity for workers and communists to draw what lessons we can from the strike itself, and to help us understand the historic period in which we work today.

To place the miners' strike in its context, it came shortly after the major defeats that the working class had suffered in the struggles in developing from the mass strikes in Iran in 1979 and in Poland in 1980. In the UK itself there had also been a massive strike wave in the winter of 1979, which is commonly refereed to in the British media as the ‘Winter of Discontent'. Massive strikes, resulting in 29,474,000 work days being lost to strike action, spread across the entire working class in Britain as a response to the government's enforced pay rise limit of 5 percent. The limit was smashed by 17,000 workers at Ford Motors winning a 17% increase, and the rest of the working class joined in the struggle.

As rubbish piled up in the streets, bodies remained unburied, factories didn't work and hospitals only admitted patients who the workers decided were emergency cases the Labour government of James Callaghan collapsed.

In the upcoming election the right-wing Conservative Party played on the fears of the terrified middle classes and Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister. Despite her reputation as a great politician today, Thatcher's first term in office started badly. In 1981, after promising that she would destroy the power of the working class, and in particular the mineworkers who her party still hated for bringing down their government in 1974, her government was forced to make a humiliating retreat when 50,000 miners went on unofficial strike against a government plan to cut 30,000 jobs. By 1981, the country was once again in chaos, young people across the country had taken to the streets to riot in response to police brutality, and this continued all summer. At the same time Northern Ireland was in flames following the deaths of 10 hunger strikers.

Then, in 1982, came the Falklands war, and it was basically the war that saved Thatcher from losing the next election and being another failed politician. The military Junta in Argentina, with inflation running at 600% and workers about to launch a general strike, had decided to restore national pride and their falling popularity by occupying a few small islands, which were home to less than 3,000 people.

Unfortunately for the Argentine generals who were under the impression that the British wouldn't respond, a war was just what Thatcher and her party needed (and the Labour party, now in opposition, staunchly supported her in this enterprise). The flag was raised, a fleet was sent, striking nurses were condemned for being unpatriotic when ‘our boys' were fighting, and, after 74, it was time for Thatcher and the Conservative party to turn upon what she called ‘the enemy within', the working class. The state began to stockpile coal in preparation for the forthcoming strike.

The strike started in March 1984 after the National Coal Board tore up the agreement made after the 1974 strike and announced the closure of 20 pits and 20,000 job losses. Miners started to walk out on strike on 5 March. Workers spread the strike to other pits using flying pickets, and within a week the union was forced to declare the strike official, but only in one area, Yorkshire. At the same time left wing union officials appealed for the pickets to withdraw and condemned pickets for protecting themselves from the police; the leader of the miners' union, Arthur Scargill, talked about ‘taking the heat out of the situation'. Despite this by the middle of the second week about half the workforce of 196,000 had joined the strike.

As the strike continued to spread, the state used all of the weapons in its arsenal. The police were used as a paramilitary force which closed off entire areas to stop flying pickets as well as attacking picket lines and strikers' villages. The courts were brought in to declare that flying picketing was illegal. Politicians from all parties attacked the strikers, the right with their open hatred of the working class, and Labour in their condemnation of workers' violence; and as a background to all this, the media constantly whined on about how the workers were ‘undemocratic'.

Of course all of this was to be expected. What many workers didn't expect was that it would be the actions of ‘their own' unions that would lead the struggle to defeat. One of the major divisions between the mineworkers was the fact that in some regions, Nottinghamshire and North Wales, the majority of workers did not support the strike. However, in the early weeks before the National Union of Mineworkers had stopped the flying picketing, the workers themselves had been successful in bringing out their comrades in those regions. The union put a stop to this though. The practice of workers going directly to other workers to appeal for solidarity was opposed by the practice of bureaucratic union manoeuvres. An example of this was the closure of Harworth pit by 300 flying pickets acting against a massive police presence and the instructions of the union. When the flying pickets had been stopped the local union officials were then free to organise against the strike, holding their own ballot and campaigning for a no vote.

With the mineworkers divided amongst themselves it was time to isolate them from the rest of the class. Although there was widespread sympathy for the miners within the working class, and although railway workers, dock workers, and seamen took solidarity action by refusing to transport ‘scab' coal, the leaders of the Trade Union Congress not only refused to support the strike, but some actually gave the government information to help it beat the strike. As was to be expected, and concealing his own role in the strike, Scargill said "at the very point of victory we were betrayed". Yet it would have been wrong for workers to expect the unions to organise solidarity action. Even at the point that 25,000 dock workers walked out with very similar demands, the unions were trying desperately to stop the strikes linking up, and to keep workers divided.

In the middle of the summer the union decided to increase the pressure upon the government by closing down the steelworks. In fact these very steelworks had only been working because the union had given them permission to use coal in the first place. The decision to change strategy was connected to the fact that they were using more coal than the union had allowed them. On 18 June the miners arrived to picket Orgreave British Steel coking plant. In many ways this was reminiscent of an action in the 1972 strike at a coke depot near Birmingham. At that time, striking miners' succeeded in closing the depot. This time though about 6,000 workers confronted about 8,000 police, and were beaten in a pitched battle. There was a crucial difference between Orgreave in 1984 and Saltley in 1972. In the first case striking miners were joined by about 100,000 engineers and other workers from the city of Birmingham whom the miners had appealed to for solidarity. Not only were the numbers massive but also the strikes of these workers and the threat of the mass strike terrified the state.

The bourgeoisie was very clear about how it viewed the working class. Talking about the events at Orgreave, Thatcher stated that "We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty." For our rulers the working class is a much more dangerous enemy than foreign states.

Even following the events of Orgreave there were still chances to extend the strike. In July and August when the dock workers came out, and in October when mining engineers were within 24 hours of walking out on strike. Thatcher later admitted that if that had happened the Government would have had to have backed down.

As the year turned to winter it became more and more obvious that the miners were going to be defeated. Support for the strike started to dwindle and thousands of workers gave up the strike and returned to work. By the start of the following March, when there was an organised return to work only 60% of the workforce were still on strike.

The years that followed saw a full scale assault upon the working class with different sectors of workers being isolated and defeated in strikes, including the dock workers, ferrymen, and a one year long strike by 6,000 printers. These defeats, but the defeat of the miners' strike in particular, dealt a significant blow to the class struggle in Britain and even internationally, as many workers had looked to the UK miners as an example of militancy and defiance. However, the wave of class struggles in the 1980s continued, with important movements among railway workers and healthworkers in France, education workers in Italy and so on. Even in Britain struggles did not simply disappear - the British Telecom workers won important concessions in a strike that showed signs of workers deliberately trying to avoid being trapped in a long isolated siege as with the miners and the printers. However, 1989 saw the collapse of the eastern bloc and the onset of massive campaigns about the ‘end of the class struggle' and the disappearance of the working class. The doomed fight of the miners, and the dismantling of the mines and other traditional industrial sectors, added further grist to the mill of these campaigns: how could there be a class struggle if the working class didn't exist anymore? The result of all this was a retreat in the class struggle which lasted for over a decade.

Since 2003, we have seen internationally a revival in workers' struggles. It is quite telling of the level of the defeats inflicted in the 1980s that the working class took so long to recover. Nevertheless after all the theorisations of pseudo-Marxist intellectuals, like André Gorz, who saw the end of the working class and wished it goodbye, the past few years have shown a revitalisation of struggles across the globe. The lessons that the UK miners' strike can teach us today about the role of the unions, the weakness of workers in isolation, and the need for workers to take matters into their own hands by going directly to other workers to extend their struggles, will be vital in the years to come.

Sabri 7/7/9.

On 4 June, in Cairo, the US president made a speech which all the main western capitals described as historic. And at first sight, Obama's words appeared to be a complete break from the aggressive, openly warlike policies of the previous president, GW Bush. For Obama, the time had come to turn a new page and put the errors of Bush and his administration under the heading of post- 9/11 trauma. Obama declared that the "clash of civilisations" so dear to the previous administration was over. In his 4 June speech, Obama went out of his way to say that the USA is not the enemy of Muslims, but a legitimate partner. He talked non-stop about the "occupation" and the "aspirations of the Palestinians for dignity, equal opportunity and an independent state"(Courier International, 16.6.09)

In short, he presented the US as a friend of the Palestinians. He called on Hamas to recognise the State of Israel but he did not describe this organisation as terrorist. Even more remarkable is that he compared the struggle of the Palestinians with that of the slaves in America or the blacks of South Africa in the time of apartheid.

Coming from a US president, such statements are unprecedented. And they come in the wake of a diplomatic opening which the US has been trying to make towards Iran - a country presented not long ago as a potential threat to world security.

Such a lot of change in so short a time. Yesterday it was so aggressive, but today the US has suddenly become an apostle of peace...

However, we have some cause to distrust this view of things. Dramatic experience has taught us not to believe in fine speeches by the bourgeoisie. History has shown that when capitalism talks of peace, it's really preparing for war.

The need to reorient American policy

Since the collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989, the US has been the world's only superpower. Since that time its number one priority has been to maintain this domination at any cost. But after 2001, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have seen the USA's position actually getting weaker and weaker. Getting bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq has been the most obvious and tragic demonstration of this. All around the world, other great powers have arrived on the scene to challenge US supremacy and openly declare their own interests. This has been the case, for example, with China in Africa or Iran in the Middle East. Each nation, each clique within the bourgeoisie, has been trying to defend its own interests in a context of growing chaos and disorder. The policies of Bush and Co., which tried to assert American power alone against everyone else, have not halted this process. On the contrary, they only accelerated the USA's isolation and the weakening of its supremacy. They provoked further anti-American resentment, notably in the Muslim world, including among allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The USA's Lone Ranger policy could not be continued. A large part of the US bourgeoisie understood this and Obama's administration has for the moment overcome traditional differences between Democrats and Republicans on these matters. However, the policies orchestrated by Obama will not do away with the growing tendency of the US to become isolated. The weakening of American power and the rise of ‘every man for himself' are irreversible realities today.

One aspect of this is the growing impossibility for the US to go on investing militarily in several regional wars. Not only are their military resources far from inexhaustible, notably in ‘human capital'; the world economic crisis is now confronting it with a real problem. Millions of dollars are poured each day into the American army while the country as a whole is getting poorer and poorer. Unemployment is shooting up and health cover is practically non-existent. As poverty hits a growing section of the population, how can they be made to accept endlessly increasing military expenditure?

What's more, even after increasing wages and benefits for soldiers, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find young people ready to risk their skins in wars which more and more people see as a bad idea. Thus, the new orientation of US imperialist policy has nothing to do with any humanism on Obama's part. It is a necessity imposed on the American bourgeoisie. It simply expresses the fact that the USA has to choose its targets more carefully. And this choice has fallen on the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This means for the moment calming things down a bit with regard to Iran and Palestine. For the US it has become imperative to get control of the situation in Afghanistan if it is to reassert its influence in Pakistan. Pakistan is a really central piece in the game, with Iran to the west, the Caucasus, and thus Russia, to the north, and above all towards the east with India and China. The last country has been constantly stepping up its imperialist appetites. This is the choice the US has to make and it's what lies behind what Obama was saying in Cairo.

When Washington puts pressure on Israel

For decades Israel has been the most loyal ally of the US in the Middle East. The links between the bourgeoisies of the two countries are very strong and the Israeli army is totally supported by Washington. In the days of GW Bush, the Israelis had acquired very broad latitude in carrying out their imperialist policies. Tel Aviv and Washington were entirely on the same wavelength. But this is no longer the case. The US administration is now asking the Israeli bourgeoisie to bow to its demands, to the defence of its own interests. This has immediately led to rising tension between the two capitals. The differences between Netanyahu, the head of the Israeli government, and president Obama, are perfectly clear. However, faced with mounting US pressure, Netanyahu has had to modify his language somewhat. For the first time Netanyahu has talked about a "Palestinian state" even if this is combined with a demand that it be demilitarised and it rejects any idea of Jerusalem being divided up to be the capital of the new state. This indicates the strength of US pressure on Netanyahu. He has had to gain time and this is what he has done. But let's be clear: this will change nothing essential. This is evident when we remember that Netanyahu has demanded that a central component of any deal is that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state. He made this a central precondition for opening peace talks, even when he knows that it is totally unacceptable for the Palestinian bourgeoisie.

We are definitely going to see mounting tensions between the USA and Israel. And there's no guarantee that this new US policy won't push Israel's new ruling faction towards hurling itself into a more warlike policy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu sees the Iranian nuclear programme as an unbearable threat to Israel. The war of words between Iran's president Ahmadinejad and the Israeli government is a visible expression of the growing tensions between the two countries. And there's no certainty that recent events in Iran offer any assurance to the Israeli bourgeoisie. The Israeli state may be tempted to confront the Obama administration with a fait accompli based on violent military action against Iran.

Even if such a perspective doesn't come to be, the Israeli bourgeoisie cannot avoid reacting to US pressure. War and barbarism are still very much on the agenda in this region of the world.

Tino 2/7/9      

Two recent documents coming from different parts of the anarchist movement both make attempts to address the questions of the role of the unions and how workers can struggle. The first is a document [80] that was circulated by the Brighton local of the Solidarity Federation for discussion in the period leading up to their national conference. The second is the workplace strategy [81] of the Anarchist Federation that was adopted by their national conference in April.
For us the discussion document from Brighton Solidarity Federation marks something of a break from traditional anarcho-syndicalism, though they are at pains to stress that it doesn't, and it came as no surprise to us that it was rejected by their conference. That does not mean that nothing positive can come out of this current. On the contrary, many of the ideas that have emerged from it recently express a real attempt to try to develop a workable praxis in the current period. However, we feel that this current as a whole is deeply tied to a vision of mass revolutionary organisations which belongs to a bygone period and offers no perspective for workers today.
The Brighton document though rejects this approach and states clearly that "not only are permanent mass organisations not revolutionary, but that in the final analysis they are counter-revolutionary organisations". This is something that we can heartily agree with. It also talks at length about the differences between mass organisations and minority ones and the differences between permanent and non-permanent ones. Here again there is much to agree with.
For the comrades in Brighton, "internal democracy in a mass organisation when the majority of workers are not pro-revolutionary means that the organisation has to sacrifice either internal democracy or its revolutionary principles". Certainly, outside of a revolutionary period, it is inevitable that only a minority of the working class will be actively in favour of the communist revolution. Faced with this reality, the (anarcho-) syndicalist attempt to establish ‘revolutionary' unions has ended up either creating small groups which are essentially political organisations that don't admit their own nature, or mass organisations that behave exactly like trade unions - the most obvious case being that of the CNT in the war in Spain, where it participated in the bourgeois republic at every level, just like the unions in other countries did in the 1914-18 war.

One point which we think could have perhaps been made a bit clearer is the section which talks about 'industrial networks' set up to create links between militant workers with the aim of exchanging experience and acting together in moments of class struggle. The text states that "Of course a level of theoretical and tactical agreement is required - networks are not apolitical - but we do not see this as being as high as for propaganda groups", which begs the question of exactly how high it should be. If the comrades don't see these groups as ones that would lobby to elect union bosses and don't see them as groups trying to democratise the existing unions, that is good. But their conceptions are not entirely clear on this.
Finally we would like to raise the question of whether workers should limit their attempts to form these sort of groups along sectoral lines. For us, if the workers' struggle in general needs to break through boundaries between sectors and enterprises, then the most militant workers need to follow the same logic when they form discussion groups or groups to agitate within the class struggle.

Nevertheless, the document is a serious contribution to what is an essential discussion for revolutionaries today and in that we welcome it and urge our readers and sympathisers to read it and take part in this debate.
The AF document on the other hand seems to us to be much more confused. Indeed much of the introduction seems to be taken up by apologizing for its own existence. There seems to be a distinct uneasiness about actually putting forward political ideas as well as what seems to be nearly a fear of prioritising workers' struggles.

The AF write "simply because we're writing about the workplace here does not mean that we believe that fighting in the workplace is more important than fighting else where". In our opinion workplace struggles are at the core of the working class struggle. Of course there can be struggles in the 'community' that are class struggles it is also much easier for these sorts of movements to end up being confused cross class movements. The workplace is where the working class is concentrated as a class, and also where it has the potential to use its power. Of course, the class struggle has to go beyond the individual workplace and come out onto the streets, incorporate the unemployed, take up housing and other issues, and so on, but the action of the employed workers as workers will always be of central importance in this process.

In fact there are times when the document seems confused about what class action actually is. At one point it talks of a range of workers' groups extending to "loose and informal groups of friends who support each other in small acts of theft and sabotage". While most of us have probably stolen something from work at some point, and we don't want to moralise about this, it should be clear that taking home a few printer cartridges or taking home some work boots for a friend is in no way a collective act of class struggle.

When they finally come to writing about the role of the unions the AF, despite recognising that unions "cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society" that they "divide the working class", even that they "must police unofficial action", ends up saying that unions provide "important material advantages that workers' simply cannot afford to ignore (e.g. better pay and conditions, better health and safety, some legal protection for industrial action and so on)".

To us it seems quite amazing that such organisations as previously described can manage to win all of these gains for their members. The question is whether the relationship between the two is causal. Do workers have comparatively good working conditions because they are members of a union, or because in the past they have been militant and fought for good working conditions? Very often this fight would have been conducted in spite of or even against the role of the trade unions in their workplace - and very often the union is there precisely because these are militant workers, and in this situation the more intelligent bosses see the union as being essential for the maintenance of ‘good industrial relations' (i.e. labour discipline).

When they go on to discuss whether militants take posts in the union, they seem to recognise the dangers involved, but also inform us that "AF members sometimes take positions as reps or shop stewards". And that "this is a judgment that individual members have to make in particular circumstances". Of course 'particular circumstances' are governed by the level of class struggle. When the working class isn't struggling, union reps are not forced to play a role against that struggle if only for the reason that it doesn't exist. However, when the class does come into struggle, reps are forced into what the AF calls a 'contradictory position', for example being obliged to condemn wildcat stoppages.

When it comes to the question of syndicalist unions, the AF seems even more confused and unclear than the anarcho-syndicalists. While recognizing that "syndicalist unions run the same risks as ordinary unions", they seem to see some difference in that they are "more likely to remain under the control of their membership". It may be that that tiny syndicalist 'unions', such as the IWW in the UK, are under the control of there membership now, but this has more to do with the fact that they don't operate as unions than with any superior organisational model. When syndicalist unions take on the function of unions they are also forced to act in the same way as the 'yellow' unions. In some of the few places where the IWW actually manages to operate as a union in the US, it has already signed no strike deals.

Despite our criticisms of these texts, we are convinced that they can play a role in contributing to a vital discussion. We would also encourage readers to look at our series on anarcho-syndicalism [82]. [82]

Sabri 7/7/9.

There is no great pretence from the Pakistani state that US coerced it to take action against Taliban. But the reason given is Taliban take over of Buner. The truth is far from it and it may not be shocking if, some day, it is discovered that Taliban were encouraged to come to Buner by Pakistani or US secret services so that this war could begin. Frenzied propaganda about the march of Taliban to Islamabad allowed Pakistani bourgeoisie to mobilise its population behind itself for this war. It allowed Americans to tell the world that they are pushing Pakistan into this war for ‘their own good'.

In reality this war has nothing to do with defeating Osama bin Laden or Islamic terrorism. It is well known that US engendered Osama bin Laden and Islamic Mujahadeen to further its imperialist interests against the Soviets. Both Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist hordes that swarm Pakistan today were nurtured by Pakistani state as tools of its imperialist policy and social control. True the genie has now turned on the master, but this war is more than that.

Since the collapse of the eastern bloc and with it of the western bloc, US have been battling to maintain and impose is global domination. Over the last two decades its power has weakened but its resolve to remain the number one global imperialist gangster has not. US started the war in Iraq to deter its rivals and to implant itself in an area of great strategic importance. Its attack on Afghanistan in 2001 and the war since then is meant to establish its domination over South and Central Asia and to thwart its rivals China and Russia. By turning Pakistan into a theatre of War US not only strengthen its position in Afghanistan. It also strongly limits Chinese influence in Pakistan and further strengthens American domination in this whole area including against imperialist dreams of the Indian bourgeoisie. It is with these aims that US have been preparing to push Pakistan into this war since more than a year.

The latest war in Pakistan turns the entire region from South Asia to Middle East into vast theatre of war. It also set the stage of future wars. As a petty imperialism caught in the path of a global gangster, Pakistan has been forced to fall in line, but even in this extremely perilous situation, it does not stop forwarding its imperialist interests.

History of Imperialist Policy of Pakistan

In the Maoist and Stalinist legends imperialism is the hallmark of only America or other Western countries. According to them ruling gangs in third world countries like Pakistan and India, when they engage in bloody military adventures against each other, they are only playing the role of ‘compradors' or lackeys of one or the other great power without imperialist aspirations of their own.

The world is of course littered with countless examples debunking the leftist myth and showing that bourgeoisies of every nation, howsoever poor and wretched, are driven by the same imperialist appetites as ‘great powers'. A couple of months ago Sri Lanka set a ruthless and bloody example of a petty capitalist gang engaging in a near genocide of Tamils to ensure their continuing subjugation.

History of Pakistan is a ringing example of its tenacious, if reckless, defence of its imperialist interests even in the face of hostility of the global powers. It has never been deterred by ‘small' facts that its population lives in misery and medieval darkness, its economy teeters on the brink and its political apparatus is always in tatters where ‘elected' governments are regularly followed by juntas who use the ‘civil constitutions' merely as toilet paper. In fact the shambles of its own state and society turns Pakistani bourgeoisie only more reckless which is expressed in its genocide of Bangladeshis, in nuclear black market, in its thinly veiled terrorist campaigns against its rival India or by frenzied nurturing of the fundamentalist gangs who are now confronting it.

End of ‘Golden' Years of Pakistani Imperialist Policy  

For imperialist policy of Pakistan, the years of anti soviet war in Afghanistan and its aftermath were the golden years so far. Although the main conflict was between USSR and US, it fitted well with imperialist aspirations of Pakistan. The Afghan Mujahadeen and later Taliban were set up and armed by the US but their direct control was in the hands of Pakistani army and secret services, the ISI. When soviets left and, some years later, when Taliban took over in Kabul, it was a great victory for Pakistan. It now had a client state in Afghanistan, it could dream of extending its influence toward Central Asia and its army could boast of gaining strategic depth against its enemy India. In addition it was able to push its rival India to the wall with separatist violence in Kashmir reaching its zenith.

But when US attacked Afghanistan in its ‘war against terror' and the Taliban power fell in Kabul in November 2001, it was a great setback for Pakistan. All its gains of more than two decades were gone. While Pakistan lost all influence in Afghanistan, its enemy India was gaining a foothold there. Worse, America forced it to sacrifice its own interests in Afghanistan and advance US interests.

But like any other imperialism, Pakistan could not stop defending its imperialist interests. Even as the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul and Taliban were routed, Pakistan tried to save its ‘strategic assets' - the entire Taliban leadership moved into Pakistan and got sanctuary with the ISI in Baluchistan. Since then, despite its ‘alliance' with US, Pakistan has zealously protected the Taliban leadership based in Quetta.

In the years following Nov 2001, US got mired in war in Iraq, its power weakened and Taliban power once again saw resurgence in Afghanistan in which Pakistan played no small role. Up to its ears in trouble in Iraq, US imperialism "studiously ignored the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership gathering in the tribal areas of Pakistan ..." and Pakistani state used this situation "as a free pass to re-engage the Taliban as a Pakistani proxy force .... Until this year, Pakistan appeared to be winning the game", Ahmed Rashid, Yale Global, 18 Sept 2008.

But as Taliban got stronger and threatened American control over Afghanistan, starting mid 2008 the US Army began to respond to the Afghan Taliban presence in tribal areas in Pakistan.  Since August 2008, US have carried out regular drone attacks on Afghan Taliban sanctuaries in FATA in Pakistan. In Sept 2008, US soldiers crossed over into FATA sending out a clear message to Pakistani state to fall in line with imperialist interests of the USA. Since then US bourgeoisie have continuously threatened Pakistan ‘either deal with Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan or we will deal with them.'

This policy, named Af-Pak now, only accelerated after Obama came to power. The crux of this policy is that for US to win in Afghanistan it must compel Pakistan to wage war against Afghan, and Pakistani, Taliban in Pakistan. But it is not only about winning in Afghanistan.

The Af-Pak policy also brings Pakistan under tighter and more direct control of US so that it can confront its rivals China and Russia at their doorsteps. Also, this policy puts the Indian bourgeoisie on tenterhooks who now don't know which way to turn.

If to achieve this US have to push Pakistani state, like its neighbour Afghanistan, into civil war and chaos, so be it.

Taliban - A Monster Born Out of Imperialist Wars and Decomposition

NWFP, FATA and Northern Territories in Pakistan, home to more than 30 million Pashtuns, are perhaps the most impoverished areas of an impoverished country. In areas like FATA, with population of 5.6 million, only 3% of the population is urban and literacy rate is 17%. Big landed aristocracy, coming from feudal times, continues to exist and plunder an impoverished peasantry. The pattern of administration - the agency system - is the one that was instituted by the British in 19th century to keep the Pashtuns down. Till a few years ago populations of these areas could not vote for national parliament and could not join political parties. Also, this impoverished area had often seethed with ethnic unrest with Pashtuns battling the Pakistani state. In 1960's and 1970's, these areas saw a major Pashtun separatist movement supported by India and Afghanistan in the time of Zahir Shah.

This movement was crushed, but hostility of Pashtun population to Punjabi dominated Pakistani state did not go away. The state was able to co-opt this hostility only during anti-soviet war in Afghanistan. During this period millions of refugees from Afghanistan, mostly Pashtuns, took shelters in camps in NWFP and FATA. As US and Pakistan started recruiting and building Islamic Mujahadeen and later Taliban armies for Afghanistan, they nurtured Islamic fundamentalist forces as supporting infrastructure. For some years Pakistani state was able to kill two birds with one stone - as it built Mujahadeen and Taliban armies to further US and its own imperialist interests in Afghanistan, it co-opted and mobilised its own Pashtun population for supporting these armies. Influence of Islamic fundamentalism and Taliban developed in these areas.

But it was not limited to North West of Pakistan. Emboldened by a sense of its own ‘indispensability' to US in Afghanistan, Pakistani state nurtured fundamentalist organizations in other parts of Pakistan too. These served as tools of social cohesion in a decomposing society and as recruiting centers for Afghan Taliban and for escalating Kashmiri separatist movement in India that was at its bloodiest at this time. Fundamentalist and Jehadi ideology penetrated the Pakistani state and above all its armed forces and secret services so that it became difficult to distinguish the ‘handlers' from the ‘handled'.

This policy worked till Taliban were in power in Kabul. But the game became dangerous when Taliban power fell in 2001. Since then the Pakistani state has been forced to play a double game both with the Americans and with Islamist forces in its own country. With US, in the open it fell in line. At the same it continued to host ousted Afghan Taliban leadership and provided them fertile ground, in the local Islamist gangs in NWFP, FATA, to re-nurture themselves. On the other hand, under American threats, drone attacks and incursions, it has to act against local Islamists and Taliban from time to time.

Unity that had earlier existed between the Islamist forces and vast echelons of the Pakistani state tended to fall apart with Islamists and Pakistani Taliban starting to fight against Pakistani state. But till the last moment, till a few weeks before 5th May 2009, the Pakistani state was loath to start a war against Taliban in Pakistan for it saw a much bigger abyss in front of it. If latest events are any indications, even after falling into the abyss the Pakistani state has not stopped pushing Mullah Omar and other Afghan Taliban as a bargaining chip with the Americans.

For the Exploited Population - Unfolding of a Human Tragedy

As the Pakistani army started bombing its own towns and villages from 6th May 2009, the call to leave their homes, originally limited to Buner and Swat, was extended to several districts of NWFP and FATA. Those who did not heed the call to leave were compelled to flee as "helicopters, jet fighters and artillery pounded ... the troubled region" (the Dawn, 8th May 2009) and as civilians were used as human shields both by the Taliban and army that stationed tanks in narrow, populated streets. Roads were blocked either by the Taliban or the Army. "Phone networks, water and electricity have all been cut (by administration) in the town (Mingora)", BBC, 9th May 2009. 

Soon the number of ‘internally displaced people', people who have to flee their homes in the face of war between two bourgeois gangs, the army and the Taliban, jumped to nearly 3 millions. In some of the districts like Buner 90% of the population have to flee their homes. In other districts like Swat, Bajaur and Mohmand up to 50% of the population have to abandon their homes and are now refugees. Towns like Mingora, home to half a million people, were turned into ghost towns with tanks stationed in its streets. While the Pakistani army, that answers to no one but itself, and the war-lords of Taliban, both expressing the decomposition of Pakistani state, settle it out between themselves,  three million impoverished people are living in tents or just on the roads.

Some of the fleeing people "died on the roads ... no one was willing to offer us any help - neither the army nor the Taliban. They are both committing atrocities and cruelty against the ordinary people", Al Jazeera, 11 May 2009, quoting a fleeing civilian.

On the first day of fighting 35 civilians were killed. Since then the military have stopped counting the civilian deaths although it claims to have killed 1600 Taliban fighters. For Mr. Gilani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, death of civilians at the hand of army is merely ‘collateral damage'.  For 3 million refugees and for those poor villagers who could not flee, the whole thing is a vast human tragedy. To them the role of both the Taliban and the army is repugnant. Amid tears a young refugee girl is said to have told the Pakistani paper, the Dawn on 8th May: "We are frightened of the Taliban and the army... If they want to fight, they should kill each other, they should not take refuge in our homes."

No End to Wars and Barbarism within Capitalism

Afghanistan has been ravaged by civil wars and chaos since more than three decades. Unable to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan despite their eight years of presence, the Americans have now pushed Pakistan into civil war and chaos. Also the stage is getting set for more wars in the future. In the process the entire region from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iraq has been turned into a theatre of wars, barbarism and human misery.

The army in Pakistan may claim to have secured a quick victory against Taliban in Swat but there is no quick end to this war within its boundaries. As per a report of New York Times - "Taliban mostly melted away without a major fight, possibly to return when the military withdraws or to fight elsewhere", 27 June 2009. While taking the war to South Waziristan and other areas of Pakistan, the Pakistani Army has to stay put in ‘conquered areas' to fight other battles. Not only that, there are already signs that this war between Pakistani Taliban and Pakistani state could mutate into a war between the Pashtuns and Pakistani state. Giving a hint of things to come, a former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan and a Pashtun, Rustam Shah Mohmand called army action "Pashtun genocide," Al Jazeera, 12th May.

Even American experts see this danger. "The Pakistani army is ... mostly ...Punjabis. The Taliban is entirely Pashtun. For centuries, Pashtuns ... have fought to keep out invading Punjabi plainsmen. Sending Punjabi soldiers into Pashtun territory to fight jihadists pushes the country ever closer to an ethnically defined civil war...," Selig S. Harrison, Washington Post, 11h May 2009.

All this does not point to the coming of peace but toward further spread of war between competing bourgeois gangs and toward the spread of barbarism and human misery for the working class and exploited populations.

Caught in the global decomposition of its system and faced with greatest crises of its history, the bourgeoisie have nothing to offer the working and exploited classes but wars and barbarism. It will be a great setback for the working class and a victory for the bourgeoisie if it succeeds in mobilising the working classes behind Pakistani state or behind factions of the ethnic bourgeoisie (Pashtuns, Baluch or Sindhi).  

Only way forward for the working class and exploited populations is to develop its class struggle and forge class unity across ethnicities and national boundaries. Only by doing this, working class can develop the means to overthrow the decomposing capitalist system and can stop the spread of barbarism.

AM, 5 July 2009.

On Monday 2 July, following news of the deaths of at least 2 Uighur workers in Guangdong in fighting a couple of weeks earlier, Uighur protestors in the capital of Xinjiang, Urumqi, demonstrated and marched, peacefully at first, to protest against the deaths. It appears that the security forces responded and then Uighur young men went on the rampage, killing and wounding many Han and Hui Chinese that make up half the population of the town.

This blind hatred and killing spree provoked a response from the Chinese and local security forces, seeing a further unspecified number killed, wounded and imprisoned and also provoked, in this deadly and toxic atmosphere, which had been brewing up for some time, Han and Hui men and women to arm themselves and seek revenge. They smashed up Uighur shops, properties and residential areas and, it's almost certain, engaged in a killing spree themselves. The local authorities were slow to react and eventually, under the impulsion of the higher authorities of the CP, local armed police began to take control, the mobile phone network was suspended and road blocks set up. But further intervention from the centre was needed to control the situation and, following President Hu's embarrassing return from the G8, massive numbers of troops were sent in.

At the moment, Chinese forces in the capital of Xinjiang province, Urumqi at least, appear to have the situation under control. Official figures of around 150 killed are likely to be an underestimation and it appears that thousands have been wounded, mostly men but also women and children. Soldiers and riot squads have been active, mass arrests have taken place and curfews are in place. There's little news from other towns in the region.

Despite the Chinese leaders and the Uighur state officials of the CCP blaming ‘foreign interference', ‘foreign forces' and ‘terrorists' (a la Iran) this doesn't appear to have been a separatist protest. The original protest, against the deaths of at least two Uighur workers in a disturbance two weeks earlier in Guangdong province, was led by Uighurs carrying a Chinese flag, with more being carried in the crowd, and asking for justice. What happened next is unclear. But there's very little history of protest by the Uighur population in this region, the last being a violent demonstration resulting in the overturning of buses in 1992.
There have, however, been several reported attacks by separatist elements in 2008 attacking Chinese targets, causing explosions and killing security forces, actions motivated by imperialist considerations for an ‘independent East Turkestan' that only brought down repression on the heads of the majority who have nothing to do with or gain from such claims. It would seem that Rebiya Kadeer, one time Uighur capitalist and CCP pin-up, now exiled in the United States and heading two Uighur exile groups, is a nationalist proponent of a Turkic-speaking Uighur homeland and, in this rivalry that only puts Uighur workers and the masses in the front line, has now been condemned by the CCP for the current troubles.

This region, one of the most heavily policed in China, contains 8 million Uighurs, around half the population. It, like other regions around the Silk Road, has long been prey to inter-imperialist rivalries. It declared its independence as East Turkistan in 1933, but was quickly re-absorbed into China and in 1944 a second republic was created but became part of China again in 1949. Xinjiang means ‘New Frontier' and this region has been integrated into the needs of Chinese imperialism, not just for its natural resources but also as a buffer zone towards south Russia and, with Tibet (and also with the recent increase of Chinese interests in Sri Lanka and Pakistan) as part of its western expansion, particularly threatening India as well as other regions. Under the guise of the Stalinist-speak ‘Harmonious Society', China has used re-settlements of Han and Hui Chinese for its imperialist interests and for greater control. It did the same in Tibet and attempted the same in the vacuum left in Vladivostok in the 90s left by a collapsing Russia but came unstuck in the latter. The pogrom atmosphere resulting from these imposed state divisions, and encouraged by the local Uighur CP structures, demonstrates the anti-working class nature of such enforced settlements and divisions and this is further exacerbated by the economic crisis and the way it has hit China. While these events in Xinjiang have undoubtedly caused problems for the Chinese bourgeoisie, witness President Hu Jintao's hasty return from the G8 in Italy, there is no advantage here whatsoever for the working class.

From the original incident that appeared to spark this protest in Guangdong in southern China, we can see that there is the danger of worker turning on worker (‘Chinese jobs for Chinese workers' if you like). Within the framework of the deepening economic crisis the state has been forced to encourage this, legislating strongly for indigenous workers to keep their jobs (stockpiling their production in a doomed attempt to replace the recession-hit world market with the domestic Chinese market) and making the withholding of wages illegal. Migrant workers meanwhile are cast to the wind.

From and beyond this, there are signs that the Chinese bourgeoisie are seeing the need for more elastic unions: "Rural migrants - if you have problems, go to the union!" "Workers - if you have problems, go to the unions!" says the Vice-chair of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, quoted in the China Labour Bulletin Research Report reproduced on the Libcom.org website. The deepening of the class struggle is the only way out of this impasse for the workers and masses of the whole region. Underlying this, what the CCP calls ‘incidents' doubled to 87,000 in 2005 and now the Public Security Ministry has stopped publishing figures. The Report above talks of the need for "democratically elected, grassroots unions", for "workers' rights", the "right to strike" and an end to the subordination of the ACFTU to the Party. This move to the left, towards rank and filism is itself perfectly within the framework of the bourgeoisie in order to confront the class struggle. The struggle itself has to deepen throughout, involving more workers, more of the masses whatever their ethnic origin or religion, fighting for their own interests against the bourgeoisie.

Baboon. 8/7/9

The deaths, within a few days of each other, of the last surviving First World War veterans in Britain, Henry Allingham and Harry Patch, have generated the most enthusiastic tributes from the high and mighty: the Queen, Prince Charles, Gordon Brown, and all the rest of them. In addition to massive media coverage, we will soon be treated to a spectacular service at Westminster Abbey to remember the ‘sacrifice of a generation', who, we are told, laid down their lives in the cause of freedom. And all this pomp and ceremony will be deliberately linked to images of the present generation of servicemen and women who are experiencing the dangers of war in Afghanistan.

Of course veterans like Allingham and Patch - even though for years they refused to talk about the horrible experiences they had been through in the slaughter of 1914-18 - have been caught up in these parades and used as symbols of loyalty and devotion to Queen and country. But Patch actually thought that it was necessary to "free Remembrance services from the bureaucrats" as they had become "just showbusiness". And if you look at what these men said about the First World War, it sheds a very bright light on the disgusting hypocrisy of our rulers and their tame media.

Harry Patch, the last British survivor from the trenches of the Western Front, said that the First World War was "organised murder". He said that "it was not worth it. It was not worth one, let alone all the millions"

How does this square with what the politicians and the royals have said about these men, this generation, sacrificing themselves for our freedom? If it was organised murder, then it was organised precisely by the same institutions who also organise the solemn parades and national services of commemoration - the army, the church, the governments. And if it was sacrifice, it was sacrifice in their interests, the interests of the decrepit capitalist order that they defend. The same order that is sending young people to die in Iraq or Afghanistan today.

Harry Patch also said "remember the Germans. They put up with the same conditions as we did". He said "I met someone from the German side and we both shared the same opinion: we fought, we finished and we were friends. It wasn't worth it."

How does this square with all the waving of national flags, the almost exclusive focus on ‘our' war dead? Harry Patch is giving voice to the fundamental internationalism of the working class, which stands in stark opposition to nationalism of all kinds. The workers in uniform had the same interests, and these were diametrically opposed to the interests of governments and military in both camps. It was this internationalist spirit which gave rise to the Christmas Day fraternisations in 1914, hastily brought to an end by the ‘top brass' of both armies; and later on, it gave rise the revolutionary fraternisations and mutinies which, along with the mass strikes uprisings by the workers on the home fronts in Russia, Germany and elsewhere, compelled the ruling class to put an end to the butchery in 1918.

Henry Allingham expressed this same instinctive internationalism when he was quoted as saying that there will be no end to war until the whole world is one single nation.

The veterans of the First World War, like the veterans of all the other imperialist wars that have littered capitalism's bloody history, do not belong to the nation, that false idol. They belong to the world working class.  

We are publishing below a translation of an article from Internacionalismo, our section in Venezuela, (dated 12/7/9) which analyses the unfolding events in Honduras.

The political crisis that has been developing in Honduras since the coup that overthrow President Manuel Zelaya on Sunday 28 June is not simply ‘another coup' in this poor and small ‘banana republic' of 7.5 million inhabitants. This confrontation has important geopolitical repercussions, as well as at the level of the class struggle.

The facts

Zelaya, businessman and member of the Honduras oligarchy, began his mandate, from the beginning of 2006, as the standard bearer of the Honduran Liberal Party. Since last year he has been moving closer to the Chávist ‘franchise' of the ‘Socialism of the 21st century.' In August 2008, with the support of his party, he got congress to approve Honduras's incorporation into the ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para América Latina y El Caribe - Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean) created by Chávez's Venezuelan government in order to counter-act the influence of the ALCA (Área de Livre Comércio das Américas - Free Trade Area of the Americas) which is backed by the USA. This agreement, which was criticised by some politicians and businessmen, means that the Honduran state is having to pay a hefty oil bill that will have an significant weight on its economy.

With its integration into the ALBA, it has gained a $400 million credit in order to buy hydrocarbons from Venezuela. This credit is to be repaid on advantageous conditions, an important ‘help' for a country whose GDP is $10,800 million according to data from the CEPAL (a UN agency) for 2006, and whose payments for the import of oil is estimated to be more than 30% of GDP, according to the same source. But ‘Socialism of the 21st century' is not a simple commercial franchise, it requires that the governments that buy into it also buy into a series of populist leftist measures; the executive openly controls state institutions and public powers, and attacks the old national ‘oligarchies' . It was for this reason that Zelaya carried out a 180 degree political volte-face in a few months. From being a liberal of the right he's become a leftist defender of the poor and ‘socialism'.

Faced with the forthcoming November elections, since February this year Zelaya accelerated the pressure on the institutions of the state in order to promote his re-election. In May, with the support of popular and union organisations, he pressured the Armed Forces to support the holding of a plebiscite to amend the Constitution with an eye to his re-election: an action that was rejected by the High Command. On 24 June Zelaya dismissed the Chief of the Army High Command, who was immediately reinstated by the Supreme Court, which served as the detonator for the coup of 28 June, the date chosen by the executive for the referendum. On this day Zelaya was compelled by the armed forces to "flee in his pyjamas and without shoes" from Tegucigalpa (capital of Honduras) to San José (capital of Costa Rica). With the support of the army and the Supreme Court, the Congress named Robert Micheletti (President of the Congress) as the new President of the Republic.

Our analysis

It is clear that at the roots of the Honduran political crisis you will find Venezuela's imperialist ambitions in the region. To the extent that Chávism has been consolidated, the Venezuelan bourgeoisie has made advances in pursuit of its aim to make Venezuela a regional power. It is to this end that it has used the project of ‘Socialism of the 21st Century', which is based on the most desperate layers of society and uses oil and the income from it as a means of convincing and coercing. The growth of poverty, the decomposition of the old ruling classes and the US's geopolitical weakening in the world, have allowed the Venezuelan bourgeoisie to progressively advance its own project in various countries in the region: Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras and some Caribbean countries.

With its populist and ‘radical' anti-Americanism , the Chávist project requires totalitarian control of state institutions and the putting in place of a policy of polarisation: ‘rich against the poor' ‘oligarchy against the people', etc, which becomes a permanent source of tension and instability for the national capital. Its execution requires even more constitutional changes through the creation of constitutional assemblies, which give a legal basis to the necessary changes in order to consolidate the new ‘socialist' elites in power, promoting presidential re-elections, amongst other methods. This libretto is fully understood by the bourgeoisies of the region.

Honduras is a prized geo-strategic objective for Chávism: it will give it a beachhead on the Atlantic cost of Central America through the port of Cortes, which also serves the export trade of Nicaragua and Honduras; in this way Venezuela will control a land ‘canal' that unites the Atlantic with the Pacific, through Nicaragua. This control of Nicaragua and Honduras facilitates its control over El Salvador, a situation which will make the development of the Puebla-Panama Plan[1] proposed by Mexico and the USA difficult.

For its part, Honduras has the ‘natural' conditions for the development of the populist leftist project of Chávez, since it is the third poorest country of the Americas after Haiti and Bolivia. The desperate masses, whose growth is inevitably accelerating with the crisis, are the main consumers of the false hopes about getting out of their miserable conditions, hopes that form part of the ‘Socialism of the 21st Century' recipe . The Chávist message is aimed at these masses who need to be permanent mobilised with the support of the unions and the left and leftist parties, and various peasant and indigenous social organisations.

Chávism, the product of the decomposition of the Venezuelan and world bourgeoisie, uses and worsens the expressions of decomposition within the regional bourgeoisie. The necessity to polarise the confrontation between the bourgeois fractions in its turn becomes a dynamic factor of decomposition. The latest Honduran crisis, which has hardly begun, represents a worsening of the situation in the ‘banana republics' of Central America, who have not experienced such a crisis since the 1980s when the conflicts in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua left almost half a million dead and millions displaced in their wake.

The hypocrites' ball

Just before the coup Chávez had already put in place his geopolitical machinery, alerting his presidential ‘friends, denouncing the ‘gorillas' of the military, etc. Faced with the coup he called an emergency meeting in Nicaragua of the countries belonging to ALBA, where he announced the suspension of the supply of oil to Honduras and threatened to send troops in case the Venezuelan embassy in Honduras was attacked. He also gave Zelaya access to the resources of the Venezuelan state, principally the international TV channel Telesur, which endlessly covered his situation, showing him as the victim and portraying him as a great humanitarian and defender of the poor. Zelaya's speech at the UN was broadcast on national TV and radio in Venezuela.

Chávez has persistently called on the ‘peoples of America' to defend the threatened democracy from the ‘gorilla military putschists', perhaps to make them forget the fact that he was the head of such a coup in Venezuela against the Social Democratic President Carlos Andres Perez in 1992. It is precisely such ‘military gorillas' who carry out the policy of repression of the Chávist state and its gangs, not only against the demonstration of the opponents of the regime, but against workers' struggles in Venezuela. Internacionalismo has denounced this in various articles on our website.[2]

But this hypocrisy is seen throughout the ‘international community'. The OAS, UN, EU and many other countries have condemned the coup and asked for Zelaya to be reinstated. Many of them have withdrawn their ambassadors from Honduras. However this has been nothing but mere formalism and used by the media to try and increase the prestige of bourgeois democracy and its organisations, which are constantly losing credibility.

How to explain the US administration's behaviour faced with this crisis?

To the surprise of the so-called ‘left' and its leftist appendages, the USA also condemned this coup and asked for Zelaya to be reinstated. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the US's ambassador in Honduras, and Tom Shannon, Under Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, had all been active in the months before the coup, by their own account in order to avoid the explosion of the crisis. We have to ask ourselves: has the US lost control of the situation? Why has North American diplomacy been so weak in the region since the Bush government?

It is clear that the US has been unable to control the struggle between Honduran fractions. This expresses the level of decomposition in the ranks of the bourgeoisie and the geopolitical weakness of the USA in its own ‘backyard', making it difficult to counter-act the effect of the neo-populist governments whose Presidents have been elected by democratic means (often with large majorities), but who once in power take the state by assault and transform them into real dictatorships with a democratic veneer.

However we do not think this is the case. The US has made full use of its condemnation of the coup and its demand that Zelaya be reinstated to try and ‘clean up its image' in the region, which was left soiled by the Bush administration. If Obama had acted like Bush (when, for example, in April 2002, he supported the attempted coup against Chávez) he would have increased anti-Americanism in the region and weakened the strategy of diplomatic opening by the new administration.

The US has allowed the Honduran crisis to ‘run its course' in order to used it to weaken Chávism in the region. By acting as it has, the US has forced Chávez to defend his ‘pupil' Zelaya and thus making clear his incendiary role in the Honduran crisis. This has enabled the US to present the Organisation of American States and other regional leaders as trying to solve the crisis, thus appearing to be only one power among a number. In this way it will be the ‘American Community'[3] in its entirety that will be responsible for ending the crisis, whilst little by little it will become clearer that Chávez and Zelaya were responsible for the crisis. However, the new Honduran government's rejection of the OAS decision toreinstate Zelaya, the ‘failure' of Insulza's trip to Tegucigalpa on the 3rd July, and the actions taken by the Micheletti government to stop the landing of the Venezuelan plane that brought Zelaya from Washington on Sunday 5 July, have worsened the crisis and reduced the pressure of Chávez, who has denounced the ‘Yankee imperialism' behind these events and has called on Obama, ‘victim of imperialism', to intervene more decisively in Honduras!

The situation is undoubtedly complicated for the USA. On the one hand, it is necessary to give Chávez and his followers a lesson; and on the other, the situation could degenerate into an explosive one at a time when it has other geopolitical priorities, such as the intervention in Afghanistan, the crisis with North Korea, etc. Thus, the decomposition of the Honduran bourgeoisie and the whole region, including Venezuela, could lead to an uncontrollable situation.

Zelaya's acceptance of the mediation by the Costa Rican president Oscar Arias, as asked for by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gives an idea of the central role that the United States is playing in this crisis.

An expression of regional geo-politics

The Honduran crisis is of greater importance than the recent crisis between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela over the question of the FARC, in which the Chávez government also played a leading role. Nicaragua, allied with Chávez, is confronting Colombia over the San Andrés archipelago in the Caribbean. There has been talk of mobilising troops in these conflicts, including Venezuela concentrating its forces at the border with Colombia during the conflict with Ecuador. Although these mobilisations were aimed at the media in order to distract the proletariat and the population, the reality is that the bourgeoisie of these states, faced with the crisis and decomposition, are more and more using the language and means of war..

Likewise, the influence of Chávez and his followers has been felt in these recent crises and the events in Bolivia, in the electoral fraud that the opposition denounced in the recent municipal elections in Nicaragua; the Peruvian government denounced the involvement of Bolivia and Venezuela in the confrontations in the Peruvian jungle town of Bagua. The Chávez government, a product and a factor in decomposition, has no other option that to carry out these military adventures. It has associated itself with states and organisations that practice radical anti-Americanism: Iran, North Korea, Hamas, etc. On the other hand, in Venezuela there is a relatively serious situation due to the fall in income from oil (essential for the Venezuelan state) due to the crisis and the emergence of workers' struggles, all of which push the government to maintain a climate of internal and external tension.

The USA is having difficulty imposing order in its own backyard. Regional bourgeoisies such as the Mexican or Colombian, who could counteract the action of Chávismo and who could exploit the political crisis in their area of natural influence - Central America - to expand this influence, are consumed by their own internal crises and confrontations with drug traffickers. Conflicts that have reached such a level that an American Senator has even said that in a few months there will no longer be a Mexican State. Colombia, a US bastion in the region, does not have the ability to counteract the offensive of Chávez, with whom it already has a fragile relationship. Brazil, has economic interests in Central America (investment in plantations for the production of biofuels) and has carried out geopolitical actions that have strengthened its position as a regional power. It appears (like the other countries mentioned) to have no great interest in solving a crisis promoted by Chávez, its competitor in the region and without a doubt wants to leave Chávez ‘to stew in his own juice.' Brazil has made efforts to maintain some stability in the region, but it also wants to construct its own imperialist domain and is thus in competition with the United States.

The perspectives for the region are towards worsening tensions, which will undoubtedly lead to a powerful campaign to enlist the proletariat. The bourgeoisie's political propaganda develops in this perspective. We think that the internationalist milieu must have a profound discussion on these questions which are part of our view of inter-imperialist tensions.

What are the consequences for the proletariat?

This crisis is strengthening the hand of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Whether Zelaya returns or not the politics of polarisation have arrived in Honduras and are going to be strengthened. In this sense it is a source of division and confrontation within the working class itself, as is the case in Venezuela, Bolivia, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador.

On the other hand, the bourgeoisie is using and will use the situation in Honduras in order to strengthen the democratic mystification - making a self-critique in order to clean up state institutions. In this sense, the electoral mystification is going to play an important role due to the upcoming elections in Honduras.

The crisis is accentuating poverty in one of the poorest countries in Central America: the remittances sent by Hondurans abroad (about 25% of GDP) are beginning to fall. Therefore, social decomposition which condemns the young by their hundreds of thousands to ‘live' off gang violence, criminality and drugs, is inevitably going to accelerate with the crisis and with political decomposition in the ranks of the bourgeoisie. This poverty-stricken mass is the basis for the emergence of other local and regional Chávezs who will sow hope amongst the dispossessed masses, knowing full well that they cannot offer any real solutions.

Therefore the Honduran, regional and international proletariat, and the internationalist milieu, must clearly reject any support for the struggling national or regional bourgeois forces; they have to reject the politics of polarisation induced by the inter-bourgeois struggles, which have already cost many lives in the region, amongst them those of proletarians. The confrontation in Honduras shows that capitalism is sinking ever deeper in decomposition, which leads to confrontation between bourgeois fractions at the internal level, and between the great, medium and small powers at the regional level, confrontations that the crisis is going to exacerbate.

Despite it numerical weakness, only the struggle of the Honduran proletariat on its own class terrain, along with the struggle of the regional and international proletariat, will be able to put an end to all this barbarity.  

Internacionalismo12/7/09

[1]    This is a for the "socio-economic development" of South Mexico and 7 Central America countries in order to reinforce regional integration.

[2] For example, see "Venezuela: El Estado "socialista" de Chávez nuevamente reprime y asesina a los proletarios" https://es.internationalism.org/node/2589 [96]).

[3] The OAS is the Organisation of American States, a continental organisation originating in the Cold War under the control of the US as part of its struggle against the Eastern bloc. The adjective "American" must be understood in its proper sense, continental. The General Secretary of the OAS is the Chilean J.M. Insulza

Proletarian voices have been raised against the massacre in Bagua[1]. The comrades of the Proletarian Nucleus of Peru have sent us a position denouncing the brutal massacre of the indigenous population carried out by the Peruvian state in a conflict over their ancient Amazonian communal lands in the name of "bringing progress", which means imposing a high level of exploitation of the region's natural resources

At the same time, we have received, in the form of a comment on our website, a leaflet signed by a group from Lima that defines itself as anarchist - "Young Proletarians" -  which also defends very important positions.

These two leaflets were not only a statement of position; they were also distributed on demonstrations that took place in Lima in June after the repression.

We warmly welcome these two initiatives. We greatly appreciate the proletarian courage and engagement that this expresses. As the comrades of the Nucleus put it: "Faced with events such as the massacre in Bagua it is important to give voice to a clearly proletarian perspective in opposition to all the nationalist visions, whether in defence of state capitalism or inter-classism; whether in the name of   the ‘citizen' or the ‘struggle for democracy' defended by Ollanta[2] , the unions and the worshipers of ‘Socialism of the 21st Century', that great fraud perpetrated by Chavez and his followers".

We are also publishing a new internationalist position by another group of comrades from Peru, the Circle for Scientific Social Analysis, which defends the same internationalist vision as the other two.

The common point of these three documents is that they address these events from the point of view of the proletariat:

• How to develop the struggle? How to show solidarity towards the victims of the massacre?
• How to maintain the proletariat's class autonomy?
• How to denounce not only the government's barbaric repression but also the traps and false perspectives of the opposition parties?

The three documents share a common defence of proletarian internationalist positions, along with a denunciation of nationalist, state capitalist, inter-classist positions that try to divide, dislocate and finally defeat the proletariat and thus in the end the whole of humanity.

This common framework is very important and is what unites all internationalists.

That said, there is a question that is posed in the three texts and which, we think, needs to be the object of a very interesting discussion.

This theme we can sum up as: what attitude must the proletariat adopt faced with the struggles of other non-exploiting strata that are not proletarian?

This problem was clearly posed in Russia in 1917 when scarcely more than 3-4 million proletarians were immersed in a heterogeneous mass of a 100 million peasants. The proletariat had to win this gigantic social layer to its struggle. We think that it was able to do this from its own class base: the struggle to end the imperialist war, the world revolution, the struggle that gave all power to the Soviets or Workers' Councils. Faced with the peasants' demands, a widespread discussion took place amongst the Bolsheviks as well as the international revolutionary movement, which highlighted the position taken by Rosa Luxemburg that criticised the Bolsheviks' policy towards the peasants.

We believe that it will be very interesting to take up this discussion again in order to orientate ourselves in the present situation. However, it is not the same as then. For example, the agricultural sector in the major countries has been brutally reduced over the last 40 years, notably in Latin America where since the beginning of the 60's the peasant population has fallen from 50% of the total population, to being hardly more than 20% today.

The peasants have been forced back into their old communities in the mountains and forests due to the voracity of capitalist expansion. This has seen the introduction of commodity production, principally through the state. This has meant the introduction of a brutal tax burden and the development of cooperative movement[3], forcing people to abandon the agrarian life, which was marked by backwardness, isolation and poverty, but which did offer the advantage of a certain economic and communal stability.

And what perspective are these people offered? Either emigration to Europe or North America or falling into desperation in the great cities that have seen the growth of poverty-stricken areas where millions of people are crowded together in deplorable conditions.

We have to take up this problem in the discussion through addressing questions such as;

• Is it possible to stop the process of depopulation of the agrarian area, which is being worsened by the deepening capitalist crisis?
• Can there be demands that guarantee a minimum stability in these communities?
• On what terrain and what basis can the proletariat express its solidarity?

ICC 23/7/9

Statement by the Proletarian Nucleus

Bagua is an expression of the putrifaction of capital!

Capitalism  is facing the worst moments of its existence and the events in Bagua are a tragic expression of this.  What capitalism shows with bloodbaths like the one in Bagua is the fact that it has reached the worst historic phase of its decadence. This decomposition of society is a very important  and salient characteristic of decadent capitalism.

Bagua demonstrates why capitalism is caught up in a process of collapse and the scenes of massacres and barbarity are a permanent consequence of this. War is a constant threat, and massacres such as Bagua today are only an expression of the capitalist barbarity that that is drawing closure and putting the whole of humanity in danger.

It is possible that this is not too clear to begin with: many say that capitalism is still a powerful and dynamic system capable of overcome the crisis. This is not the case. Since the First World War capitalism has been in its period of decadence and it entered this new phase of capitalist decadence, the phase of decomposition, at the end of the 80's[4]

What was the reason for the struggle of the indigenous communities in Bagua?

The indigenous population's main reason for struggling was the defence of their small property (indigenous, peasant), which is an understandable demand for these exploited sectors, condemned to misery and marginalisation. But this also makes it clear that there was no proletarian character to this struggle. At the same time the proletariat has to do all it can to win over these sectors, especially seeing that many indigenous peoples and peasants are condemned to the process of proletarianisation. We are in agreement with the necessity for the proletariat to show solidarity with the struggles of the indigenous communities in Bagua and elsewhere.

These social sectors need to be won over by the proletariat in its final struggle with capital. We must not mix this up with the idea that these sectors can be protagonists of a similar struggle to that of the proletariat or that they are a mass equal to the proletariat. The unique struggle of the proletariat[5] with its class demands, with its class methods, the perspectives that it contains, can offer a future to the other exploited social sectors and humanity as a whole, and this is why the proletariat must create a platform in which the indigenous communities can integrate their problems and demands.

On the other hand, if we put things the other way round, starting from the idea of a struggle of the proletariat that does not differentiate itself from that of the other social strata, we run the risk that the proletariat will not be able to develop its strength and the same will apply to the other social sectors, that is, they will both be weakened and will be defeated and crushed.

The antagonism between large and small property is thrown into relief here, as the big landowners attempt to extract natural resources from lands seized from the forest dwellers and peasants. For the proletariat it is not a question of the defence of property, but of abolishing it in order to put all the resources of nature at the disposal of humanity.

The struggle for the repeal of laws concerning budgets for schools, roads, water, electricity, for the development of the area, ignore the root of the problem: capitalism. But more specifically it creates illusions, the idea that capitalism through the state is still able to be an agent of progress (and here it is not a question of the dichotomy Modernity vs Backwardness as president Alan Garcia[6] says) . No. What we are presented with in the events in Bagua is the desperation of capitalism that is leading on the one hand to the destruction of the environment and on the other hand towards massacres of populations whose future is not  wage labour, but the disappearance of the old communities through being pushed into the big cities, where they are crowded together in miserable conditions in the poverty-stricken shanty towns.

But the dominant ideology of capital is also expressed in "indigenism", the defence of ancestral culture, nationalism, which carries out the role of diverting movements from linking up with proletarian interests when the proletariat shows solidarity with the indigenous population's protests: we can see  this when these communities carry ‘tahuantinsuyo' flags and the two coloured scarf. It is also necessary to understand that what made the government massacre them was not "authoritarianism", "genocide" or "anti-democratism": it was precisely DEMOCRACY ITSELF THAT MASSACRED THEM.

Faced with events such as the massacre in Bagua it is important to give voice to a clearly proletarian perspective in opposition to all the nationalist visions, whether in defence of state capitalism or inter-classism; whether in the name of   the "citizen" or the "struggle for democracy" defended by Ollanta, the unions and the worshipers of "Socialism of the 21st Century", that great fraud perpetrated by Chavez and his followers. This means a deep rooted denunciation of the left and extreme left of capital.

Finally we must be clear that whilst capitalism is in the process of collapse there are going be more massacres, wars, and capitalist barbarities, typical of the phase of decomposition that capitalism is going through on a daily basis. The proletariat, which is today developing its own strength, is called upon to overcome all this by putting forward its perspective for the future of humanity.

Socialism or barbarism!

Proletarian Nucleus

ICC introduction to the Statement by Jovenes Proletarios:

With the aim of developing a discussion we want to make two observations about the leaflet by the comrades signing themselves Anarchist of Lima/Jovenes Proletarios.

The comrades say "However, the struggling proletariat in Bagua understands this very well, and has gone beyond the democratic games, they understand that the best form of defence is the offensive. Their struggle is our struggle and we are in solidarity with it, since it forms part of the community of the international struggle against the capitalist beast."

We agree with the necessity for the proletariat to show solidarity with the struggles of the indigenous communities in Bagua, the destiny for these populations is proletarianisation, condemnation to being crowded into the great cities in dreadful conditions. These social strata can and must be won over by the proletariat in its struggle for emancipation.

This should not be confused with the idea that these sectors are engaged in a struggle similar to that of the proletariat or that they form a mass that it not different from the proletariat.

Only the struggle of the proletariat, through its class demands, with its class methods, with the perspective that it contains, can offer a future to non-exploiting social strata and a framework within which they can and must integrate their problems and protests.

On the other hand, if the starting point is a struggle where the proletariat is diluted amongst other social strata, we run the risk that both the proletariat and the other social strata will be weakened, exhausted and defeated.

There is another passage that we think it is necessary to address "Their struggle demonstrates one thing: the resurgence and spreading of the struggle within the class, which on the international level cannot be hidden and which sooner or later we will take part in the development of our self-liberation as an oppressed class"

For us it is vital that the comrades have inscribed themselves within the perspective of the international class struggle and we are in total agreement about developments at the international level. However, we are still only at a very embryonic stage, where expressions of solidarity, the autonomous initiatives of our class, are limited to a minority and have not advanced to a high level or generalisation. In order to have a positive influence in the workers struggles it is necessary to make realizable proposals, which advance consciousness, solidarity and a sense of common strength. To do this it is necessary to know where we are now and the length of the road that we still have to travel. We believe that this is the way to advance towards the self-liberation of the oppressed class, as the comrades say clearly themselves.

ICC 16/6/9

Statement by Jovenes Proletarios:

The universal face of capitalism has always been the sowing of death

"Death is not Anonymous, it has a name and direction"

B. Brecht

"The state calls its violence Law whilst that of the individual is a crime"

Max Stirner

Yesterday and today capital and its state repression are exposed to the light of day.

The arrogant and proud bourgeoisie and its armed forces have to go from country to country seeking markets, looking for land, natural and human resources, instilling terror and adding new bodies to the long list of  those murdered by bullets, hunger, work, exhaustion and fear.

On the 5th June Bagua was "a show ground" for this ferocity  and confirms what we have said. It was one of capital's many attempts to appropriate the resources of the rainforest  for its market  at the cost of the oppression of those living in it.

However, the struggling proletariat in Bagua understands this very well, and has gone beyond the democratic games; they understand that the best form of defence is the offensive. Their struggle is our struggle and we are in solidarity with it, since it forms part of the community of the international struggle against the capitalist beast. Their resistance to submission is ours and all of the oppressed of the world. Nevertheless, if the struggle does not contain the aim of the overthrow of the existing order, the merciless blows of the worsening international crisis of capitalism will rain down on us (as always) Can you doubt this?

Capitalism and humanity are antagonists, and the history of the struggle of our comrades against our class enemy is a clear and living examples of this.

We can longer be deceived by the opportunists who to come to the fore and take advantage of our dead in order to proclaim their support and tell us how they represent us, simply in order to put forward bourgeois interests (political parties, elections, money).

The comrades in Bagua for all their limitations have had the courage to carry out their struggle. Their struggle demonstrates one thing: the resurgence and spreading of the struggle within the class, which on the international level cannot be hidden and which sooner or later we will take part in the development of our self-liberation as an oppressed class

AGAINST THE STATE AND CAPITALISM!

THE EMANCIPATION OF THE OPPRESSED WILL BE THE WORK OF THE OPPRESSED THEMSELVES, OR IT WILL BE NOTHING!

FOR THE SELF-ORGANISATION AND AUTONOMY OF THE OPPRESSED IN STRUGGLE!

Anarchists of Lima

Jovenes Proletarios

Statement by the Circle for Scientific Social Analysis

Now or never!

Comrades:

The death of proletarians in Amazonia is a clear example of the destruction that the capitalist system is leading to. Each day millions of our class comrades die of hunger, cold and poverty throughout the world.

Comrades, we believe that all the socially created riches of society, which are appropriated by a few, exist due to the private appropriation of social production. And this is legitimised by the bourgeois state. We cannot continue to bear or tolerate this exploitation. We must rely only on ourselves, the exploited classes, the organised proletariat, to struggle for a new system. We must decide what to do with what we produce, we can no longer bear more exploitation, we can no longer follow bureaucratic leaders, we must organise ourselves as an international class. We can struggle against the bourgeoisie through strikes, stoppages, until we have the power to free ourselves.

We must join a demonstration not to passively follow the union banners but in order to discuss with workers how to develop a truly revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The stoppages, strikes, demonstrations and actions that we (the workers) carry out must help our struggle, because what we want is to show that this decrepit system cannot satisfy the needs of the great proletarian masses and can only exist through exploitation. We must seek to build an autonomous organisation outside of the union bureaucracies. General assemblies, struggles that spread to other workers, demonstrations open to the students, unemployed, workers from other branches, are the alternatives that we must follow.

The deaths in Amazonia must make us take account of the fact the class struggle, between exploited and exploiting, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is as alive as ever. The rich are never going to stop being rich, no matter what  Ollanta, Chavez, Evo Morales want us to believe. We do not want reforms, we want revolution, we do not want crumbs, we want everything that is ours. We will build a workers' revolution of the whole proletariat, as well as the students and the oppressed. The economic struggle is the means to holding back exploitation, but our aim must be its complete abolition.

We are all that we create. Do we  want to continue living on our knees, hoping that there will be a new president?  When will it be us who decide our future? Our mission is to destroy this system, to destroy exploitation of man by man, and not to allow our labour to make the bourgeoisie rich. Labour must be for our society and for ourselves. Comrades, we are marching towards a new society, we must take power. We must organise and manage proletarian power.

Down with the exploiting, oppressive, genocidal capitalist system!

Long live the struggle of the international proletariat!

Circle for Scientific Social Analysis

"Sociedad y Ciencia" [email protected] [100]

The universal face of capitalism has always been the sowing of death

"Death is not Anonymous, it has a name and direction"

B. Brecht

"The state calls its violence Law whilst that of the individual is a crime"

Max Stirner

Yesterday and today capital and its state repression does not dazzle anyone, but shines far and wide.

The arrogant and proud bourgeoisie and its armed forces (which surprises no one) have to go from  land to land seeking markets looking for land, natural and human resources, installing terror and adding new bodies to the long list of  those murdered by bullets, hunger, work, exhaustion and fear.

On the 5th June Bagua was "a show ground" for this ferocity  and confirms what we have said. It was one of capital's many attempts to appropriate the resources of the rainforest  for its market  at the cost of the oppression of those living in it.

However, the struggling proletariat in Bagua understands this very well, and has gone beyond the democratic games, they understand that the best form of defence is the offensive. Their struggle is our struggle and we are in solidarity with it, since it forms part of the community of the international struggle against the capitalist beast. Their resistance to submission is ours and all of the oppressed of the world. Nevertheless, if the struggle does not contain the aim of the overthrow of the existing order, the merciless blows of the worsening international crisis of capitalism will rain down on us (as always) Can you doubt this?

Capitalism and humanity are antagonists, and the history of the struggle of our comrades against our class enemy is a clear and living examples of this.

We can longer be deceived by the opportunists who to come to the fore and take advantage of our dead in order to proclaim their support  and tell us how they represent us, simply in order to put forward bourgeois interests (political parties, elections, money).

The comrades in Bagua for all their limitations have had the courage to carry out their struggle. Their struggle demonstrates one thing: the resurgence and spreading of the struggle within the class, which on the international level cannot be hidden and which sooner or later we will take part in the development of our self-liberation as an oppressed class

AGAINST THE STATE AND CAPITALISM!

THE EMANCIPATION OF THE OPPRESSED WILL BE THE WORK OF THE OPPRESSED THEMSELVES, OR IT WILL BE NOTHING!

FOR THE SELF-ORGANISATION AND AUTONOMY OF THE OPPRESSED IN STRUGGLE!

Anarchists of Lima

Jovenes Proletarios

[1]    On the morning of 5th July, Peruvian police were let lose against the indigenous population of the Amazonia province (a community of about 600.000 people) who were blocking the a road in order to defend to defend their territory. Since April 15th the Indian communities of the Peruvian Amazon have been mobilising against the measures to exploit their land for the profit of the mining and oil companies in the North East of the country. From the middle of May they were considered to be in a "state of insurrection". The balance sheet of these events is very clear: a number of deaths, certainly more than 30, perhaps hundreds of wounded and forty arrests. Information is rather confused due to the police lock-down of the area.

[2]    Ollanta Moises Humala is a Peruvian  politician and military man (retired). He is the founding member and president of the Peruvian Nationalist Party.

[3]    These monstrous "development" projects, such as the one by the Peruvian state for Bagua, have been implemented in many other countries. For example, in Brazil and Argentina, the development of the "green" production" of "ecological" fuels means gigantic extensive farming whose only result is not only the emigration of the communities that live in these areas, but also terrible ecological destruction.

[4]    For a more detailed analysis see https://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_decomposition [101]

[5]    We reject the reductionist and partial vision that only sees the proletariat as factory workers. The proletariat is a social class which encompasses large layers both in the town and in the country

[6]    Sixteen years previously, having finished his catastrophic first premiership (1985-1990), the boss of the APRA (social democratic party) Alan Garcia we re-installed as the president of Peru in 2006. He was opposed by the nationalist candidate Ollanta Humala.

On July 20, a couple of dozen young workers at the Vestas wind-turbine factory on the Isle of Wight occupied their factory after the management had decided to close it with the loss of over 500 jobs with about another hundred going on the mainland.

This action occurred outside the framework of a trade union, indeed the mainly young workforce was for the most part not in a union. By their action they demonstrated a combativity and a degree of self-organisation that is a characteristic of workers facing factory closures and unemployment. A fortnight into the occupation, the danger is that this struggle will be isolated and strangled by a combination of leftists, environmentalists and the trade unions.

For the company, producing these particular turbines is unprofitable in Britain, thereby, through the logic of capitalism, the factory has to close, full stop. For the environmental argument, this factory is a special case, it has a ‘green' product and therefore Britain should be using it as part of its climate change strategy. Some workers have taken up this line, not surprisingly given the amount of hot air that the British bourgeoisie has expelled on being ‘really serious about tackling climate change'.

But it's no good basing a workers' struggle on the blatant lies of the ruling class and its baseless statement that it will be creating nearly half-a-million ‘green' jobs. There will not be one ‘green' job unless there is profit in it and the attitude of the government over Vestas has made this very clear. This is a workers' fight, a fight for all workers, a class issue, and illusions that there can be ‘green' reforms within capitalism can only be a drag on the struggle.

Working closely with the Greens, has been the RMT union, again pleading the ‘special case' argument and, along with the TUC, appealing to the Labour government for ‘green' jobs. The role of the RMT union is instructive here: parachuting in and saying it would represent all workers in the plant, it signed up a number of workers and initially seemed to provide an impulse to the struggle and help to the workers. But a visitor to the site (see below), expressing solidarity, reports the workers being kept in the background and the union taking over, only allowing RMT officials to their meetings for example. This excludes the families and elements of the community as well as any elements wanting to express solidarity and speak. It cuts off a wider discussion that must confront the need to go to other workers.

In the meantime, the police have acted with their usual ‘impartiality', dressing up in riot gear and interpreting the law as they see fit, intimidating supporters and trying to stop food getting to those strikers still in the factory. They have now been complemented by private security forces. The management have acted ruthlessly in sending in dismissal notices hidden in pizzas; effectively denying the workers involved any redundancy pay or possibly any state allowances - as well as being a wider threat to the whole workforce - which is all perfectly legal.

The legal action by Vestas against the workers was put off and this was hailed as a victory by the leftists and the unions. This could have given them just enough time to strangle the fight, and bury the imperative need for the struggle to spread. Today, 4 August, Vestas got a court order to end the occupation and evict the workers.

A supporter of the struggle who visited the factory and saw the need for it to spread made this clear in a post under the name of Jason Cortez on the libcom website: "the need (is) for some workers to be going to these workers (local factories, hospital, etc) and other workforces to discuss with them how they widen the struggle is urgent". He also made the point that the resin factory next door to Vestas is itself threatened with closure and this would be the obvious starting point.

There is the danger that what's positive about this struggle - the involvement of the young workers - will be incorporated in and exhausted by the whole circus that's been created round the occupation. But the main danger lies with the union, which is now on the ‘inside', taking over the fight. What's needed by the workers is a mass meeting open to all workers and supporters and from here delegated workers to go out and discuss and extend the struggle to other workers. This would be a victory in itself.  

Baboon 4/8/9

A week-long strike of 70,000 construction workers in early July stopped work on World Cup 2010 projects including stadiums, airports, motorways and rail links. This was by no means the first major strike this year; there were more than half a million working days lost in the first six months, nearly double the number over the same period last year. In 2009 there have been significant strikes in the road freight industry (involving 60,000 workers), on South African Airways and in the health service.

Township protests

There has also been a wave of protests in many townships against the lack of basic services. More than a million people in South Africa still live in shacks, many without access to electricity or running water. Although 2.8 million houses have been built since the ANC came to power in 1994, there are still officially over two million households (around 8 million people) living in "informal settlements". The houses might exist but the allocation, as with so many other local services, is prone to nepotism and corruption. It's not surprising that local councillors have been popular targets of protests.

The often-violent protests have been reminiscent of the township protests of the 1980s. As well as demonstrations, police cars have been stoned and set on fire, shops looted, buildings burned and roads blocked. As opposed to past protests that tended to focus on individual complaints, the recent wave was more generalised, against a whole range of privations. Also, although some foreigners were attacked it was not on anything like the scale of last year when 60 people died.

The police used tear gas, rubber bullets, stun grenades and mass arrests. A government spokeswoman said that the ANC had a "deep understanding" of the problems of "poor service delivery" but "the law must take its course" and the state would "deal ruthlessly" with the protests. Zuma said that the police would "respond with sensitivity" but would "take swift action" against anything deemed unlawful.

With the gap between rich and poor wider than it was 15 years ago under white minority rule, with life expectancy under 50 (which is not only because of the 1000 who die every day from HIV/Aids), and with 75% of black children living in poverty, the protests can be expected to re-ignite in the future.

Wave of workers' strikes

There were also many strikes in late July. 40,000 workers in chemical, pharmaceutical and paper industries were on strike at the same time. There was a strike involving workers at Massmart stores, a chain with more than 250 stores across the country, with workers staging protest demonstrations in many locations. Doctors struck for two weeks, and there were also strikes in the transport sector. The SA Transport and Allied Workers' Union said it would make a "last ditch effort" to prevent a strike of Metrorail workers - but failed. There was also a two-day strike that affected the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Strikes in the vital gold, platinum and coal industries were threatened, but the unions and the enterprises came to an agreement.

One of the biggest strikes involved 150,000 municipal workers over five days. The South African Municipal Workers' Union warned striking workers that their demonstrations, which took place throughout the country, should be peaceful. In practice there were clashes with the police, with the latter using rubber bullets and pepper spray in same places.

As far as the unions are concerned The Times (28 July) wrote "So far, the unions have been careful to emphasise that they are not fighting the ANC Government they fought to see elected, and have aimed their anger at incompetent officials and corrupt local government representatives." This is not surprising as Cosatu (the country's biggest union federation) is part of the government (with the ANC and the South African Communist Party). However, criticisms from the unions are definitely growing. For example they criticised the police for their heavy-handed treatment of recent strikes and protests, and have said they won't hold back on wage demands despite the economy being in the first recession in 17 years. It is to be expected that the unions will further distance themselves from the government if they want to retain any credibility.

The official unemployment rate in South Africa is 23.6%, but in reality it's probably at least a third of the working age adult population. Government statistics show that the number of people in employment fell by 267,000 in the last quarter, following more than 200,000 jobs lost in the first quarter. Among Zuma's promises was one for the creation of 500,000 new jobs. Understandably this has been retracted. A former housing minister had said that shacks would be "eradicated by 2014". No one expects this to happen either. As with the township protests, workers' struggles can be expected to continue

Since the ANC came to power a substantial black middle class has emerged, but most of the population have seen no improvements in their lives since the end of apartheid. The impact of the global recession is going to make things worse. No sector is safe. Even the Anglo American Corporation, a South African giant in coal, gold, diamonds (it owns De Beers) and platinum has suffered. It has just announced a 69% decline in profits and wants to make $2bn of cuts in costs by 2011: "this includes slashing 15,405 jobs out of a target headcount reduction of 19,000 by the end of this year" (Guardian 31/7/9) It's estimated that a typical miner has between 7 and 10 dependents, so the impact of more widespread unemployment will be devastating.

Since 1994 the ANC and its allies have amply shown their ability to play a part in the management of South African capitalism. The working class has shown in its recent strikes that it is part of a world-wide revival of struggle that comes up against the capitalist state whatever clothes it wears.  

Car 1/8/9

On 24 July thousands of Chinese steel workers in the north eastern city of Tonghua clashed with police during demonstrations over a proposed take-over deal. It led to the kicking, beating and throwing down stairs to his death of the general manager of the Jianlong Steel Holding Company. This event received more publicity than workers' actions in China usually do, probably because it showed workers' frustrations and desperation rather than their ability to organise themselves or express solidarity for others.

In fact, workers' struggles have been reviving in China as much as other countries because their experience of capitalist exploitation is the same.

Capitalist relations of production

Before turning to an interesting recent report it is worth recalling the basics of workers' lives in China. After all, there are many (on the left and the right) who say that China is ‘socialist' or ‘communist'. There are also some Trotskyists who describe China as a ‘bureaucratically deformed workers' state'. Also available is the view that China was once ‘socialist', or at least ‘progressive', but went downhill with the death of Mao Zedong and the re-emergence of Deng Xiaoping at the end of the 1970s. As we approach the 60th anniversary in October of Mao's proclamation of the establishment of the People's Republic of China, it's worth recalling why there is nothing in this for the working class to celebrate.

Before the 1945-49 civil warbetween the Chinese Communist Party and the Guomingdang there had been, since 1937, in an alliance in the war against Japan in which they both recruited people to die in the interests of their various exploiters.In all parts of the country, including those dominated by the Maoists, strikeswere forbidden as disruptive to the war effort. And when finally the CCP came to dominate the whole country (except Taiwan), far from smashing the Guomingdang state it was incorporated into the stalinist state. After all, the Guomingdang state had already taken over a large part of a number of major industries, so it was entirely fitting that the CCP with its explicitly state capitalist policies should take it over. In contrast to the Guomingdang, which was riddled with widespread corruption and had presided over galloping inflation, the CCP's approach corresponded more closely to the needs of the Chinese national capital.

What needs to be remembered when the '60 glorious years' are being marked is thatthe working class hadn't mobilised itself in defence of its own interests, andthat no new relations of production were introduced by the new government. The working class still sold its labour power for wages, the capitalist state still stood, and it was very common for the existing functionaries to remain in place. As for private businesses, when they were taken over by the state the owner often stayed on as manager.

Above all, it is necessary to forget the ‘socialist' rhetoric of the Chinese ruling class, as it no more corresponds to any reality than does the talk of ‘freedom'a nd ‘humanitarianism' by the bourgeoisie throughout the rest of the world.

The example of the ‘Great Leap Forward' should be enough. This was the name given to the Second Five Year Plan that was due to run from 1958-63. The intention was to reorganise agriculture, but, even when bad weather is taken into account, the famine of 1958-61, in which, in different estimates, between 16 and 50 million people died, was caused by the state's policies. Because of a commitment to industrialisation many crops were left unharvested. Due to a campaign against sparrows there were devastating swarms of locusts. Grain continued to be exported in order to fuel propaganda about the supposed success story of Mao's regime. It was only when exports were stopped and imports increased that the famine began to diminish.

The period of the famine is still officially known as the ‘three years of natural disasters', which was the cause cited by theChinese state for the famine. Since the coming to power of Deng and his factionit has become acceptable in Chinato criticise Mao and some of his policies. What no one says is that the Chinese capitalist state has consistently shown itself as negligent of its subjects as any of the so-called ‘entrepreneur' capitalists with their workers, customers and the planet.

Do you recognise this picture?

China Labour Bulletin is a Hong-Kong based organisation that campaigns for ‘free trade unions' and the enforcement of existing labour laws in China. Although they clearly have their own agenda their material is interesting even if you don't accept their conclusions. Every two years they publish "an in depth study of the workers' movementin China" and in early July they published their third report, Going it Alone: The Workers' Movement in China(2007-2008)

In this latest study they analysea hundred examples of workers' struggles in China over the last two years (involving numbers from "over 40" to "over 10,000" workers to "several hundred" schools and kindergartens) and try to draw out significant trends. Perhaps inevitably theysee the situation as particular to China. What's interesting is how similar is the experience of workers across the world.

For example they report on thegrowing gap between rich and poor. "A wide-ranging survey carried out between May and September 2008 by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences clearlyshowed that the gap between the richand the poor in China continues to grow. In 2007, the per capita annual household income of the top20 percent of urban and rural residents was 17 times higher than the lowest 20 percent. Average annual household income levels in eastern China [where thefinancial and industrial sectors are concentrated] were 2.03 times higher than in western China, and 1.98 times higher thanin central China.The most pressing concerns cited by respondents to the survey were: ‘rising prices' (63.5 percent), ‘difficulty and cost of getting medical treatment' (42.1 percent) and the ‘excessive income gap' (28 percent)." (Going it Alone ... p6.)

According to the World Wealth Report, compiled by Merrill Lynch and Cap Gemini, there were, at the end of 2007, 414,900 people in China worth more than one million dollars excluding their principal residence. At the end of 2008 "The global recession and local stock market crash caused the number of millionaires to shrink by 12pc to 364,000" (Daily Telegraph 24/6/9.) There are still dozens of billionaires in this reduced total.

Something else that will be familiar to workers everywhere is growing unemployment. Officially there are about seven million people out of work, with a government figure of 4.3% for urban unemployment (this figure does not include migrantworkers or graduates). Most analysts believe the real total is much higher. Asthe CLB report says: "In February 2009,Chen Xiwen, director of the office of the Central Leading Group on Rural Work, revealed the results of an extensive survey of 15 migrant worker-exporting provinces, which estimated that 15.3 percent or 20 million of China's 130million migrant workers had lost their jobs in the previous year" (Going It Alone ...p5)

Earlierthis year the Washington Post (13/1/9) came up with somesimilar figures "Unemployment is now estimated to be at its highest levels since the Communist Party took over in1949. Estimates by government research agencies for urban jobless top 18million, or 9 percent of the workforce .... This figure doesn't include thegrowing number of jobless among the 160 million migrant workers who are mostly employed in factories. The rural unemployment rate could be as high as 20 percent. In addition, 1 million college graduates are not expected to be able to find jobs this year."

More recently Wang Yadong, a senior official at the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security's employment section said that "China's current employment situationis still grave and the pressure for job creation remains large" (AFP4/8/9). Quoting the official figures (and, remember this is the government that claims to have made a profit from the Olympics) "Wang said around 147 million migrant workers had moved to cities forjobs by June but more than 4 million had yet to find one" (ibid.) This figure is on top of the millions who have already had to return home "Moreover, 3 million university graduates, including those who had left last year, were still unemployed" (ibid) -thus showing that previous predictions were too optimistic.

The reason that the state saysthat the situation is "grave" is simple. The "Chinese authorities fear that rising unemployment could provoke unrest in the country" (ibid).In fact they've already got it.

‘Mass incidents' and individual protests

Going It Alone refers to an article that appeared earlier this year. "The Hong Kong-based political magazine Cheng Ming quoted senior Party sources as saying the number of mass incidents in 2008 was 127,467, almost 50 percent higher than the last officially released figure of 87,000 in 2005". A ‘mass incident' can beany strike, demonstration, blockade or other form of struggle that involves ahundred or more people. In the first three months of this year there were 58,000 ‘mass incidents'. If this tendency continues 2009 will break the records with more than 230,000 ‘mass incidents'.

One of the strengths of this report is that it has looked at individual struggles and tried to draw out some characteristic tendencies. It's worth quoting whatthey see as three major trends.

"Workers took matters into their own hands. Bypassing thelargely ineffectual official trade union, they used public protest as a means of forcing local governments to intercede on their behalf. And, in many cases,workers were successful.

Strikes ignited other protests in the same region, industryor company subsidiaries. The wave of taxi strikes that swept the county at the end of 2008 exemplified both the spread of industry-wide protests and the willingness of local governments to negotiate with the workers.

Workers' demands became broader and more sophisticated. Previously, disputes were mostly related to clear-cut violations of labour rights, such as the non-payment of wages, overtime and benefits, but in the last two years collective interest-based disputes came to the fore, withworkers seeking higher wages and better working conditions, and protesting arbitrary changes in their employment status and pay scales. One of the major causes of discontent was, for example, attempts by managements to circumvent the new Labour Contract Law by forcing employees to relinquish long-term contracts and rejoin the company on short-term contracts or as temporary labour."

Some of these tendencies are to be found elsewhere in working class struggles. What is different is the "Labour Contract Law", not in what it does, worsening workers' conditions (along with other recent legislation), but in how it has become afocus for individual or small groups of workers. In the New York Times (22/6/9) you could read "Workers are fighting back. Earlier this month, the government said Chinese courts were trying to cope with a soaring number of labor disputes, apparently from workers emboldened by the promise of the new contract labor law.

The number of labor disputes in China doubled to 693,000 in 2008, the first year the law was in effect, and are rising sharply this year, the government says."

These disputes are individual wrangles, a diversion from the potential of collective struggle. It's not as though there's not plenty to fight about. As the New York Times article says "A year and a half after a landmark labor law took effect in China, experts say conditions have actually deteriorated in southern China's export-oriented factories, which produce many of America's less expensive retail goods.

With China's exports reeling and unemployment rising because of the global slowdown, there is growing evidence that factories are ignoring or evading the new law" (ibid.)

As the CLB report put it "Even after the implementation of the Labour Contract Law on 1 January 2008, companies were still blatantly flouting the law or using underhand methods to circumvent it. A survey of more than 300 workers conducted by the Dagongzhe Migrant Workers Centre in Shenzhen showed that unscrupulous employers would provide workers with contracts in English rather than Chinese, force them to sign two separate ones or documents with two different company seals, or use other devious tricks to get around the provisions of the law. Employers also raised dormitory and food costs and increased penalties for turning up to work late and other violations of company rules. The survey showed that 26.6 percent of workers still did not have a contract, and that 28 percent of contracts offered wages lower than the legal minimum. Nearly two thirds of the workers interviewed said they had to work longer than the hours stated in their contract. And according to the Ministry of Human Resources, in China as awhole, in 2008, some 15.6 million workers lacked labour contracts." (Going It Alone...p11.)

The analysis in the report is straightforward. "The unprecedented wave of labour legislation in this period was no accident. It was a direct response to the pressure exerted by the workers' movement over the previous decade. A government committed to maintaining social order and harmony could no longer afford to ignore the strikes and protests staged by workers on an almost daily basis across the country" (ibid p13.)

The CLB think that all the labour legislation is a good thing, when, in reality, it provides a false focus for workers' energies. Fortunately, as they show themselves, workers have found many other ways of expressing their discontent.

A need for an end to illusions

The causes of the struggles studied were quite clear. "More than a third of the cases (at least 36) related to clear violations of legal rights, such as the non-payment of wages, overtime or social insurance contributions, or the failure to pay the compensation prescribed by law after the termination of employment contracts."

"However, in another third (at least 35) of the cases, workers did not simply seek redress for rights violations; they demanded higher wages, improved final severance packages from SOEs [state-owned enterprises], shorter working hours, improved welfare benefits and reductions in workload. Some retired and laid-off workers sought higher retirement payments and basic subsistence allowances.Other disputes arose over proposed changes in employment status, arbitrary changes to working conditions, meals and housing allowances, as well as demands for government investigations into alleged management malpractice during the restructuring of state-owned enterprises" (ibid 14/15.)

With the impact of the recession on China's export industries, unpaid wage arrears and no compensation for being laid off are common. "In China's manufacturing heartland, Dongguan, there were 117 incidents in September and October alone of factories closing and the boss running away, leaving at least 20,000 workers without pay" (ibid p15.)

Factory closures have shown the sharp dealing of the bourgeoisie and the expression of workers' anger.

"On 9 November 2007, several hundred workersat Nicewell Ceramics' Guangzhou plant blocked roads near local government buildings to protest wage arrears ofmore than two million yuan. Two days earlier, the chairman of the Taiwan-based parent company had informed the city government that he had been forced by "gangsters" to flee the idled plant.

On 13 February 2008, more than 250 workers at the Lichang Shoe Industries factory in Panyu blocked the Luoxi Bridge after the plant was closed and the manager absconded, leaving wages and social insurance contributions unpaid. According to workers, before the Chinese New Year holiday, the manager tricked workers by telling them to return to work after the holiday. When they did, they discovered he had disappeared with the cash box.

More than 1,000 worker sat the Chunyu Textiles factory in Wujiang city, Jiangsu, blockaded an expressway on 27 October 2008 after themanager fled abroad, leaving employees with four months' wages unpaid. The company had been crippled by debts but rather than go through formal bankruptcy proceedings which would have given workers some protection, the boss elected to simply run away" (ibid p15/16.)

Although these examples used road blocks, the report also includes examples of strikes, occupations, marches and other forms of struggle and protest.

With all strikes there is the curious question of their legality. "The right to strike was removed from the PRC Constitution in 1982, ten years before the advent of the ‘socialist market economy,' on the grounds that it was not necessary under China's socialist system. Since then the status of strikes in China has been a legal grey area - they are neither legal nor illegal" (ibid p22.)

The ‘right to strike' is a bit like the minimum wage. "The minimum wage was introduced in China in 2003, but it has rarely represented a decent or living wage, and at the end of 2008, minimum wages across the country were frozen in response to the global economic crisis" (ibid p15.)

If the status of strikes is unclear the response of the state is not. "Police intervened in at least 61 of the 100 cases reviewed here. On occasion, police action sufficed to temporarily stifle workers' anger and prevent escalation, but it often created more tension and ultimately led to violence. In at least 19 incidents, there were physical clashes between protesters andpolice, and some workers and police officers were injured" (ibid p24.)

The report gives some examples of violence against workers. "On 15 January 2008, Wang Chao, a migrant worker from Sichuan had an arm chopped off by thugs armed with knives and steel rods, hired by a state-owned construction company in Nanjing to attack workers' representatives when they sought payment of wage arrears. Wang was taken to hospital just in time for re-connective surgery" (ibid p26.)

"On 4 January 2007, workers at the notorious Italian-owned DeCoro furniture factory in Shenzhen staged several protests after the company announced relocation plans. Management only allowed employees to stay on if they accepted a 20 percent pay cut. The plant had witnessed numerous protests in the past, such as in November 2005, when some 3,000 employees struck inprotest at the beating of workers' representatives who asked the Italian managers for an audit of wages" (ibid p16).

"When claiming their wages for several months' work at a food processing plant on the coast of Shandong inearly July 2008, a group of migrant workers from Henan were surrounded and threatened by factory security guards and local gangsters. One of the workers was beaten and threatened with a knife. In an interview with CLB Director HanDongfang, one of the workers said that at this point, the factory boss yelled: ‘Kill him! Kill him! Kill him and bury him here! Make sure that not one of them gets out of here, forget about their wages. Don't be afraid they'll go to court! Just let them go to court. Don't worry about the Labour Bureau, they are all my friends, and failing that we have the provincial governor on our side'" (ibid p26/27.)

As elsewhere in the world, the bourgeoisie knows it has the law and the state onits side.

More positively the CLB report says that "In addition to examining the one hundred cases above, an analysis of the workers' movement in 2007-08 cannot ignore the emergence of widespread industry-specific protests in this period. Two protests, one by middle and primary school teachers, and the other by taxi drivers are particularly noteworthy." They highlight "the way they ebbed and flowed and spread across the country" (ibid p27.)

In the case of the teachers' strikes they "involved several hundred primary and middle schools as well as kindergartens across China. The number protesting rangedfrom several dozen to several thousand, and strikers mainly came from poorer rural areas in Sichuan, Chongqing, Hubei, Hunan, and Shaanxi" (ibid p27.)

In a conclusion the CLB sum up some of their main points "Workers had to cope with galloping inflation in 2007 and mass layoffs in 2008. By the end of the year, an estimated 20 million migrant workers had lost their jobs, while those who retained their positions often had to accept significantly reduced wages as the global economic crisis took its toll on China's export-oriented manufacturers. Although incomes rose overall during this period, so did the gap between the rich and the poor. Economic hardship, social disparity and rampant corruption among local Party and government officials ledto outpourings of anger and resentment across the country" (ibid p45.)

While much of this report gives a good account of examples of the class struggle there is one crucial element missing. The CLB wants to see either the state unions functioning properly or new unions representing the interests of workers. The historical experience of the working class demonstrates that no form of union can any longer fulfil this function. In this report you can see a number of forms of organisation, limited in many ways, but, as CLB's summary ofthe report says "The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), the sole legally mandated trade union, is now seen by the majority of China's workers as irrelevant to their needs, and as such they increasingly take matters into their own hands" (ibid p3.)

The CLB also maintains a confidence in China's labour laws, so long as they are implemented ‘properly'. Ultimately, what they propose is a reform of the state's attitude, alongside the development of ‘proper' unions.

In an article (26/7/9) on the death of the manager in Tonghua the CLB says "The incident at Tonghua reflects the deep anger felt by many employees at China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) at their treatment during restructuring and privatization. Although the majority of SOEs were privatized in the late 1990s, the after effects are still felt today and many other SOEs, like Tonghua, are still going through the process of restructuring." This ‘restructuring' is forced on the capitalist class by the depth of the international crisis and the need of each national capital to compete on the world market. It makes no difference whether the enterprises are state-owned or privatised.

The experience of the international working class shows that workers should have no illusions in the unions or the rest of the capitalist state or the possibility of the bourgeoisie finding another way of responding to the economic crisis.Workers should have the confidence to "increasingly take matters into their own hands."  Car 5/8/9

The first element of production is reproduction and it’s this element of reproduction that forms the basis for so much of Darwin’s work. There’s no linear, predetermined movement from the animal kingdom, through prehistory, to capitalism and the perspective of communism, but Darwin, from his vigorous scientific method, investigation and speculation, joins the theoreticians of the workers’ movement in laying bare the fundamentals of animal and human society, the laws and perspectives of which have produced the possible positive negation of the present state of things. Darwin’s work is important for the perspectives of a communist society because it demonstrates the basis for the development of mankind from the development of a cognitive (conscious and unconscious) moral and social force. It is all the more important now to learn and re-learn these lessons, when capitalism, the ultimate ‘dog eat dog’ society, decomposes under its own contradictions into crisis, incoherence and irrationality. Darwin only once mentions the phrase “survival of the fittest” in this book and that’s to take a clear position against it – in fact the whole book is a clear position against that bourgeois interpretation, as well as dog eat dog capitalist competition generally.

In the elaboration of the materialist conception of history, The Descent of Man is as important as Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society, and together these two books make a fine whole and a great contribution to the workers’ movement. One could write a fair sized text, using direct quotes from Descent, to make Darwin look like an apologist, even a triumphalist for English bourgeois society from a liberal point of view, at the same time expressing some of the worst prejudices of the ruling class. But this is insignificant compared to the analysis undertaken and probably shows some of the contradictions that Darwin lived and worked under and the pressures he felt. Later in the book he himself he says, in a reproving fashion (he has a sense of humour so I thought this might be tongue in cheek), “but I here exceed my proper bounds” in suggesting the equality of the sexes through education available to all. The depth of the work is great and the analysis builds on The Origin of Species: for the first time Darwin mentions “evolution”, takes it further, and back again, on the primacy of sexual selection, firstly in animals and then in man, in developing confidence, consciousness and morality and from this, Darwin poses a future for humanity even if he couldn’t see the agency identified by Marxism. Darwin was a man of the times and his work, driven by a scientific impetus and humanitarianism, was taken up and distorted by expanding capitalism in order to justify the superiority of the current order of bourgeois society. Against the explicitly racist conclusions of the pro-slavery Reverend John Brodie Innes, Darwin replied, “my views do not lead me to such conclusions about negroes and slavery as yours do: I consider myself a good way ahead of you, as far as that goes”. The bourgeois world took some of Darwin’s words and phrases and used them to justify their system of competition and the survival of the fittest. But we have to conclude that whatever his reflections of current prejudices, from which none of us are individually immune, this work well transcends these weaknesses and abuses and deals a deadly blow, not just to religion, but to bourgeois ideology generally and demonstrates a material basis for revolutionary change.

For the second time, with Descent, Darwin’s work had to be provoked into the public arena and it was the same man, Alfred Russel Wallace, who performed this service again in 1864. Wallace confronted the reactionary Anthropological Society in London, where he talked about the production and the cooperation of labour, the survival, not of the fittest, but mentally the brightest and the most moral. Darwin used his arguments to repudiate Malthus. Wallace had jumped in with an analysis applied to the development of man through production and cooperation, though according to some opinion in this field, his position was a compromise. Wallace rejected sexual selection as the basis for the development of the community, which is why Darwin devotes much of the book to this phenomenon among animals and showing its antiquity in man. Wallace eventually ended up in spiritualism, seeing the morality of man coming from a higher power, the spirit and not the natural world. Reflecting on this reactionary step of Wallace, Darwin said: “I hope you have not murdered completely your own and my child”. These words are particularly poignant given Darwin’s passionate detestation of infanticide. 

Darwin and Morgan on human history

The book follows on from Origins in demonstrating that there are no separate creations and that natural selection is the chief agent of change, with variations of the latter acting on individuals that benefits the community through mental powers that are “wholly different”. I think that his need to demonstrate the importance of sexual selection in animals and apply it to early man led Darwin to greatly underestimate what Morgan loosely describes as ‘savagery’, the whole period of prehistory that today could be said to cover some two-and-a-half million years up until around some ten or twenty thousand years ago. Darwin uses Morgan’s work on the American beaver and consanguinity in his book and he met Morgan at Down House, his home near Downe in Kent in 1871. But Morgan was still to finish his work on Ancient Society that so greatly enhances and deepens Darwin’s own work. Darwin talks of savages and barbarians and the uneducated in the same terms: they are unable to see beauty, and they have “insufficient powers of reasoning”, “weak powers of self-control” and likens them to “domesticated animals”. He suggests support for the civilised races supplanting and trampling on native populations, the Tasmanians for example. But all this is contradicted by the overall analysis, conclusions and tenor of his work as well as in other specific quotes throughout the book. I will return to this question.

Though nothing like the scale over the last century, archaeological evidence was appearing at the time that demonstrated the validity of Darwin’s analysis (and of some of his speculations: Darwin was scientific in his conclusions and said so when he couldn’t be absolutely positive). Ancient monkey and other animal fossils were being found as well as varieties of stone tools, clearly evidence of human existence before the Ice Age. His friend Thomas Huxley had a cast of large brained hominid, the species of Neanderthal that could have been so important for his analysis (what would he have made of the relatively recent finds in the Shanidar Cave of northern Iraq that show archaeological evidence of morality in a Neanderthal dwelling some sixty thousand years ago). But I think that Darwin had fixed on sexual selection as the key: “He who admits the principle of sexual selection will be led to the remarkable conclusion that the nervous system not only regulates most of the existing functions of the body but has indirectly influenced the progressive development of various body structures and of certain mental qualities”. He thus saw the development of man’s qualities and senses, “through the exertion of choice”, “and these powers of the mind manifestly depend on the development of the brain”. Here alone is a striking contradiction of his words above about savagery and barbarians. There is no sexual selection without choice and without that there would be a lesser effect on the offspring produced by animal and man. After some almost obligatory remarks about the highest ranks of bourgeois society, Darwin gets down to the nitty-gritty about the development of diversifying standards of beauty, communal marriage, tribal connections in relationships, with strong and complex relations between the tribe and offspring, itself coming from mutual protection and aid, with Darwin insisting on the persisting strength of the relations between mother and child. Morgan, Darwin says, thought it more complex than this, thinking that communal and loose forms of marriage must have been universal (which I think correct). But however long the relationship from a choice that emanates from the social instincts - brief, seasonal, the whole year - it “suffices for the work of sexual selection”. The latter he saw as “more powerful at a remote period than the present day, though probably not yet wholly lost”. He’s clear that in savagery the role of women’s preference in choice is a factor of sexual selection and the good of the tribe and preferences for both sexes would also have meant an acquisition, a further impulsion of the species. He talks about women’s’ discrimination and taste, showing that it’s not a matter of numbers, lower female to male ratio for example, that would equalise out anyway. The most successful sexual selection made the most successful progenitors.

The importance of sexual selection

Darwin underlines the importance of sexual selection, inherited from the animal kingdom, a positive, instinctive recognition of others, which developed into complex relationships including gentes, clans and tribes with all their sympathies, interrelations and rules. Within and from this came the positive development of the family. In his book Ancient Society, written in the 1870s after nearly 40 years work, the fundamentals of which are still entirely valid, Morgan saw the family “progressing to a higher form”, an active element within the gens. This is expanded throughout Morgan’s book and demonstrated in his complicated classifications of the earliest Hawaiian and Rotuman system of relationships, then the Seneca-Iroquois and Tamil and finally the Roman and Arabic system of relationship. Marx and Engels adopted this work virtually intact. Darwin doesn’t mention incest in Descent, but this concerned him personally given his marriage to his first cousin. Bourgeois Victorian society preferred to marry their ‘own’, often marrying into familial circumstances with the attendant hypocrisy. Though there doesn’t seem to be a problem with first cousins, his wife’s family had been inbreeding for generations and Darwin was worried about it. Three of his children died young and he put one of his son’s illnesses down to a “deep flaw in his constitution”, even writing to a friend “we are a wretched family and ought to be exterminated”. Morgan noted that even in the most basic social complexes studied, the Australian Kamilaroi for example, neither the male nor the female could marry into their own gens, the prohibition being absolute. He called the sexual relations between brother and sister an “abomination”, “evil”, showing pockets of mental and physical deterioration, which we can see here and there today. Morgan demonstrated that even in the earliest forms of relations, what he called the “Malayan”, blood line and marriage, where brother partnered with sister, because of the complexities of kinship relation, this often meant first, second, third, or even more distant cousins marrying as “brothers and sisters”. In his Ethnological Notebooks, Marx depicts the horde organisation as the “Oldest of all... with promiscuity: no family; only mother-right could have played a role here”. And goes on to say that “The larger the group recognising the marriage relation, the less the evil of close interbreeding”, “... the gradual exclusion of own brothers and sisters from the marriage relations, spreading slowly and then universal in the advancing tribes still in savagery... illustrated the operation of the principle of natural selection”. The development of the family and the social organisation that brings it about is expressed in the full title of Morgan’s book: Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery though Barbarism to Civilization. Darwin did address the question of incest in his earlier Variations of Plants and Animals, his longest work with a hundred pages on pigeons alone. He well knew about the injurious effects of inbreeding on animals and birds, and recognised that closely related breeding pairs generally produced poor or damaged stock. There’s a chapter in the book entitled: “On the Good Effects of Crossing and on the Evil Effects of Inbreeding”. He said that avoiding closely related marriages, an “almost universal practice of all races at all times” was an argument of “considerable weight”. In the book he says: “A considerable body of evidence has already been advanced, showing that the offspring from parents which are not related are more vigorous and fertile than those from parents which are closely related”. Natural selection would augment this into instinct and thus I would think, something “unconsciously acquired”. Instinctively, as with the rejection of it in the chimpanzees studied by Jane Goodall, incest appears as lazy, insular and restrictive, not at all the attributes of natural or sexual selection. Darwin distanced himself from this view in a later addition to Descent, but there seemed to be some pressure from the family. His whole work, one intuitively feels, reinforces his main position, as he concluded from his work on plants: “Cross-fertilisation is generally beneficial, and self-fertilisation injurious”.

The common ancestor of the ‘races’

On races, where one can find perfunctory reactionary quotes elsewhere, he writes: “all the races agree in so many important matters of detail of structures and in so many mental peculiarities that these can only be accounted for by inheritance from a common progenitor...” In the development of man “...the intellect must have been all important to him, even at a very remote period...” and the use, adaption and inheritance of this intellect meant “the continual improvement and exercise of... other mental faculties”. The development of the moral qualities whose foundation lies in the highly complex and ever present, enduring nature of the social instincts and family ties, leads man, he says “unavoidably”, to look both backwards and forwards, a great impulsion of consciousness. Wallace’s work on seeing survival as from mentally the brightest and the most moral collaborators is taken up in Descent, with Darwin showing morality and compassion as the highest human instincts. As with Wallace’s original position, Darwin shows man’s adaptation as mental rather than physical, ie, his intellectual and moral faculties (and confidence, that he mentions elsewhere) and this collective expression would have strengthened the whole tribe. Even in a brief reference to the Bronze Age and the warrior peoples of that time (whom Darwin tends to underestimate here and there) he says that their success was more due to their “superiority in the arts” (and what art!). Like Wallace, Darwin also sees the development of mental powers from tools but disagrees with Wallace on his ideas about “imitation” (possibly like Dawkins’s “memes”), instead emphasising it as “practice”, which I think is a more solid way of putting it.

Man is a social animal with an instinctive morality, “Man himself a natural object” as Marx says, “his essence being his relations in society and in social production, including the production of himself” (Ethnological Notebooks). Sympathy, Darwin says, is “a fundamental element of the social instincts”, these social instincts acquired from animals, the herd, the troop, etc. And a moral being is “one who is capable of comparing his past or future actions or motives and of approving or disapproving of them”. Lower animals didn’t have this capacity and Darwin goes on to say: “But in the case of man, who alone with certainty can be ranked as a moral being, whether performed deliberately after a struggle with opposing motives, or impulsively through instinct, or from the effects of slowly-gained instincts”. He’s completely clear about how the “puniest” of men from the age of savagery, surviving in the most adverse conditions, against the most fearsome beasts, could develop their “intellectual powers”, with an awareness of the future being important for morality and humanity. Morality “aboriginally derived from the social instincts for both relate at first exclusively to the community”. Just as in the lower animals, these instincts are acquired by man for the good of the community. Being weak relative to his conditions man had no choice but to develop in order to struggle against them, and it was these adverse conditions themselves that continually spurred mankind on in spheres of organisation, production, morality and consciousness. 

Going further, on the question of races, he suggests that these sympathies expressed should be extended to the whole human species and that they are stopped only by “artificial barriers”. Darwin also see the importance of belief systems developed in savagery, saying that “no being could experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties at least to a moderately high level” and that these features “show us what an indefinite debt of gratitude we owe to the improvement in our reason”.

As to the “survival of the fittest”, which is only mentioned once in the book as far as I can see, Darwin says, referring to it specifically, “We should however bear in mind that an animal possessing great size, strength and ferocity and which, like the gorilla, could defend itself from all enemies, would not perhaps have become social. And this would most effectively have checked the acquirement of the higher mental powers... sympathy and love for his fellows. Hence it might have been an immense advantage to man to have sprung from some comparably weak creature”. He returns to this question in Chapter 5 and again his position contradicts that of the “survival of the fittest”. Individual strength or forcefulness in early man would not necessarily make an advantageous partner, being more likely to be killed or injured and thus less able to produce offspring with their qualities. But it’s morality that infuses the whole tribe, so a slight general (not individual) increase in morality, a concern for the common good, courage, sympathy, etc., would be natural selection.

Darwin’s sympathies

This is an eminently readable book written by a scientist somewhat tortured by the personal contradictions he finds himself in, but which he takes on with diligence, method and a sense of humour in order to produce a great work. He didn’t stop despite the pressures that must have been all around him. There’s an endearing episode when, in thinking about morality in animals, he hears the story of a baboon which ‘adopted’ a kitten and as the kitten’s claws grew it inadvertently kept scratching the baboon. So to get around this problem, the baboon chewed the kitten’s claws down. After hearing this tale, Darwin got hold of the family kitten and attempted to chew its claws off in the interests of science. He concluded that it was possible.

Apart from the breathtaking overall analysis there are some real gems from Darwin here and there. For example, throughout the 20th century it was generally thought that cultivation, agriculture proper, started up in one place and spread throughout the globe. This is a position exemplified in the work of Gordon Childe and ex Oriente lux. From research over the last decade, it now seems clear that agriculture developed independently in at least half-a-dozen areas of the planet as did the sedentism that preceded it, as did the development of metallurgy, as did the emergence and existence of the state. In Chapter 5 Darwin almost casually predicts this. He clearly describes the universal tendency to sedentism (though he doesn’t call it by this name) as the prerequisite for civilisation, almost necessitating the cultivation of the ground. He does this effortlessly and convincingly, generalising from one ancient Tierra del Fuegan dwelling, Like David Lewis-Williams on this question (Inside the Neolithic Mind, Lewis-Williams and David Pearce), he talks of accidents (waiting to happen) propelling agriculture forward. Later in this chapter, he reaffirms this view of an independent development in relation to culture, cultivation, animal domestication and, further back, to the development of tools. There are some jarring statements in this chapter referring to the poor and the masses completely reflecting bourgeois ideology, but it ends affirming the “view that progress has been much more general than retrogression; that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals and religion”.

Towards the end of the book Darwin once again expresses his distaste and disgust with elements of savagery: “For my own part I would have as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descended from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs – as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions”. Really, he could have been talking about bourgeois society, particularly capitalism in its period of decay: child killing on an industrial scale, torture, sacrifices by the million, repression, oppression, ruthlessness and irrationality. He already has insights into this with his denunciation elsewhere of “the polished savages of England for their complicity in slavery”.

Baboon, 18/7/9 

 We are publishing an article from the Alliance of Revolutionary Socialists, a group in Russia and Ukraine, the product of a recent split in the Internationalist Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Collectivists. 

The Alliance condemns participation in bourgeois elections and democracy as a disguised form of the dictatorship of capital. It rejects any support for the existing trade unions, which it sees as instruments in the hands of the bourgeoisie whose function is to subject the working class to the interests of capital. It also rejects the idea of creating new radical trade unions, It pronounces itself in favour of workers’ general assemblies and of the necessity for world revolution. 

As well as the information that this article contains on the reality of the class struggle in the countries of the former USSR, and without necessarily agreeing with all the points of view it develops, we welcome and support the arguments it puts forward against the anti-working class mystifications of ‘nationalisation’ and ‘workers control’ which the leftists defend. These critical arguments can only be of interest to anyone concerned with the class struggle and the political strengthening of the workers’ struggle.  

For further information about this group, go to their website revolt.anho.org, (email : [email protected] [108]). 

The current world crisis of capitalism is provoking a wave of proletarian protests, and will inevitably provoke them in the future. In the CIS, the first serious sign of things to come was the workers’ revolt at the Kherson machine-building factory this February. By now it is clear that the reactionary Party of Regions has subdued the workers’ struggle, and it is time to analyse the reasons behind this defeat. We have to learn from mistakes, and in order to save the approaching future struggles in the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States, which nominally succeeded the USSR – ICC note) and the world from a similar fate, we must pick out the key factors in the defeat.

The Kherson revolt: what it was and how it ended up

On the 2 February, workers from the Kherson machine-building factory marched along the main street of he city (Ushakov street) towards the regional administration, where they presented their demands to the authorities… Among them were the following:

- payment of back wages (total of 4.5 million hryvni . 100 hryvni are equivalent to about 13 US dollars)

- nationalisation of the factory with no compensation

- a guaranteed market for the produce, which is complex agricultural machinery

Having seen their demands ignored, the workers broke into the factory grounds and occupied the administrative building on the 3rd of February. Various Trotskyists and Stalinists have claimed there was a takeover of the whole factory, but in reality the owner’s security personnel remained at the factory, and it appears to have been a power-sharing situation at best.

On the 9 February, an independent trade union was established at the Kherson machine-building factory, replacing the old trade union cell of the FPU. The new trade union, called Petrovets, joined the structure of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Ukraine, led by Mr. Wolynets, i.e. it effectively entered the confederate structure currently serving as a tool of the Timoshenko bloc. At this point we must explain the political situation within the city. The Ukrainian bourgeoisie is currently divided into the ‘orange’ league (the loose Yushenko and Timoshenko alliance) and the ‘blue-white’ league (the Party of Regions led by Yanukovich). The owner of the Kherson machine-building factory, Mr. A. Oleinik, is also a prominent member of the Party of Regions; and while the Party of Regions’ domination of the Kherson regional administration is almost at 60%, the appointed head of the administration (as placed there by Yushenko) is Boris Silenkov – an ‘orangist’. This gives some clue about the internal struggles between bourgeois cliques over Kherson, and both cliques attempted to take advantage of the Kherson workers’ revolt. In the end, the stronger Party of Regions established control over the workers, bringing the workers’ revolt to and end by taking away their independence and converting them into a tool in its hands.

Mr. Oleinik’s interest amidst all this is also clear; to use the workers in obtaining leverage over state resources and in gaining access to the treasure trove of state orders, credit and subsidies – and he was successful. On the morning of 13 February, the Party of Region’s representatives parked two combine harvesters in front of the regional administration building, thus initiating a ‘blue Maidan’(1) with the aim of displacing Silenkov. The trade union cell at the Kherson machine-building factory agreed to participate in this!

Here is what Trotskyists from “Socialist Resistance” write : “On 13 February, 2 million hryvni were given to Mr. Oleinik by the regional authority… Thus the only winner so far has been the owner, who thanks to the workers’ action obtained a decent sum from the authorities. It must be noted that the given sum was not from the reserve fund, and therefore was taken from funds intended for public sector workers, pensions, benefits, etc.”.

The ‘social compromise’, so much cherished by the bourgeoisie has been reached: Oleinik got the money and the workers got a promise that they may at some point get a glimpse of some of it.

After this ‘compromise’ the demand for nationalisation was taken up by the workers – or at least by the trade union representatives speaking on their behalf.

“On 14 February ”, as UKRINFORM (2) quotes Oleinik, “the workers’ collective annulled the nationalisation demand, and agrees with me resuming control over the enterprise. Now, I will fight for the right to work and for the functioning of the enterprise together with the workers’ collective”.

Something that the Trotskyists and Stalinists almost took for a spark that will start the fire in Ukraine, and what was in fact a genuine proletarian protest, alas one with mistaken demands and perspective, in the end mutated into a money-making venture for the capitalist. And this occurred precisely due to the false perspective.

But of course; the demand for nationalisation was initially a demand not for social revolution, but for state support for a capitalist enterprise, its rescue by the bourgeois state. And so it did; exactly in the manner that it can, by giving a sum of tax money, the very “sum that was not from the reserve fund, and therefore was taken from funds intended for public sector workers, pensions, benefits, etc.” to the capitalist. If the Trotskyists and the Stalinists sincerely hoped that the bourgeois state could act in some other manner, they can only blame their own short-sightedness.

So now we can draw conclusions. Destitute workers, deprived of income for some months, rose up for collective struggle. During the struggle they made some mistaken demands; but at least got full support from Marxists advancing in status at their expense. This bourgeois slogan (which allegedly makes neoliberals tremble in fear) was immediately snatched up by a bourgeois clique. In a couple of days the workers bent back down, having seen the errors of their demands and having no alternative ideas at their disposal.

During the events at Kherson machine-building factory, the Stalinists and the Trotskyists advocated a ‘nationalisation under worker control’. We should investigate the compatibility of this position with the growth of proletarian class-consciousness and revolutionary action, and whether or not it leads to subordination of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie and its state.

What is the main difference between demands for nationalisation on the one hand and a struggle for concrete material demands on the other? The demand for nationalisation, i.e. for the transfer of the enterprise into state property (i.e. the bourgeois state – there is no other state) implies a struggle for an alternative capitalist strategy, for the strengthening of state capital against private capital. Those who venture to advise the bourgeoisie on taking up such a strategy become effectively mere advisors to capital – and no more than that.

However, as one might say, why not struggle for a form of capitalism that is more materially advantageous to workers? Must we really be ideologues and stick to a utopian vision of a global socialist revolution while ignoring the immediate needs of people who are suffering?

Well, we must say that we are not ideologues, and that we are opposed to reformism. This is not due to some utopian visions, but due to the realisation that the concept of a type of capitalism materially advantageous to workers is utopian in itself.

In order to understand that the bourgeois state’s nationalisation policies cannot materially advance the working masses, one has only to observe modern Russia. Putin’s rule saw to the increase of interventionism, to the advance of the bureaucracy that tamed the pseudo-oligarchs, to the domination of heavily state-owned corporations in key profitable sectors of the economy, where bureaucracy and business jointly prosper from the masses’ poverty. Yet all of this did not lead to the improvement of the workers’ material conditions; nor did it lead to the bourgeois progress – after 8 years of growth the Russian economy had not even reached its level of 1990. It is now evident that the interventionism of Putin’s rule did not serve the interests of the working masses at all (which is only to be expected) and did not even serve to the realisation of a progressive modernisation of the Russian economy; instead, it served only to the parasitic consumption of the exploiters’ class – the two-headed hydra of bureaucrats and businessmen.

Furthermore, surely the classical example of the Belarus Trotskyist Razumovskiy, who is from “Socialist Resistance”, and a supporter of nationalization, shows how effectively the elements of private and state capitalism can intertwine around exploiting the proletariat. The very Belarus where a vast state-capitalist sector did not obstruct the state’s intention for neo-liberal reforms (see “Banishment from a social paradise” by F. Sanczenia: )

Despite classical Marxist concepts (3), the state, after all, is not a neutral instrument, not a field of battle between the rulers and the ruled, but by its own nature is an exploiter in itself. It is not an estranged, mysterious entity with its own separate interests, but consists of quite concrete chiefs, bureaucrats and cops who are exploiters and subjugators by themselves, as well as being tied to other exploiters’ and subjugators’ private-capitalist interests. Regardless of the proletarian masses’ pressure on them, this exploitative gang can never cease being what it is; even when it offers certain concessions to the struggling masses, it does this with the aim of subduing revolutionary spirit, replacing it with illusions and later taking the concessions away. The imperative of the Communist movement is not pressurising the bourgeois state, but destroying it. This aim is not a utopian vision, but a means to further survival of humankind.

We only support demands that do not contradict the revolutionary imperative. We support workers who struggle for the improvement of their material conditions, provided that their struggles are based on a direct control and self-organisation, whereby workers form new types of social relations without relying on state-integrated trade unions, let alone relying on the state itself! Only in such a struggle can workers understand that their Right to Life is violated by the existence of the capitalist system, and that this system must be destroyed. Only in such a struggle can workers obtain the experience of self-organisation that is necessary for the destruction of the old world and the creation of a new world.

Both the Stalinists and the Trotskyists, who, as it turns out, are not that different after all, advocate nationalisation, justifying it with the restoration of a functioning enterprise and helping workers to survive. However, nationalisation can result in re-selling of the enterprise to a different private owner, as has been shown in our first article. It is by no means certain that the current bourgeois state of Ukraine, which is in a condition of permanent crisis, can see to any kind of restoration of the enterprise.

Workers’ control: why it is not sufficient

‘Leninist-Bolsheviks’ justify their advocacy of nationalisation by portraying it as a special case, a ‘good’ nationalisation of sorts – one under worker control. They portray this ‘worker control’ as a miraculous drop of wine that can turn a bucket of bourgeois poison into a sweet Communist brew.

We have previously addressed the issue of workers control in our article “The Workers’ Movement: What shall it be?”:

“For example, let’s consider the demand for ‘worker control over enterprise accounts’. The demand for worker control assumes that the ownership and authority over the enterprise (and the whole of society) remains with the bourgeoisie, while the workers merely control the functioning of this authority in their immediacy. It is certain that as long as the bourgeoisie retains its grip on authority, it will not permit real worker control over its authority. Meanwhile, when the workers have power sufficient for ousting bourgeois monopoly on control, there isn’t much sense in stopping half way. Why arrange worker control over bourgeois authority when the latter can be ousted completely? Therefore, the demand for worker control in the conditions of absolutist capitalism is unrealistic in the majority of cases (exceptions will follow shortly), and is outright harmful in revolutionary conditions.

The bourgeoisie will meet the demand for worker control only in exceptional circumstances, and precisely then the illusions of its protagonists will be harshly shattered. Enterprise owners will lift secrecy barriers around their commerce and open accountancy books with the aim of convincing the workers of the enterprise’s dire financial situation and of the need for putting aside class struggle in order to avoid bankruptcy. The bourgeoisie, skilled in double accountancy and various other manipulations, will undoubtedly reach its aim, and the realisation of ‘worker control’ will only become a tool for reaction and exploitation.

Overall, these Trotskyist concepts of ‘transitional’ capitalism controlled by the workers are just a tidy utopia, which in fact causes harm by distracting proletarians from genuine struggle for class interests and revolution.”

To stress, we must re-emphasise this: ‘transitional’ demands, such as worker control and nationalisation are not simply methods of advancing material conditions of the exploited. Such little presents from the state in fact severely undermine the autonomy of worker action by integrating it into the system of exploitation.

In the case of an already established worker control, with an existence of some sort of dual power within the workplace, we must positively consider demonstrating to the workers the instability and a short potential life span of such power-sharing practice, explaining the inevitable transformation of such arrangements either into a restoration of the full power of capital, or into an establishment of full power of workers’ assemblies. But supporting demands for worker control is simply an idolisation of an unstable and unsustainable situation, and is therefore blatantly misguiding of the proletarian masses.

The Ukrainian crisis and our tasks

“Firstly we must note that the modern bourgeois Ukraine is undergoing a severe economic, social and political crisis: The takeover of the Kherson machine-building factory by its workers; The backlash against gas companies that were intending cutting gas supplies to Ivano-Frankovsk; An uprising in Mekeevka, which was suppressed by Berkut (the Ukrainian version of the Russian OMON).

Such is the intensity of the situation up to now. There is a triple crisis in Ukraine while the global crisis is only just beginning:

1) An economic crisis, tens of factory closures, a huge government debt and prospect of defaulting. 

2) A social crisis, mass unemployment, growing mass poverty and swelling protest.

3) A political crisis as the Ukrainian state is in a permanent collapse. The leading power groups cannot agree on a common strategy. The army is paralysed.” (M. Magid: “The Ukraine two steps away from a social upheaval… or a collapse?”)

We cannot yet tell how this crisis will end; will the Ukrainian elites stabilise the situation, will the Ukraine burn in a fire of imperialistic wars between bourgeois cliques, or will a social revolt ignite and spread, turning into a social revolution? We cannot tell, but one thing is clear: for the revolution to succeed, the working masses must not trust a single bourgeois clique, power group, official trade union, party, state or capitalist, they must not turn into a tool of any bourgeois grouping, they must preserve their own class independence, they must fight for their own emancipation. Our task, the task of the protagonists of social revolution, is to popularise such consciousness.

What should have been done?

We were accused of lacking a positive program, of having nothing to offer to the workers. We must object; this is not so, and we were left behind because our group does not have direct contact with the Kherson workers. If we did have a chance to participate in their struggle, we would have offered the following to them:

- seizing the running of the factory into the authority of a workers’ assembly

- getting the scrapped equipment back [Here we must note that there are 1500 workers in the factory, and including their families and friends, the given collective presents a rather significant force, and with a real prospect for an application of such a force in the conditions of the Ukrainian triple crisis, the authorities would have to seriously consider fulfilling the demands of returning the equipment.]

- demanding the immediate payment of back wages

- agitating for workplace overtakes by worker collectives in other cities and in other enterprises of Kherson and the Ukraine

- trying to create a city workers’ council in Kherson

We think that it is necessary to convince workers of the state’s hostile nature, and of the need for them, together with all the other working and oppressed people, to take care of themselves, to develop links with each other, to develop ways of organising production and marketing without any intermediates (i.e. the state and the capitalists).

We fully understand that ‘socialism in one factory’ is not possible, that it is doomed to failure when isolated. However, the proletarian struggle can succeed only after a series of defeats; even after suffering defeat, the Kherson workers have acquired invaluable experience, which is not only theirs, but is now appropriated by the Ukrainian and the global proletariat.

…In 1919, many protagonists of the Bavarian Council Republic viewed in their victory as totally fulfilled, and thought that it is possible to start constructing communistic relations in all aspects of social life. But the great Communist revolutionary, Eugen Leviné , disagreed; he understood that the isolated Council Bavaria was doomed, and that with the given deadly hostile forces it is pointless to contemplate communistic changes in culture and education, but is instead necessary to struggle to the very end, to inflict maximum damage upon the enemy and by a glorious defeat to inspire the German and the global proletariat to future struggle. Defeat during a fierce struggle gives the proletariat invaluable class lessons as opposed to defeat during compromise. This also holds true for the strike movement. If a strike is broken after the workers allow themselves to be fooled, the only result is complete demoralisation. But if the strike is defeated after a fierce struggle due to a lack of forces, the result is a learned lesson; one which shows that given enough forces, the forces of a whole collective, a whole city or even country, victory is a real prospect.

Currently, proletarian class struggle occurs in two weakly interacting dimensions. In one, there is the spontaneous, ‘wild’ proletarian protest, whereby the protesting workers have a very indefinite understanding of how and for what to struggle; these are easily deceived and suppressed by the class enemy. In another, there is a multitude of small revolutionary groups, which are rather weakly connected to the masses. With the given relative isolation of the two dimensions of proletarian struggle, there is no real prospect of a victorious social revolution. Only once the working masses understand the impossibility of eliminating their misery within the framework of the capitalist system, and once they comprehend the necessity of an absolute social revolution – then and only then will this revolution morph from ideas of some small groups into a regular revolutionary practice of the proletariat. Only when the struggle is developed under the control of the struggling masses themselves, while the most progressive elements find an integrated revolutionary organisation that can combine the struggle for concrete demands with the struggle for wider social revolution, only then will capitalism’s final hour arrive…

The ARS Collective

NOTES

(1) From Ukrainian «Майдан Незалежности» (Maidan Nezalezhnosti), Independence Square, the central square in Kiev. Was used by the protesting masses during the ‘Orange Revolution’ in the winter of 2004-2005. See 

(2) Ukrainian Information Bureau

(3) – ICC note: The ARS writes in a footnote that “we distinguish between Marx’s revolutionary ideas and the reformist ideology of Marxism (social-democracy, its modern successors, Trotskyists, etc)”. However, for us the ‘classical ‘ Marxist conception of the state is precisely that it is not neutral but is an instrument of class rule, and it is the Stalinists and Trotskyists who have distorted this ‘classical’ position. . 

On June 25, a public meeting took place in the city of Santiago-the second most important city in the Dominican Republic-organized by the Internationalist Discussion Nucleus of the Dominican Republic (Núcleo de Discusión Internacionalista de la República Dominicana, NDIRD). This is NDIRD's second public meeting, to which the ICC was invited to give a presentation on the theme of "The Crisis and Decadence of Capitalism."[1]

The meeting was opened by the NDIRD comrades, who discussed the importance of open, fraternal public meetings with the goal of disseminating the left communist perspective. The ICC's presentation was limited to 20 minutes, so that the largest amount of time was utilized for debate.

In total, more than 25 people attended the meeting. The presence of a significant number of young people (close to half of all attendees) is both noteworthy and characteristic of public meetings conducted in other parts of Latin American in which the ICC has participated. The attendees were sincerely interested on the theme of the meeting. The debate that followed expressed a genuine anxiety over the crisis of capitalism, and its effects on the working class and humanity as a whole.

Below is a brief review of some of the questions brought up during the meeting:

How do you explain the artificial markets created by high levels of debt?

A young woman asked this question in response to part of the presentation in which we stated that in order for capitalism to expand, it requires solvent markets; that is, it requires markets with the capacity to consume the commodities produced. Capitalism's entry into its decadent phase-a period that began around the time of the First World War-brought about the progressive diminishing of such solvent markets. To counter "this reduction of solvent markets outside of the capitalist sphere, the bourgeoisie began using credit as a palliative measure, a measure that has been heavily used from the 1960s on. Hence, a decadent capitalism created an artificial, credit-based market in order to survive." (Presentation).

For this reason, since the 1970s, countries on the periphery of capitalism-including Latin American states-began a process of massive indebtedness in order to be able to purchase the goods and services produced in the First World. That is how, in the last four decades of the last century, peripheral nations accumulated debts so massive they were practically impossible to repay, and which only continued to grow. Payments on these debts constituted a significant percentage of each nation's GDP.

An example, from recent history, of artificial markets is the rapid growth of the real estate market in the United States, which was based on the credit-based purchases of real estate. This ‘real estate bubble' burst, "When credit could not be repaid because of the worldwide crisis and mortgage interest rates began edging up, the credit system collapsed. At this point, what came to the fore were the internal contradictions of capitalism; of the saturation of solvent markets. This is at the same time a credit crisis and a palliative."

If the 1929 economic crisis was followed by a period of recovery, why are we not seeing the type of growth that took place later (in the 1950s and 1960s)?

The answer we gave to this question is that the 1929 crisis was the first great crisis of the period of decadence, the effects of which were felt in the 1930s, and which led to the Second World War. We also stated that the recovery that followed WWII was important, and was a product of Keynesian policies, the growth in productivity, and the more efficient exploitation of pre-capitalist economies in the periphery and of what was left of such economies in the industrialized world. While these measures worked for a while, by the 1960s they had become inefficient, as capitalism entered into another crisis. In response to the new crisis, the bourgeoisie resorted to the massive extension of consumer credit; this measure allowed capitalism to postpone a debilitating collapse of its economy, a collapse which we are now witnessing.

We submit that the current crisis will be more devastating that the Great Depression of 1929. As we argued during the presentation, the current crisis is a credit crisis. The only way out for the bourgeoisie is more massive levels of indebtedness, which will inevitably lead to an even greater crisis in the future.

What can the proletariat do, when its ranks are shrinking due to high unemployment?

This question was asked by one of the attendees, who was worried that in the "free trade zone" of Santiago, where there's a high concentration of factories and assembly plants, the economic crisis has brought about high levels of unemployment. We answered that one of the most painful aspects of the crisis of capitalism is the rapid growth in unemployment. This, however, does not mean the proletariat is disappearing, as there cannot be a bourgeoisie without the proletariat to exploit. A worker does not cease to be part of the proletariat because he/she is unemployed; in fact, we have been witnessing protests by the unemployed of some nations. In addition, the proletariat is not comprised solely of factory workers. Public sector employees, teachers, health care workers, etc., are also part of the working class, sectors of the proletariat that are by no means small or insignificant in Latin America.

Without a doubt, the economic crisis greatly affects the working class, who bear the brunt of the recession. But these are also the circumstances that lead them to the class struggle, in the Dominican Republic as well as abroad.

Why does the ICC talk about regional and local imperialism, when there's a worldwide crisis to discuss?

In our presentation we stated that the current economic crisis-which is also the next stage in the ongoing crisis of capitalism-has consequences that are not limited to the economy or the class struggle. It also informs nations' foreign policies. A constant variable in the history of capitalism has been the national bourgeoisies' fights over available markets. We do not expect the current crisis to change that. However, this crisis is taking place at a time when imperialist blocs have disappeared, evidenced by the fall of the Soviet bloc and the ongoing weakening of American imperialism. These circumstances have led to anarchy in foreign relations, in which each nation's bourgeoisie attempts to impose itself in regional and global geopolitics. Two recent examples are the pathetic attempts of Iran to set itself as a regional power in the Middle East; and Venezuela's use of crude oil and "21st Century Socialism" ideology to make inroads in the geopolitics of Latin America.

The international conflicts that have taken place after the fall of the Soviet bloc will only intensify as the crisis continues to unfold. The proletariat should avoid taking sides in such conflicts, as support for any of the national or regional bourgeoisies only benefit the ruling class.

Faced with barbarism, what type of prospect can humanity expect?

This question reflects in the most definitive manner what we wrote in the introduction to this piece: "expressed a genuine anxiety over the crisis of capitalism, and its effects on the working class and humanity as a whole."

The ICC argued that now more than ever, the future of humanity is being affected by the contradictions of capitalism. This calls for an answer from the only revolutionary class: the proletariat. Though the crisis creates more and more misery and pauperization, it also pushes the working class toward the class struggle. Of course, nowadays the conditions of struggle make things more difficult, as it is not clear how to conduct the struggle, or what to do when a factory closes its doors. Another obstacle is the proletariat's doubts about its revolutionary capacity. But as the crisis unfolds, particularly as the working class continues to experience further attacks on its living standards-with the full blessing of the state-we will see an international proletariat with renewed solidarity and a willingness to fight. In this context, the proletariat will develop its class analysis, and gradually will recover confidence in its strength.

The ICC, as a revolutionary organization, attempts to the best of its abilities to encourage the development of this dynamic. The choices we face are simply, socialism or barbarism-a barbarism that would destroy the entirety of humanity. Faced with such choices, groups such as the NDIRD, which hold an internationalist perspective, play an important role for the Dominican and international proletariat. Much like those of us who are here, who express doubts and ask questions in the context of internationalist analysis, we must debate with one another.

Expressed Interest for Discussion and Exchange

Despite the short time available for the meeting (approximately 1.5 hours), we were able to engage the attendees in debate, which took place at the same time as we all enjoyed a traditional Dominican drink.

Many of the attendees expressed enthusiasm for future opportunities to participate in similar public meetings. As one of the NDIRD comrades observed, the attendees demonstrated genuine interest for debate and for the internationalist perspective. 

We warmly salute the coordination of this meeting, as well as the political and organizational abilities of the NDIRD. We encourage the NDIRD to continue to organize public meetings, and we pledge our support.

This meeting was a reassuring event, as it demonstrates that the internationalist perspective has the capacity to unite the proletariat of any country, however small it may be.

ICC, July 14, 2009.

[1] See "Reunión Pública en República Dominicana: Al Encuentro de las Posiciones de la Izquierda Comunista," https://es.internationalism.org/node/2446 [114] ).

In what follows, we publish Alicante Health and Social Services Workers Assembly's solidarity communiqué with two workers collectives in struggle: Vigo metal workers (see "Vigo: Los Métodos Sindicales Conducen a la Derrota [118]") and Vesuvius de Langreo workers (who published this communiqué on their blog: https://vesuviussomostodos.blogspot.com [119]).

The themes of solidarity and the extension of the struggle are a key preoccupation for many workers, especially younger ones. These themes express a still embryonic form of consciousness regarding the crisis of capitalism and the impossibility of fighting in isolation, with each sector of the working class fighting by itself, each company's workers struggling by themselves. These themes of solidarity and the extension of the struggle express a break from union tactics that focus only on the enterprise, the individual sector, the corporation, the particular.

From this perspective, it's a positive sign when workers' collectives take the initiative to write solidarity communiqués to express their thoughts and make proposals, contributing in this manner to the expansion of discussion and activity regarding class solidarity and the extension and unification of the struggle.

ICC

To Vigo steelworkers; To Vesuvius (Langreo) workers; To all workers currently engaged in  struggle; and to all who have not yet begun their fight

We, the AFEMA (Alicante Workers' Assembly) - who have spent several months in a struggle to obtain due payment of wages, and against the precarious conditions in which we service the disabled - want to express our most profound support for and solidarity with the workers from the Vesusius factory in Langreo, and the metal workers in Vigo.

Both of these collectives, in much the same way as our own, are facing an attack on their living conditions. Using the current economic crisis as an excuse, we are threatened by closures, lay-offs, the EREs, and a standard of living in free fall. All of us, the working class as a whole, are being attacked by a system that does not take into consideration the needs of people.

We believe that, despite appearances, our struggles have a common origin and share the same interests: the fulfillment of our needs; the fight for decent living conditions for ourselves, our comrades, our families, etc.; the defense of our class interests. These are the reasons that have lead us to express fraternity to all workers engaged in class struggles, attempting in this manner to create a forum in which workers can express solidarity with one another, a solidarity which is our main class weapon.

As our struggle (modestly) evolved, we came to two conclusions that we consider to be essential:

• That the struggle must be managed by ourselves, through our assemblies, our committees, our mobilizations, and we must always be suspicious of intermediaries and professionals far removed from the realities experienced by the working class.
• That the only way our struggle will have a fighting chance is through the spread of the struggle and our unity with other workers. Going beyond the confines of our companies or our sectors, and becoming acquainted with the struggles of our other comrades is the only path to success. For, if the power of the state, the owners, the bosses, and the trade unions divide us, isolate us, and alienate us; the power of the working class becomes our unity, our solidarity, our means of communication.

We, once again, salute our comrades' struggles at Vigo and Langreo, as well as the struggles of all workers regardless of location, as it is our understanding that their struggle is our own, and hoping that one day we will be able to contribute to their fight more than just words.

ONE CLASS, ONE FIGHT!

--Platform of the AFEMA (Alicante) Health and Social Services Workers Assembly

We are publishing below an article we have just received from comrades in Australia about the recent bus drivers' strike in Sydney.

ICC

On Monday, August 24, 130 Bus Drivers in Sydney staged a wildcat strike in defiance of and denounced by bosses, state bureaucrats and the union alike. The Busways workers at the Blacktown depot in Sydney's west walked off the job at 3:30am, causing the cancelation of peak services in the Blacktown, Mount Druitt and Rouse Hills areas.

The workers' decision to strike was made after a breakdown in the negotiation between unions and Busways management over timetable reform, due to be implemented in October. Facing an economy in ruin and a public transport system in shambles, private bus operators, hand-in-hand with the state government, are attempting to slash costs and impose speed-ups through the proposed changes. Drivers have protested the new timetables arguing that they represent an attack upon drivers' working conditions and will be impossible to meet, impinging upon break periods and putting pressure on drivers to exceed speed limits, putting themselves, passengers and other motorists at risk. "The new timetable means less time to complete our routes. We will run late and be blamed by the public. Because we'll run late, there'll also be less break time", one worker explained. [1]

For months now the TWU (Transport Workers' Union) and the company have been in drawn out negotiations over the new timetables which were unable to come to any positive conclusion. More than this, the TWU has also been complicit in the attacks upon transport workers' living and working conditions in recent years, notably through the various measures of increased ‘flexibility' in conditions. Following the complete breakdown of the negotiations, workers angered by the lack of support from, and outright betrayal by, the union, made the decision to walk off the job without consultation with, and in defiance of, the TWU and Busways management. "We are fed up. We have been through the system to try to get changes and nothing ever happens. We can't get the union to do anything about anything. The purpose of unions was supposed to be to increase conditions, not decrease them", one worker is quoted as saying [1]; another that: "The union blamed the workers for going on strike. We decided that we couldn't wait for the union. The union is only worried about the $60 a month we pay in dues".

The response of the bosses and the union to the strike was to bring it to an end as quickly as possible. Within hours Busways management and the TWU made an about-face, agreeing to further talks over the proposed timetables, drivers making the decision to return to work at 9:30am, after 6 hours, having sat out peak morning services. Despite this decision, drivers expressed their intention to take further strike action if the company refuses to drops its reform agenda. However, these prospects were met with threats of repression and the decision by the Industrial Relations Commission to ban further strike action.

The rapid response of the union to contain and shut down the strike confirms that only by workers taking the struggle into their own hands, as the drivers did, can the defence of living and working conditions be made effective. However, the result of the strike has not yet been victory for the drivers. The renewed round of talks between the TWU and Busways management concluded with an agreement to proceed with the timetable reform as originally planned on the cynical condition of a review conducted by the company after its initiation.

We extend our solidarity to the Busways workers and recognise the strike as an important moment in the context of class struggle in Australia. In response to the bankruptcy of the capitalist system and the attacks upon workers by capital, the working class must gain confidence and strength in itself and its struggle, both in order to defend itself on a day-to-day basis and ultimately, to assert offensively its own class-interests. For this task it is absolutely essential that workers take the struggle into their own hands, and more than this, fight to extend and generalise this struggle. Isolation, such as the drivers' found themselves in - compounded by the hysterical spectacle of denunciation of the "bolshie", "rogue" drivers within the ruling class mass media - is a fundamental cause for the curtailment of the struggle. Only by taking the struggle directly in hand, outside of the union framework, and generalising it across all social, sectoral and geographic divisions, can the working class build the strength necessary to win these struggles.

Nic. 09/09/09

[1] - WSWS, Australia: Bus drivers strike in defiance of union, 26/08/09 (https://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/wild-a26.shtml [124])

In August 2009, 200,000 hectares of forest burned to the ground across the European Union. These are the figures calculated by the eminent ‘European System for Information on Forest Fires' which stresses that this figure goes well beyond the 20,000 hectares that burned in 2008. Greece, Spain, Italy, Turkey, France, but also Portugal in the spring and Sweden and Norway in June have been through a particularly catastrophic year, even though the European public authorities have been boasting of a drastic reduction in the over 480,000 hectares that have  burned annually since 1980. The picture is similar in California, where tens of thousands of residents have been hurriedly evacuated in response to wild fires in recent months.

Obviously, the immediate cause of all this is the particularly unfavourable weather conditions in comparison to last year, when a wet summer greatly reduced the danger of fires in the Mediterranean region. Even so, in Greece, 15,000 hectares burned down near the city of Rhodes, while in the previous year fires killed 77 people and burned 250,000 hectares of forest north of Athens. The Greek government has since taken no measures whatever to provide a minimum of safety to the population. Result: this year, with a very dry summer, the fires have reached the very gates of the capital, burning with unprecedented violence. For three days as the fires were at their height, the government offered the population the choice between evacuation or dying in the flames. The same government which told us that this year's fires were no worse than the average observed since 1980. The callous attitude of the Greek leaders has provoked a considerable amount of anger in the population and this has received some publicity abroad, particularly in France. But the French media have been less verbose in denouncing the fires which ravaged 1300 hectares near Marseille, or the 7000 destroyed in Corsica.

Of course, the dry conditions can make fires burn uncontrollably; of course, you can't predict everything. But one thing is certain: property developers and also those practising intensive agricultural methods, direct products of capitalist folly, are prepared to do anything to make a profit and have acted hand in hand with local authorities and central states to ensure that they can exploit high risk areas. It's these very same public bodies who then turn round and tell us they are doing all they can to deal with the problem of wild fires. An article in the French satirical magazine Le Canard Enchâiné (5/8/9) exposed the farce of the French public powers pretending to be engaged in intense activity against arsonists, which boiled down to arresting a couple of fire-starters while ignoring the much more serious problems behind the fires.   

Fire, water, earth and air: capitalism is contaminating all the natural elements or making them more and more dangerous to humanity.

Wilma 27/8/9.

In the summer of 2008 we published two articles on 1968 in Germany, which took up the international and historical framework of the events[1]. In these articles we emphasised that the protests of 1968 which drew so much attention expressed an accumulation of anger which was not just a temporary phenomenon but brought a more profound subterranean movement to the surface.

Although these protests were marked by the reappearance of the economic crisis this aspect was not yet dominant. The big economic demands still remained in the background in Germany until 1969. However, the resistance against inhumane working conditions gained more force: be it the incredibly undignified treatment of the "guest" workers (the migrant work force was called "guest" workers); the situation of the mass workers; cultural misery - all these factors played a role in the rejection of the "society of abundance". The idea was gaining momentum amongst the younger generation that "we do not want the western system, but we do not want the eastern system either; instead we need a ‘democratic socialism', we want the rule of workers' councils". Moreover the feeling was widespread that the existing institutions are not ours. All these movements could not just be reduced to economic aspects but they threw up many social-political questions.

The reappearance of the social question which had been proclaimed dead

Behind this accumulation of anger a fissure in the relationship between the social classes was opening. A whole epoch drew to a close. Slowly, a new, but undefeated generation emerged which had not participated in the war and which was not ready to accept slogging in the capitalist treadmill without any resistance. The search for something different, as yet undefined, had begun. This new generation of students and young workers was not chained by the counter-revolution which had raged against the working class since the 1920s, and it wanted to develop a new perspective.

While in France the mass strikes of the workers gave birth to a feeling of solidarity and cohesion between workers and students in their struggle against the government, the workers in Germany had not yet appeared massively on the scene in spring 1968. Following the wave of protests after the assassination attempt against Rudi Dutschke in April 1968 and the demonstrations against the emergency laws in summer 1968, the student-dominated movement ebbed away. Hundreds of thousands of youth looked for a force which could act as a pole of reference, give them an orientation and act as a lever for overcoming this society. While some of the youth turned towards violent actions and while many others, especially students, became mobilised in the formation of leftist organisations, to have a better "impact on the workers in the factories", many elements of proletarian origin turned away from the protests altogether and withdrew in a certain sense. One of the characteristics of the development after 1968 was that the student youth either withdrew or large parts were sucked up by leftists, while proletarian resistance started to get stronger at the work place[2]. Within this movement young workers and above all apprentices took the lead.

Proletarian youth at the spearhead of the resistance

In spring 1969 protests of apprentices moved more into the foreground. On May 1 1969 apprentices formed their own "blocs" at trade union demonstrations. On June 7 1969 at a big demo in Köln some 10,000 mainly young workers gathered under the banner "Self-determination and class struggle - instead of ‘co-determination' and fake trade union struggles" (‘co-determination' was a long-practised method of institutionalising cooperation between shop stewards and bosses for the daily running of the companies). It was possible to hold meetings with a majority participation of apprentices in different cities, where they did not only talk about the immediate situation and immediate demands, but the general historical situation[3]. The protests of the young workers played a dynamic role in unleashing of the September 1969 strikes. Precisely because younger workers often showed a greater combativity and were more fearless than their elder co-workers, it became possible to establish a bridge towards the older generation through the means of class struggle because, as described in earlier articles, there was a particularly deep division between the generations in Germany.

The wave of strikes in September 69

Already in spring 1969 a wave of small and limited but spontaneous strikes, which all turned around demands for wage increases, had broken out. In the beginning of September there was a small but real wave, which hit the main industrial centres in West Germany. The steel and metal industries were at the centre of the movement.

27,000 steel workers downed tools on September 2 at Hoesch-Dortmund for two days. Following this, workers in one factory after another downed tools.

Here are some centres of the movement:

• September 4-5th: Rheinstahl-Mülhlheim-Ruhr with 2,900 strikers;
• September 5-6th: 12,000 striking workers at Mannesmann-Duisburg, 1,000 striking workers at AEG Mülheim;
• September 5-9th: 3,300 striking workers at Rheinstahl Gelsenkirchen
• September 9-11th: 10,000 striking miners at Ruhrkohle AG

Although the centre of the movement was in the Ruhr area, workers in other towns joined the movement. On September 8-9th 1,800 workers at Rheinstahl Brackwede (near Bielefeld) went on strike, in Sulzbach-Rosenberg at Maximiliams steel works on September 8th 3,000 workers, at Klöckner stopped work between September 5-13th, while in Bremen and in Georgsmarien steelworks in Osnabruck 3,000-6,000 workers were on strike.

Another centre of the movement was the Saarland - at Neunkircher steel mills 6,000 steelworkers went on strike from September 4-8th; and 20,000 miners stopped working from September 6-11th. Between September 9-19th Howald docks at Kiel with 7,000 workers followed suit.

Although the situation in southern Germany was calmer than elsewhere, there were strikes at Heidelberg printing machines in Geisslingen, where on September 5th more than 1,000 workers went on strike, and at Daimler Benz Sindelfingen (near Stuttgart) several short work stoppages occurred.

Whether in the Ruhr area, where the spark also ignited movements in smaller companies with just a few hundred employees or outside of the big cities (as at Hueck-Lippstadt or in the textile industry in the area around Munster), or in the public service sector, where several hundred employees in public transport and city cleaning went on strike in several cities, this wave of strikes showed that the working class in Germany was once again raising its head. However, in comparison to France, it becomes clear that while the movement in Germany on a political level moved in the same direction as the workers in France, the struggles in Germany never reached the same massive scale as in France. An illustration: in May/June 1968 in France some 10 million workers went on strike; in Germany the movement involved only some 140,000 workers.

Spontaneous reappearance of the classic tools of struggle of the 20th century

Nevertheless, more than 140,000 striking workers in more than 70 companies showed that the working class in Germany had embarked upon the same road as their class brothers and sisters elsewhere.

Everywhere the workers raised similar demands: wage increases, payment for strike days, no repressive measures against striking workers. Everywhere a similar course of events: workers downed tools spontaneously - against the decisions of the shop stewards and the trade unions. At Hoesch Dortmund the workers spontaneously gathered around a fire engine of the plant and took decisions collectively in a general assembly which gathered almost permanently. At Rheinstahl in Gelsenkirchen but also in the Saarland workers staged marches on company premises and called upon other workers to join their movement; often they marched into town. At Ruhrkohle AG a protest march ended in front of the administrative building. The workers always took the initiative; they organised the strikes themselves and avoided getting locked up behind factory gates.

Taking up the tradition which had been buried for decades by the counterrevolution, the questions of extension and self-organisation of the strikes, coming together in demonstrations, collective decision-making in general assemblies, the election of strike committees with revocable delegates - all this came into the foreground.

Everywhere the same opponents clashed. In several cities (Saarbrucken, Osnabruck, Dortmund) workers marched to the union headquarters and protested against their policy. In Dortmund hundreds of angry steel workers wanted to storm the union building and expose how the unions were working for the benefit of the capitalists. When, at general assemblies such as at Hoesch-Dortmund, workers exposed the sabotage by the unions, the shop stewards tried to switch off the microphone. "A DKP member [German Communist Party, Stalinist] spoke. Everyone should be allowed to voice his concerns and opinions through the microphone, but we will no longer tolerate anybody who wants to speak against the shop stewards and the trade unions" (quoted in September Strikes 1969, of the Pahl-Rugenstein publishing house, close to the DKP, p. 61).

In several plants the strike committee negotiated alongside the shop stewards and the trade unions with the bosses, with the shop stewards and the trade unions often stabbing them in the back.

This wave of struggles, which weakened after September 1969, was also contained by the formation of the social-liberal coalition on October 21 1969 under Willy Brandt. Initially the ruling class in Germany had faced up to the rising tide of struggles in a clumsy way and with little tactical skill. They poured a lot of oil on the fire because of their very provocative attitude and by resorting quickly to repression. The election campaign which unfolded in autumn 1969 put a brake on the class struggle.

The class struggle does not unfold in a linear manner

After 1969 the struggles ebbed, until in autumn 1973 a new wave of struggles hit several sectors. Between 1969 and 1973 a series of small wildcat strikes occurred. Some examples: At Enka-Wuppertal at the end of April 1972 the workers went on strike against job cuts, and they took up direct contact with the employees of the same company in the Dutch city of Breda, who were also facing lay-offs. In protests against cuts of their Christmas bonuses and the cuts of other added payments at KHD_Deutz some 5,000 workers downed tools.

Early February (30 January-13 February 1973) workers at the car supplier Hülsbeck and Führt in Velbert (southern Ruhr area) went on strike. The strikers tried to make their struggle public - delegations of workers went to Bochum university in order to call for active solidarity from the students. They wrote leaflets together with students and pupils. Early February (8.2.-10.2.1973) the steel workers of Hoesch-Dortmund demanded a wage increase for all workers and rejected the deal which the trade unions had agreed upon. A permanent strike assembly, where some 500-1.000 workers were present all the time, met in the canteen. The shop stewards strangled the strike against resistance from the shop floor.

Whether in Duisburg-Huckingen in the steel-industry, at Karmann in Osnabruck, at Klöckner in Bremen, Pierburg in Neuss, the list of wildcat strikes in 1973 is very long. Between January 1972 and mid-June 1973, some 200,000 were involved in wildcat strikes. Many of these strikes were in protest against wage cuts accepted by the trade unions. During late summer 1973 the movement, which involved some 80,000 workers in around 100 companies, came to a peak in the strike at the Cologne Ford motor company in August 1973. 300 Turkish workers had been sacked because they returned late from holidays. In addition the company wanted to impose an increase of working speeds at the assembly line. Spontaneously several thousand workers, mainly Turks,  downed tools. They demanded 1 DeutschMark (today 0.50 Euro) for every worker, withdrawal of the redundancies, six weeks of paid holidays, reduction of work speed. The negotiations took place between the shop stewards (who acted in defence of the interests of the company) and the strike committee. But the striking workers did not manage to overcome the separation between the Turkish and German workers.

The wave of strikes of 1972-73 in the same way as those of 1969 had the following characteristics:

• general assemblies were formed which were in permanent session;
• these developed thanks to the initiative of the striking workers and against the resistance of the shop stewards;
• there were confrontations between striking workers and the official works councils and shop stewards;
• workers took the initiative to take up contact with workers of other companies;
• there were strong divisions amongst German and foreign workers;

Workers were quickly faced with repressive measures by bosses and police.

We have to keep the international context in mind because in Italy at the same time there were struggles by millions of workers in the "hot autumn of 1969", and this certainly stimulated the combativity of the working class in Germany.

Some conclusions

Even though the workers in Germany appeared on stage later than the workers in France and in a certain sense remained in second line, the reappearance of the working class in the cold war front line state of those days, where the working class together with the workers in Russia had suffered the severest defeat in the 1920s, contributed significantly to the change in the international balance of forces between capital and labour. The strikes of September 1969 played an important role in ending the counterrevolution.

Although the different components of the protest movement (protest against war and armaments, students protests, workers' strikes) did not seem to be linked to each other, there was a common denominator amongst them: the rejection of the logic of the system. The young generation which had appeared on stage was not ready to submit to the ideology and the expectations of the ruling class. While bourgeois propaganda tries to reduce the movement to only a few aspects and these aspects have been turned against the movement, we should not forget that at the start the movement was directed against the system.

The movement suffered from the strong burden of the "generation gap". The young rebellious generation looked at the older generation with suspicion and contempt. Today there are much better conditions for a unification of the different generations.

At the time many young people quickly lost hope for the establishment of a new society, since the working class at that time could not yet act as a point of reference. Many young people were absorbed mainly by leftist groups and led astray. But today there is the danger of a lack of perspectives. While many recognise the need for another society than capitalism, only very few are convinced that such a society is possible. But the destiny of the struggles, the perspectives of the struggles will depend on the conviction that a society without exploitation is not only necessary but also possible.

Weltrevolution, 15/7/09.

[1] https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/june/Germany-1968 [128]; https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/08/08/germany-1968-part2 [129]

[2] Mostly these meetings were disturbed by the activities of the leftist groups which emerged at the time. They strangled the rising willingness to debate. In the end the leftist groups contributed to the collapse of the movement of the apprentices, by snatching the initiative away from them and by wanting to recruit them for their activities (see Weltrevolution no 149).

[3] Between 1945-1969 most strikes in West Germany were small wildcat strikes:  

1965: 14 spontaneous strikes,

1966: 21 spontaneous strikes,

1967: 62 spontaneous strikes,

1968: 52 spontaneous strikes with some 50,000 employees,

1969: wave of strikes with more than 150,000 strikers.

Just over forty years ago, on 20th July 1969, a spacecraft landed on the surface of the moon. Apollo 11 was the first of six lunar landings that were to continue until the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. The last three missions were cancelled for lack of funds: to this day, Apollo 17 remains the last manned flight beyond Low Earth Orbit.[1]

For the millions who watched the moon landing on television, it was undeniably a moment of intense emotion. Who could fail to be touched by the images of Earth seen from the moon, to see the common birthplace of humanity so beautiful and yet so frail in the vast emptiness of space? Who could fail to admire the courage of the astronauts who had accomplished such an exploit? For the first time,humanity had set foot on another heavenly body. Beyond it, other planets, even other solar systems, suddenly seemed almost accessible. The Apollo expedition had made real John Kennedy's words, seven years earlier at Rice University in Houston - words which seemed to open a new epoch of human confidence and expansion, led, needless to say, by the United States with at their head a young, confident and dynamic president: "man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred.The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space (...) We mean to be a part of [the new space era] - we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding (...) Well, space is there (...) and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked".[2]

Reality was very different.

On 20th November 1962,in a private conversation with NASA Administrator James E. Webb, Kennedy declared: "Everything that we do ought to really be tied into getting onto the Moon ahead of the Russians (...) otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I'm not that interested in space (...) the only justification for it [the cost] (...) is because we hope to beat them [the Soviet Union] and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them".[3]

Far from opposing "weapons of mass destruction" in space, the Americans had been trying to develop them ever since World War II, with the help in particular ofscientists and technicians like Werner von Braun who had taken part in the German war effort.[4] During the 1950s, the RAND Corporation and others developed a whole panoply of ideas on nuclear dissuasion, and the means to counter-attack with nuclear weapons in the case of an enemy first strike (one rather fantastic proposal presented by Boeing in 1959 even envisaged the construction of missile launch sites on the moon![5]). Kennedy's words of "peace" were thus perfectly hypocritical, and could barely hide the fright caused to the American ruling class - and spread throughout the population by its propaganda - first by the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the inability of the US Army to match it,[6]then by the Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin's successful first manned spaceflight. The shock caused by Sputnik was all the greater in that the US had thought themselves to be leading in the development of missiles and space weaponry. On the contrary, the USSR seemed to have overtaken the United States in missile technology, above all in the technology of ICBMs which would be capable of striking directly at US territory. In January 1958, Hugh Dryden, director of the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) published a report on A National Research Program for Space Technology, in which he declared: "It is of great urgency and importance to our country both from consideration of our prestige as a nation as well as military necessity that this challenge [Sputnik] be met by an energetic program of research and development for the conquest of space...".[7] The result was the transformation, in 1958, of the NACA - a commission established during World War I essentially with the aim of developing military aviation - into the NASA, whose budget was literally to explode: from a NACA budget of a mere $100 million in 1957, the NASA was to swallow up $25 billion in the Apollo programme alone.

However, the fundamental reason for undertaking the Apollo programme was not directly military: the enormous Saturn V launchers were not adapted to carry ballistic missiles, while the launch bases were too vast and too exposed to be of use in wartime. On the contrary, the Apollo programme consciously diverted major funds from more explicitly military ICBM programmes. In 1961, the Weisner report prepared for the incoming president insisted that the main reason for the space effort should be "...the factor of national prestige. Space exploration and exploits have captured the imagination of the peoples of the world. During the next few years the prestige of the United States will in part be determined by the leadership we demonstrate in space activities".[8] For Kennedy, this factor of prestige certainly came first. Presenting his government to a joint session of Congress on 25th May 1961, Kennedy clearly placed the space programme in the context of the imperialist rivalry between the USA and the USSR and the period of decolonisation by the old European empires: "The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe - Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East - the lands of the rising peoples. Their revolution is the greatest in human history. They seek an end to injustice, tyranny, and exploitation (...) theirs is a revolution which we would support regardless (...) of which political or economic route they should choose to freedom.  For the adversaries of freedom [by implication, the USSR] did not create the revolution; nor did they create the conditions which compel it. But they are seeking to ride the crest of its wave - to capture it for themselves. Yet their aggression is more often concealed than open".[9]

In other words, the old empires (above all the French and British empires) have created a catastrophic situation in which national "revolutions" are likely to fall into the Soviet camp, not because they are conquered militarily but because the USSR represents a more attractive option for the new local bourgeois cliques emerging from the process of decolonisation. In this context, Kennedy put forward a whole series of measures for strengthening the US military, increasing military and civilian aid to friendly governments, etc. At the end of his speech came the Apollo programme: "Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take (...) No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind [than sending a man to the moon]" (ibid).

Just like the "civilising mission" of the European colonial powers in the 19th century, the US commitment to this great "adventure for freedom" came with a big dose of hypocrisy: it certainly served as a mask to hide America's real imperialist aims in its struggle against the USSR for domination of the planet. In this sense, the real target of the Apollo 11 mission was not on the moon, but on Earth.

Nonetheless, it would be simplistic to see only the hypocrisy. The lunar expedition was also a colossal risk: a project of such cost, such complexity, and such novelty had never been undertaken before. The very fact that it was undertaken at all was also the expression of the American ruling class' remarkable confidence in its own abilities - a self-confidence which had been totally lost by the old powers, bled white after two world wars and losing ground economically and militarily.The United States, on the contrary, seemed to be at the height of their powers: they had suffered no bombardment of their home territory, and had emerged fromthe Second World War as the only undisputed victor, with an unequalled military power and apparently in the midst of an economic boom whose prosperity remained an object of admiration and envy for other countries. In the USA, the ruling ideology had, so to speak, lagged behind reality and it continued to express the self-confidence of a triumphant bourgeoisie which would have been more appropriate to the 19th century, before the bloodbath of 1914-18 demonstrated that the capitalist class was henceforth an obstacle to the future progress of the human species.

In 1962, Kennedy proposed to send a man to the moon in ten years. In the end, it was only seven years later that Apollo 11 touched down on the moon. But far from marking the beginning of a new triumphant era of expansion into space, in the image of the expansion to the West in the 19th century, the lunar programme's success marked the moment when capitalism's decadence caught up with the American Dream. The country was bogged down in the Vietnam War, Kennedy had been assassinated, and the first signs of the economic crisis were beginning to appear - the USA would abandon the gold standard in 1971, bringing to an end the Bretton Woods system which had guaranteed the international financial system's stability since World War II.

America's space programme suffered the same fate as its declining economy, military invincibility, and ideological self-confidence. The objective fixed by Reagan for the 1980s was no longer exploration but the"Star Wars" programme: the out and out militarisation of orbital space. The ambition to develop cheaper and more effective means to send men and equipment into space thanks to the space shuttle, came to nothing: today the shuttle is thirty years old and the USA is itself dependent on equally aging Russian rockets to supply the International Space Station (ISS). In 2004,George W. Bush announced a new "vision" for space exploration, with the completion of the ISS and the launch of a new moon mission in 2020 in order to prepare later missions to Mars. But as soon as one looks a little closer, it is obvious that this is nothing but a bluff. The cost of an expedition to Mars would be truly astronomical, and at a time when the US government is sinking billions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is nothing to show where it will find the necessary funds for the NASA. And although Obama is presented as a new Kennedy - young, dynamic, and a bearer of hope - it is obvious that he has not, and cannot have, Kennedy's ambition. The United States are no longerthe triumphant power of forty years ago, but a giant with feet of clay, increasingly contested by second or even third-rate powers. Even the plans for manned lunar flights are more and more under attack within the Obama administration, let alone manned flights to Mars.[10] There will be no "new space era": the great powers are on the contrary engaged in a race to militarise near space with spy satellites, and no doubt soon with laser-armed anti-missile satellites; Low Earth Orbit is becoming an enormous scrap heap of obsolete satellites and abandoned rockets. World capitalism is a moribund society which has lost its ambition and its self-confidence, and the great powers think of space only in terms of protecting their own petty interests on Earth.

Can we reach the stars?

Of all the human species' exploits, the greatest is certainly that undertaken by our distant ancestors 100,000 years ago, when they left humanity's cradle in the Rift Valley to populate first the African continent, then the rest of the world. We will never know what qualities of courage and curiosity, of knowledge and openness towards the new, our predecessors called on as they set out to discover a new world. This great adventure was that of a primitive communist society (or rather a proliferation of such societies). We cannot say whether humanity will one day be capable of leaving Earth and travelling to other planets, or even other stars, but this much is certain: such an exploit will only be carried out by a communist society which no longer pours gigantic resources in war, which has repaired the damage done to the planet by capitalist anarchy, which has put an end to the terrible waste of its youth's physical and mental energy in poverty and unemployment, which undertakes exploration and scientific research for the good of mankind and the joy of learning, and which will be able to look to the future with confidence and enthusiasm.

Jens

[1] LEO is defined as between 160 and 2,000km above the Earth's surface.

[2] 12th September 1962: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_moon [132]

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race [133].

[4] Werner von Braun was responsible for the development of the German V2 missiles which were used to bombard London at the end of the war. After the war he worked on the American ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) programme, before becoming the architect of the Saturn V launcher used in the Apollo missions, and director of the Marshall Space Flight Centre.

[5] See "Take off and nuke the sitefrom orbit" in a 2007 issue of SpaceReview [134].

[6] In December 1957, the US Army's attempt to launch a Vanguard rocket failed miserably in full view of the TV cameras. The need to put an end to the rivalry between Army and Navy aerospace programmes was one of the motives behind the creation of the NASA.

[7] Quoted in Mark Erickson, Into the unknown together - the DOD, NASA, and early spaceflight.

[8] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html [135]

[9] See Kennedy's speech at the JFK Library.

[10] According to a report just presented to the White House, the NASA will need an extra $3 billion a year from 2014 onwards if it is to undertake missions beyond Earth orbit, its budgets having been eroded by the transfer of funds to other, more pressing needs. 

Twenty-three suicides (plus 13 attempted) in eighteen months at France Telecom! Here's a new, tragic testimony to the fact that proletarians are more and more confronted by a climate of terror and unbearable pressures at work. For the MD of the firm, Didier Lombard, rejecting any responsibility for victims of a ferocious exploitation, it's just a question of a simple effect of "fashion" which only affects "fragile people". What cynicism!
For this unscrupulous capitalist boss, whose mea culpa is only a simple imperative of communications, the tragedy doesn't reside in the fact that human beings find themselves pounded by the implacable logic of profitability for capital, but in the discredit which affects the image of his business!
Faced with this development dictated by the laws of the cash register, a number of politicians, particularly on the left, make a show of emotion. These are the same hypocrites who have favoured massive redundancies in this firm for twenty years, thus contributing to accelerating the infernal speed-ups leading to today's tragedy. These are the same socialists who have multiplied stress through the introduction of the 35-hour week, including a flexibility that makes all work a more and more demanding chore. These are the same politicians who brought France Telecom into the stock-exchange in 1997 with management methods that we know today! At the time, it was none other than French Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who proclaimed with pride, that the "change of the enterprise was a great success!" Elsewhere a France Telecom manager gives us a good idea of this "great success": "My job is to make cuts of 5% every six months. As much as you say it has been achieved, the question is knowing if one can cut an arm or a leg". To make this type of objectives palatable after the wave of suicides, it's not surprising that they are looking at more subtle ways of delivering the blows: in the sense of giving a "green number" for a supplementary control of the workers and management spreading out the effects at this firm. But basically nothing will change: it's quite clear that the objective of capital will always be profitability and more pressure still on the workers, up to their physiological and psychological limits. This is the dynamic and capitalism can only be about the exhaustion of the labour force. Today, it's not only the shop floor workers who are being squeezed like lemons, but also the engineers, the administrative and commercial sectors that the crisis and extreme competition have proletarianised and whose conditions of work are equally degraded. Already, at the dawn of its development, to assure its profit, Marx wrote in Capital: "capitalist production, which is essentially production of surplus-value, absorbing extra work (...) imposes the deterioration of the work force of men by depriving them of their normal conditions of functioning and development, physical as moral, producing the exhaustion and early death of this workforce". Today, it is the intensification of the conditions of work which pushes to this exhaustion.
The phenomenon of suicides is unfortunately not new, nor limited to France. The wave of suicides at work follows a growing and continual increase, even if it's deliberately unquantified. Since the 90s, the number of suicides has been aggravated by the violence and brutality of the economic crisis. It shows the fact that the capitalist world has no future, no perspective other than to generate social misery, barbarity and death. Throughout Europe and the world, the stress of work continues to cause havoc. In the US, the Department of Labor announced that: "the number of suicides at work has risen 28% for 2008. In all, 251 have been noted, the highest number since 1992". In China they've multiplied with factory closures. In France 2007, there was some publicity around suicides at Technicentre of Renault, PSA, EDF-GDF (Chinon), in the banks, Sodexho...
Nothing has changed, if anything it's worse. The pressure and the harassment of the bosses, the fear of unemployment and the blackmail of systematic redundancies, the price of growing overwork is invoked. The phenomenon of exhaustion at work, "burn out" is growing to an unprecedented level. What's called "moral harassment" is becoming the rule, a strategic given destined to adapt workers to sudden change or to straightaway get rid of "undesirable" workers, or those that are insufficiently productive, at the least cost. "Specialists" exist for this purpose of harassment, what's called "Cleaners" or "transition managers". They are paid well for this dirty work: destroy the personality of those who are labelled "ineffective" or "unsuitable", isolate the militant workers, push them into error or towards the door, often the oldest, and at the cheapest cost. There's a double objective:
- push those out that can't stand it at the least cost;
- demoralise and intimidate the others who stay and render them more docile and malleable.
However, the conditions of exploitation and the pursuit of attacks linked to the never-ending economic crisis will, in time, push anger and the collective struggle, solidarity and consciousness forward and deeper. The future is not competition between proletarians, but their growing union against exploitation. It's this future that gives hope, preparing for massive and unified struggle and, in time, the revolutionary perspective.  

WH 18/9/9

We are publishing below an article on the Kurdish situation by the ICC's section in Turkey

Debate on what was initially called the Kurdish Reform and then the Democratic Reform have been going on for quite a while in Turkey now. It is being claimed that the rulers of the state woke up from the dream of Turkism one night, and decided to stop oppressing the Kurds and turn the country into a democratic flower garden. The ruling AKP (Justice and Development Party) and the faction of the Kurdish bourgeoisie existing within it on the one hand, and the liberals who drool whenever the state rings the bell of democracy on the other; bloodthirsty Turkish nationalists lurking around and the PKK-DTP (Kurdistan Workers' Party, armed Kurdish nationalist group, and Democratic Society Party, its legal wing) line with its hawk and dove wings pursuing its own agenda... What is really going on? How did the DTP, who used to say that the AKP was its greatest enemy, end up negotiating with them? Similarly, when did Prime Minister Erdoğan, who said that whoever is involved with terror will be shot even if he or she is a child, become so concerned with the tears of mothers who have lost their children? Why did the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party - Gray Wolves, Turkish fascists) who used to be the maverick supporter of the AKP respond with such rabid ultra-nationalist hysteria? How did the CHP (Republican People's Party, Kemalists) which was the toady of the Army end up criticizing the declarations of the National Security Council?

The first point that needs to be clarified in the face of all this mess is that no one has any idea what the AKP, who has been telling the lie that democracy will expand further, actually wants to do. This "gift" reform package everyone talks about might indeed turn out to be absolutely empty. First, lets see how the process developed. On July 2009, the Turkish Prime Minister announced that they had launched the Kurdish reform. The AKP said about this reform that at the basis of it was the speech delivered by Erdoğan in 2005 in Diyarbakır (city considered to be the unofficial capital of Kurdistan). There was no other information in regards to what this reform included. If we examine the contents of this speech however, we can easily see that there is nothing that can distinguish it from the state policies of the past thirty years. In his speech, Tayyip Erdoğan says: "We absolutely defend our state, our flag and our republic. I am stressing again that terror is the greatest enemy of this country and can never be tolerated. The terrorists who massacre innocent citizens and send our heroic security forces into martyrdom, the terrorists who are assassinating the future of the nation, are also using innocent children of this country for their purposes." Obviously, there was no difference in the basic attitude of the state. On the other hand, the bell rung by the AKP was enough to arouse the liberal media's enthusiasm and drove the nationalist media mad with anger. For a while, the debates focused on whether this was an American project or not. US officials even made an official statement saying that this was not their project. After that came the roadmap of Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdish nationalists. The details of this now famous roadmap are, just like the details of the reform package, still unknown. Nevertheless it is understood that what is proposed does not go muc beyond pushing for the strengthening of local governments and a few stylistic changes in the constitution. This being said, the ambiguous statement from Öcalan about Kurds needing their own defense force created a storm and basically put an end to the negotiations between the AKP and a wing of the DTP including some of its leaders, and pushed the AKP into consulting NGOs and trade-unions instead. In the meanwhile, the other wing in the DTP was insisting that it was the PKK and Öcalan who should be negotiated with. In any case, after Öcalan said that he was going to put forward his roadmap, the Minister of Interior, Beşir Atalay, felt the need to accelerate the process by inviting a group of ex-leftist liberal journalists to a briefing which, significantly, was to take place in a police academy. Eventually, with the talks between Turkey and Armenia starting, the debate on ‘Kurdish Reform' gace way to that on ‘Democratic Reform'.

What can be drawn from all this is that the AKP is executing this process based on the need to create a favorable public opinion on the questions of its own policies regarding energy issues, the US talks about withdrawing from Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan, Iran's situation and so forth, under the framework of the developments in the EU and the changes that are happening in the regional conjuncture. What is going on is not an expansion of democracy, not a step towards the solution of the Kurdish question, but a clash of ruling powers based on their need and that of different bourgeois fractions to reorganize their respective positions. The hesitant statements coming from the Army, the lack of any policies or reason for the attitude of the CHP, the rabidly bloodthirsty moanings of the MHP are all a result of the liquidization of some of the previous rulers of the civil and military bureaucracy. The bases for the legitimacy of these forces are being dissolved in the light of the interests of imperialist politics in the Middle East and creating the area of ‘greater democracy and rights' which the AKP is using to boost itself. Yet this area itself is shaking, in the fashion of one step forwards, two steps back. The issue is not recognizing the rights of the Kurds put giving those who pretend to be their representatives a piece of the pie to keep their mouths shut, and more importantly to recreate social problems over "identities".

It is also important to analyze the place of the DTP and the PKK in this situation. The wing within the DTP which has previously been called the ‘doves' saw its role as being negotiators when the AKP decided to launch the ‘Kurdish reform'. Closed meetings took place between prominent leaders of this wing and the government officials. Those who made up this wing seemed more independent from the PKK, or at least from Öcalan's line. The roadmap of Öcalan being announced and the wing which has been called ‘hawks' in the DTP pointing to the PKK as the force who should be negotiated with, on the other hand, harmed the ‘dove' wing's plan to negotiate as representatives of the Kurds. In the end, the expression ‘Kurdish reform' was abandoned and replaced by the ‘Democratic reform'. Meanwhile, the clashes between the PKK and the Army, and naturally the number of the soldiers who died started increasing drastically. On the other hand, the ultimatum of one of the leaders of the ‘dove' wing, and previous DTP co-chairperson Aysel Tuğluk stating that they will considering separation and independence if they are pushed out of the process was criticized by Öcalan himself. Of course there is not much point in speculating about the reasons of this conflict, but we can say that the determining factor is, leaving aside the feelings and intentions of the rank-and-file, not the ‘dove' wing wanting to create peace or the ‘hawk' wing aiming to defend the rights of the Kurds in the strongest possible way, but the conflict of different political and economical interests created by conditions of national oppression and war.

We can thus say that in the current situation, none of the political tendencies whose behaviors, statements and attitudes we have been examining are either able or willing to solve the Kurdish question. Above all the conditions for solving the ‘national question' historically do not exist today. Today, the promise of ‘liberal democracy' by the same paradigm which dominated the post-1990 era and included the recognition of different identities and minority rights, is nothing but a necessity of capitalist looting. No movement based on ethnicity is capable of providing ‘freedom' unless it is supported by an imperialist power, and the ‘freedom' that can be provided by those who are supported by this or that imperialist power is far from being freedom in any meaningful sense.

This being said, there is an international economic reality also behind this debate and this reality can not be ignored. After the US invasion of Iraq, the imperialist powers who have assumed the role of patrons of this area want their share of the control of the enegry sources. The Turkish bourgeoisie is among these imperialist powers who is increasing becoming a part of this process. The Turkish Kurdistan is seen as Iraq's door to the world and the negotiations in the region regarding Armenia and Cyprus are expressed in the reform debates which under the names of ‘democracy' or ‘facing history'. It is completely clear that both the Turkish and the Kurdish bourgeoisie are making the ‘freedom' of Kurds a card of negotiation for the sake of economic interests.

The following days include those in which political and military conflicts are intensified. What matters, on the other hand, is for the working class to create its own agenda. After all, the effects of the economic crisis are getting worse every day, and barbarism and poverty prove the urgency of class based politics not only for Turkey but for the whole of the Middle East. Only this way can such insoluble questions which became impossible to solve (such as the freedom of Kurds) can cease to be trumps in the hands of the bourgeoisie and only then could confusions dissapear.

The Kurdish problem can't be solved the way the tendencies claiming to represent the Kurds used to say, with the formation of a new nation-state, since today the Kurdish population has a significant existence outside the Kurdistan geography, and we have also seen how the bourgeois nationalists becoming the local dominant power in the Iraqi Kurdistan has not improved the conditions of the Kurdish workers there one bit.  The Kurdish question can't be solved the way these tendencies say it can be solved now either, by reconciliation with the Turkish state with the blood of minorities and workers it slaughtered still dripping from its teeth and nails. The solution of this question will take no less than the complete destruction of all the existing states in the Middle East in the hands of the Middle Eastern proletarians of Kurdish, Arabic, Iranian, Jewish, Turkish and all other nationalities, as a part of the revolutionary struggle of the international proletariat.

Cem & Gerdûn

At the 12th September rally in support of the striking Tower Hamlets College teachers leaflets were distributed by the recently formed London Education Workers Group. The leaflet called for solidarity with the striking workers. In particular, and in contrast to the sterile bombast of the union speakers at the rally, the leaflet emphasised the need to go beyond union divisions "The most important thing is to continue spreading the struggle, to continue getting support and solidarity from other colleges facing cuts and anyone else next in the firing line. Part of this means going beyond the boundaries set by membership of different unions and professions. Having meetings open to all staff regardless of union affiliation increases our strength as workers and keeps actions under our control. We must seek out each other's support, even if that means not waiting for the unions to make those links for us and doing it ourselves."  We wholeheartedly agree with this approach! In the period to come it is vitally important that the working class is able to wrest control of its struggles from the unions.

It's clear that the LEWG is a product of the search for forms of organisation which have a tendency to go beyond the unions. It says in the leaflet "The London Education Workers Group was established so that education workers throughout London can come together to oppose the coming assault on education. We reject the division of workers into separate unions and recognise that politicians, political parties, and union bureaucrats have nothing to offer us. Instead, direct action must be our weapon. Power comes from the grass roots and we, as education workers, must democratically and collectively controlled our own organizations". The leaflet also looks beyond purely immediate concern towards longer term, more political goals: "In the long term, it is only through opposition to both capitalism and the state that we can solve, once all for all, the problems that face us as education workers". We support this initiative and helped to distribute the leaflet at the rally and at a meeting held in another college where delegates from the THC strike had been invited to speak. 

Contact [email protected] [140]

Graham 30/09/09

Dave Douglass responds on the article: 25 Years since the Miners' strike

We are publishing below Dave Douglass' response, alongside our reply, to the article '25 Years since the Miners' strike [143](posted online 9 July 2009). We welcome comments on all our articles in order to develop the discussion between revolutionaries and will answer all serious correspondence.

Dave Douglass:

26 July 2009

I'm probably on a hiding to hell here but let's try again. I've explained this sequence to you before and you simply take no notice of facts. Your ability to distort actual events in order to fit your anti union position would qualify you for the Sun journalists of the year award. The miners were not on strike in defiance of their union the NUM. We went on strike through our union and in defence of our union the NUM.

As you well know the union was not 'forced to make the strike official but only in one area' how and why was it 'forced' to do so? I presume here you're talking about the NEC - although you don't understand or care actually about the different levels and functions of the union. The strike started in the Yorkshire Area, and was official in that area. The area went to the NEC under rule 41 to declare the strike officially recognised as such by the National Executive. This was because the Yorkshire miners intended to picket out the rest of the country that was the point of doing it that way. The NEC also declared the strike in Scotland and Kent official under rule 41 in the same way and at the same time. The Areas then rolled on into other areas to bring out the rest of the country in picketing action. Your suggestion that the NEC wished to stop picketing just doesn't make sense; they only chose to go down the rule 41 route in order that this could take place. It's possible that you mean 'only in one area' as against ‘nationally'. If so the NEC had no authority to declare a 'national strike' in that manner, a national strike per se would require a national ballot. The area-by-area picketing route was counter-posed to not picketing and having a national ballot instead. Of course, we could carry on picketing and then have a national ballot if we chose, but only the rank and file could make that choice. We chose on 19th April at a national conference NOT to have a national ballot and to carry on picketing instead. These were all decision of the miners expressed through the union. All of this makes nonsense of your article, which says the NEC and Arthur Scargill were against picketing and trying to stop picketing. You take a single incident and try and inflate it into a whole policy. Yes, the Yorkshire area tried to restrain the pickets from Doncaster flooding over into Nottingham in the first hours of the strike starting in Yorkshire. The Nottingham Area was holding an Area Ballot (Like Yorkshire and Scotland had already had) to decided on strike action or not. The question was delicately balanced, the militants in Nott's thought rough scenes and fighting at the gates prior to the ballot would just swing it the other way, so asked us NOT to come into their coalfield until the result of the ballot was out. The rank and file in Doncaster said "bollocks" and picketed anyway. We always had intended to picket Nott's if the ballot was lost anyway, it wasn't a question of a once and for all decision. This was a tactic for a short period; the rank and file didn't accept it. The ballot was lost in Nott's, some say it was due to the premature picketing, I doubt that, but it didn't help. The point is though this didn't mean 'the union' however, you describe it, was against picketing as you say; this is just simply wrong or worse is a deliberate distortion. ‘At the same time, left wing officials asked the pickets to withdraw and Arthur Scargill talked about taking the heat out of the situation'. Yes, this is true, but so far, out of context as to be yet another deliberate distortion, you do not say WHY or WHEN this happened. You give the impression this was some standing policy on the question of picketing. It was never that.

In fact this is one incident arising after the death of Gareth Jones on the picket line at Ollerton. Jones had been killed either by police or the lads say by a brick thrown by a scab. As pickets flooded into the village, there was a resolve to burn the whole place down. Revenge was consuming the pickets and there was a strong chance of murder and multiple serious injuries on all sides. Now I for one didn't mind getting stuck into the scabs or police, or killing the odd one or two of them in revenge or just for the fuck of it, but the whole of Nott's and all of its inhabitants started to take on the colour of the enemy. The point was to actually win over or force out the Nott's scabs not declare war on Nottingham as a whole. Many innocent Nott's people of all ages could have been caught up in a search for revenge. In that context and in that context only Arthur arrived and tried to take the heat out of the situation. In that context and in that context only 'left wing delegates' called on pickets at other pits to stay at their posts and not abandon everywhere else in order to take action in Ollerton. Those are the facts. No one in that situation and none of the picket's delegates or AS wished to condemn the pickets or did so. Who is it who condemned pickets for defending themselves against the police? Arthur Scargill on each occasion refused to do so and so did the Yorkshire Area officials and Executive Committee. Kinnock and an army of commentators since have condemned Arthur for refusing to do so, you on the other hand stand truth on its head and say he did, and 'the union' did too. Well I was at the Yorkshire Area NUM Council meeting when some right wing North Yorkshire Area branches tried to get a resolution through condemning 'brick throwing and sabotage' It was massively defeated, and the Yorkshire Area Leadership led by Jack Taylor called for a vote against that resolution. So I don't know where this information of yours comes from, I didn't see any of you at the Council meeting or any other conference or mass rally where these things were debated en mass. You say we lost the strike because 'the union' stopped the pickets in the early weeks of the strike. What utter nonsense something like 20,000 pickets were in operation and in all areas all through the strike. Other than the one incident, I've explained, and this was a strategy meant to last two days and in any case few took any notice of, it has no basis in fact. You are so determined to see 'the union' as the enemy you are blinded to the actual events, worse you try to blind other people who are not so afflicted by telling lies. This is the kind of actions we would normally associate with bureaucrats and parliamentary politicians isn't it?

For the facts on events, and who did what and why please see my forthcoming book Ghost Dancers, Christie press out next year, which deals with the run up to the strike, the strike and its aftermath and the whole process through John Major and the current situation It will deal in detail with the actual disputes and battles within the union between the rank and file and within the bureaucracy etc. for ongoing news coverage of what's happening and happened within the NUM and the pit communities see the rank and file website www.minersadvice.co.uk [144] (a site Arthur Scargill tried to close down - now that's something he did try to do).

David Douglass, NUM

ICC's response:

18 August 2009

Dear David Douglass,

25 years after it happened the 1984-85 miners' strike in Britain is full of lessons for the whole working class. Addressing the ICC you claim "You say we lost the strike because ‘the union' stopped the pickets in the first weeks of the strike". We don't. We say that the strike was defeated because of its isolation and the major role that the NUM played in this isolation before, during and after the strike. Yes, workers' struggles can take place inside the framework of the unions, but the relationship is that of a body to a straitjacket. If you look at the two waves of wildcats in the construction industry this year you can see how the struggle developed against the wishes of the unions. If you look at the recent Vestas occupation, with a young workforce that was mostly not unionised, you can see a struggle that was lost through being limited, essentially to one site. We don't make a fetish out of whether strikes are ‘official' or ‘unofficial', but we do always try to show what role the unions play, in particular in how they stand in the way of the extension of the struggle. In Britain illusions in the unions are particularly powerful, and we know well that this situation is not going to change overnight.

The most important thing, that can never be underlined too often, is that the miners' strike was lost because it was isolated, because it didn't spread to other workers. When the dockworkers struck in the summer of 84 there was the possibility of two major sectors of the working class coming together in a struggle that could have inspired and involved other workers as well.

One of the main reasons that the miners were isolated was because of their misplaced confidence in the NUM. The struggles of workers in Poland in 1980 showed the capacity of the working class to extend their struggles across a whole country. It also showed how dangerous it is to have any faith in ‘free trade unions'. The miners in Britain not only had confidence in the NUM, they also got sucked into the idea that it was essential to make the strike solid in the mining sector, to get the Notts miners out, rather than see the necessity to spread the strike to other workers.

As we said in WR 273 [145], "The unions had utilised a split that had opened up between the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire coalfields to fixate the miners on closing down the Nott's coalfields. It sent miners to black coal at the ports and it mobilised them into the blockade of the Orgreave Coal Depot where pitched battles with police became a daily ritual. This was all to the detriment of trying to spread the struggles to other sectors of the working class. [...] The best opportunity to spread the strike beyond the corporatist framework came right at the beginning, before the union imposed its stranglehold on events: "Early on in the strike, pickets went to the power stations, train drivers refused to cross picket lines and seamen blacked coal shipments. Many of the workers' initiatives went beyond or against union instructions. With all workers confronting the threat of the dole, there is already the potential steadily developing for a generalised struggle, and this is what the unions have been so anxious to avoid all along." ('Miners' strike: workers take the initiative', WR 70)".

Certainly there are aspects of our intervention which, looking back over a quarter of a century, we can see require a different emphasis. For example, after the end of the miners' strike, there was a widespread idea that things looked hopeless, many workers saying ‘if the miners can be on strike for a whole year and still not win, then what chance have the rest of us got'? The defeat of the strike had a much bigger impact than we acknowledged in our press, although we did insist that the length of a strike was no sign of its strength. Also, towards the end of the strike, when it was clear that the miners were defeated, we still gave the impression that the struggle still had a potential which a careful analysis of events couldn't justify. However, having said that, our emphasis on the need for the self-organisation and extension of the struggle remains entirely valid.

Clearly you have a different point of view. For a start you are on record as a supporter of a nationalised coal industry, in the name of opposition to the regime of the ‘private' coal owners. In reality all nationalised industries are just as ‘private' as any individual company when it comes to the interests of the working class. State capitalism is just as much an exploiter of workers as any 19th century entrepreneur. And if you look at the career of Ian MacGregor, from the board of nationalised British Leyland, to head of British Steel to boss of British Coal, you'll see someone just as loathed by workers as any pit owner from the past.

The most obvious point that leaps from your letter (received 26/7/9) is that it is exclusively concerned with the miners. No other workers are mentioned, or the possibility of the extension of the struggle.

When you say, "The miners were not on strike in defiance of their union the NUM. We went on strike through our union and in defence of our union the NUM" that is in a sense the crux of the matter. It was because of miners' confidence in the union that they didn't create their own forms of organisation

Details of picketing are not the most important thing because the corporatist framework of the NUM was a trap for the workers, all workers, not just miners, from the beginning. It was the NUM that sprung it and the only question for us was how the working class could get out of this trap. We've seen it too many times, a large, usually strongly unionised, sector taking on the government, being beaten down by a war of attrition and isolation, locked into a corporatist framework as much by the unions as by the state.

Even the simultaneity of several large sectors fighting together is not enough to take on the bourgeoisie if the latter is serious, as it was in taking on the working class in the early 1980s, because they all tend to corral the workers within their own boundaries and institutions. The trade unions were fighting organs of, representative of the proletariat in the hey-day of capitalism. Now, they're empty shells, all the proletarian content taken out, sucked dry through their consistent support for imperialist war, for worker killing worker. This is a position in which all unions are implicated with their inherent nationalism and their undying defence of the capitalist economy.

The defence of the union was a big part of the problem; it was the defence of the NUM and its corollary, the defence of British Coal, which isolated and strangled the strike. It wasn't just the bad leadership, or bad decisions by the NUM but the role of the union in keeping miners isolated from other workers, a task that was equally shared by all the main unions in the country. Our position is diametrically opposed to the defenders of the unions. While that point of view was concerned with the miners ‘winning a strike', we base our intervention on the lessons and needs of the historical struggle of the working class. Effectively there are two opposing class viewpoints.

The combativity and solidarity of the miners was obvious, but it was equally obvious to us that they were being led into a dead end by the NUM and the whole trade union structure, where they would be finished off by other arms of the state. The defence of the NUM and not the workers was the underlying problem of the strike. It could have been overcome; it wasn't insuperable as the mass strikes in Poland, 1980, had shown. But for this the miners needed to take the struggle into their own hands directly. A successful turn to the struggle of the miners would have actively included other workers and this would have inevitably come up against the NUM. Unfortunately the isolation and confines of the NUM held and the workers were controlled by it along with the action of the other main unions.

You say we "don't understand or care actually about the different levels and functions of the union". On the contrary, we understand full well the function of the trade unions for capitalism, as agencies of the state. And, though details are not really important here, the Byzantine manoeuvres of the union, the Rule Book and so on, on top of the various regional fiefdoms of the NUM with their own infighting and manoeuvres were probably not ‘understood' by most miners let alone other workers. The question of ballots was a particular red herring, another fetter imposed on the struggle, another manoeuvre taking place within the whole rotten framework of ‘Defend the NUM'. Similarly, the ‘picketing out', which took place within the framework of the union and its Rule Book, reinforced the union's grip on the workers, whereas what the miners needed was to discuss, delegate and go to other workers.

Your remarks about Ollerton after the death of a picket ("there was a resolve to burn the whole place down. Revenge was consuming the pickets and there was a strong chance of murder and multiple serious injuries on all sides. Now I for one didn't mind getting stuck into the scabs or police, or killing the odd one or two of them in revenge or just for the fuck of it") are symptomatic of the cancer and bitterness that came directly from the NUM and went on to greatly contribute to the defeat of these isolated communities turning in on themselves. It was symptomatic of the isolation imposed by the NUM and on the other hand shows the need to open up and go out to other workers. It was because of the NUM that the Notts miners were portrayed as the enemy, rather than all the unions that kept the miners isolated. The miners were divided and it seems you would have been happy to reinforce that division with violence. There is no role for revenge by any part of the working class. It's a basic principle that relations within the working class are based on solidarity not violence. That's one of the lessons of Kronstadt 1921.

Overall, in our intervention we will continue to patiently explain what role the unions play, and the need workers have to take their struggles into their own hands. At the moment we are well aware that workers' struggles remain in the framework of the unions. Communist minorities have an essential role in the development of an understanding of what the means and the goals of the workers? movement are. Showing what led to past defeats is one of the most important responsibilities for revolutionary organisations.

Fraternally, WR

On 23 September, in Calais, a whole phalanx of journalists and cameramen took part in a major media carnival organised by the French government: the evacuation of the ‘Jungle' a refuge for thousands of migrants living in abject misery in tents or under trees, barely surviving thanks to a few benevolent souls.

We were treated to the sight of the forceful eviction of human beings who had been tracked down like animals, and contemptuously described as ‘illegals' as though they were criminals. And what was their crime? To have fled from poverty and war in their country of origin (many come from Afghanistan), risking their lives to end up in this pit. All were following the same dream: to get to Britain where they hoped to find work. To do this they were ready to be smuggled through border controls in lorries despite the detailed searches. These are the people who have been made into a scoop by the journalists - an unworthy spectacle not unlike the one we saw recently when the Stalinist trade union, the CGT, forcefully evicted migrants, women and children included, who had taken refuge in union locals.

After the media circus, most of these destitute migrants were parked in detention centres awaiting deportation. Those who evaded capture are hiding in the sand dunes or are starving to death on the streets of Calais.

As ever, the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie knows no limits. Thus we had Eric Besson, formerly of the ‘Socialist' Party, and now immigration minister, telling us that the aim of this operation was to fight not against the migrants, but against those who engage in people trafficking. Get out your handkerchiefs!

Sending in 500 CRS riot police against 300 people, more than half of them minors, is no doubt a heavy blow against those who traffic in human lives, despite the fact that the organisers of this traffic are often protected by the mafia who work inside the public authorities, and who frequently have their hands steeped in the sale of young people into prostitution all over Europe.

What's really behind this hypocrisy? The bulldozing of the Jungle, like the closing of Sangatte in 2004, won't halt the flow of disinherited people towards the borders, because they have nowhere else to go.

In fact, this spectacular, militarised operation is a warning from the French bourgeoisie that it is unwilling to permit increasing immigration into its territory. It is telling us that its policy of repression and deportation is going to be rigorously applied. With the massive development of unemployment and poverty, the French bourgeoisie will do everything it can to rid itself of such totally undesirable people. The message is clear: ‘Go and die somewhere else'. What's more, this policy of firmness is going to be put into practice in all areas to do with national security. And it will be echoed by the rest of Europe's governments who are rushing to point out that they have already been too generous and couldn't possibly take in yet another batch of illegal immigrants. The British bourgeoisie is particularly keen on pointing out how everyone wants to go to the UK, which is only a small island after all.

This whole disgusting scenario reveals the inhumanity of all governments and all those who zealously serve the capitalist system.   

Tino 25/9/09

As thousands of troops goose-stepped through Tiananmen Square, part of the celebration of 60 years of the People's Republic of China on 1 October, the media in other countries were not slow to point out all the evidence of continuing totalitarianism.

The Chinese state banned people on the parade route from opening windows or standing on balconies; those not invited were told to watch it all on TV.

The armed forces on show were arranged according to height, with everyone within a six centimetre range. Everyone marching had a mental health check-up to make sure they could withstand the pressure on the special day - with the result that at least 1300 soldiers received counselling.

Above all there was the proud exhibition of China's military hardware with, apparently, 52 weapon systems, including intercontinental missiles for the delivery of nuclear warheads, unmanned aircraft, tanks and a variety of other means of destruction, many of which the outside world had never seen before.

Yet no matter how much China's imperialist rivals deplore its repression and militarism there is still a lot of sneaking admiration. Haven't the living standards of many of the people improved? Wasn't 2008's Olympic Games in Beijing a great success? In a time of economic turmoil hasn't China been a rare success story?

Outside mainstream currents of thought, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists and others, although in some cases unhappy about the direction China has taken during the last 30 years, have saluted China's escape from colonial domination, and in some instances still see it as ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics' or a ‘deformed workers state.'

From the point of view of the working class there is nothing to be celebrated in the ‘People's Republic.' For all those who sold their labour power for wages in 1949 there are millions more today, millions who have no more control of their lives than workers did 60 years ago. Workers are still exploited and have to follow where the work is. When manufacturing in the coastal regions declines they have to return to the jobless countryside. Unemployment is as real for the working class as millionaires are common in the ruling capitalist class. There are a tiny minority who gain from China's export success, millions who see nothing but subsistence wages for their efforts.

China remains a brutally repressive class society. Chinese imperialism is still a ruthless force on the world arena. Workers struggles cause the Chinese bourgeoisie to worry about future social unrest. Hopefully the working class in China, as part of the international working class, can develop its struggles so that the future anniversary celebrations of the Chinese state are cut to a minimum.  

Car 2/10/9

This article is available as a leaflet to download and distribute here [150]

Despite endless chatter about the ‘end of the recession', all the indications are that the present global system - capitalism - is in its deepest ever crisis and that there are no ‘green shoots' in sight. One thing is certain however: faced with declining profits and savage competition over markets, the ruling class has one answer: make the exploited, the real ‘wealth creators', pay through job-cuts, wage freezes, ‘modernising' working conditions (i.e. get us to work harder for less) and massive reductions of the social wage through cuts in the public services. Tory, Labour, Lib Dems and the rest all agree on the need for public sector cuts - their only argument is how to go about it and how to sell it.

For the vast majority of us, there can also only be one answer: to resist these attacks on our living conditions, which will not lead to a more prosperous future, but to further impoverishment and misery. And the signs are that workers are beginning to resist, all over the world, from mass strikes in Egypt, Dubai and Bangladesh, to workers, unemployed and students organising themselves in general assemblies in France, Spain and Greece, and widespread strikes and tenants' revolts in South Africa. In Britain too the same signs are there: the oil refinery wildcats last winter, where workers extended the struggle in defiance of anti-strike laws and began to go beyond the nationalist ideas that had initially distorted the meaning of the strikes; the occupations at Visteon and Vestas, which attracted widespread support from other parts of the working class. And right now, there are struggles brewing or breaking out in a whole number of sectors: Leeds binmen; bus drivers in Essex, Yorkshire and the Northeast, all facing wage cuts; firemen walking out in protest against new shift patterns; tube workers and BA workers being balloted for strike action, and of course, the postal workers.

The attack on the postal workers

Of all the current struggles, the dispute at Royal Mail is the focus of enormous attention from politicians and media. Mandelson has expressed his ‘massive anger' at the strikes, but Cameron is accusing Brown's government of being too soft on the postal workers. Royal Mail bosses have taken the provocative step of hiring thousands of extra casual workers during the strikes. The press and TV are banging the drum about the suicidal nature of the strikes and the hardships they are going to cause, even claiming that the strikes will put lives at risk because swine flu vaccines are being sent through the post.

This focus is no accident. The ruling class is perfectly well aware that there is a huge growth of discontent in the working class. It knows that this discontent can only grow when they start implementing the new rounds of cuts imposed by the economic crisis, above all in the public sector, which is the biggest employer of labour in the country. And it knows that the postal workers have a well-deserved reputation for militancy and self-organisation. In particular, postal workers have a long history of ignoring anti-strike laws and deciding on strike action in mass meetings rather than waiting around for ballots. That's why the state and the bosses are taking on the postal workers right now. They want to take them out in advance of having to deal with other sectors - isolate them, grind them down, and then cow them into submission, to prove to the rest of the working class that fighting in defence of your living conditions is just self-defeating.

Trade unions reinforce isolation

Right now there is a real danger that the postal workers will be isolated - not least because the trade unions are reinforcing that isolation. When CWU boss Bill Hayes said that he was in a better position than Scargill was in 1984, he was actually strengthening the fatal illusion that led to the defeat of the miners: the idea that if you fight long and hard enough in one sector, you can push back a concerted attack by the whole ruling class. The opposite is true: the more you fight on your own, the more you are likely to be worn down and defeated. The more our rulers sense the danger of struggles extending across the working class, the more likely they are to back down and make concessions.

And yet in every sector, the unions argue as if every dispute was a separate issue, of interest only to ‘their' members. In the post, the CWU - which agreed to a large chunk of the current ‘modernisation' package at the end of the 2007 strike - is presenting the issue as one of ‘consultation' and the particularly evil plans of RM management. In fact RM management, like all management, is just doing its job for the capitalist class and the state which protects it. Elsewhere, transport, fire and other unions are balloting their members over their own disputes with management, and preparing for strikes which they want to be tightly controlled by the union machinery and to remain unconnected to all the other struggles, even when they take place at the same time. 

Picketing postal workers and Leeds binmen. Workers struggling against attacks need to come together.

How can we spring this trap of isolation?            

The issue isn't whether to fight or not to fight. The issue is how to fight. We need the maximum unity faced with a united attack by the ruling class. But to achieve this, we can't rely on the unions, who police the bosses' laws and embody the division of the working class into innumerable sectors and categories.

Instead, we need to follow the example of the postal workers in past struggles, or the oil refinery workers last winter, by ignoring anti-strike laws and making the mass meetings places where real decisions are made (like whether to go on strike or return to work) and any delegations or committees have to be elected and accountable to the mass meetings. We need mass meetings to be centres of debate and discussion, where workers from other sectors can come not only to show their support, but to discuss how the struggle can be spread. The same goes for picket lines and demonstrations: they should be open to all workers - employed, unemployed, full-time or casual, and regardless of union affiliation - and try to draw as many different sectors together into a common front.

Even if at first it's only small groups of workers who see the need for this kind of self-organisation and class unity, these groups can make links with each other and try to spread their ideas as widely as possible. The future lies in our hands!

International Communist Current: BM Box 869, London WC1N 3XX. E-mail: [email protected] [151]. Next public meeting (on internationalism and WW2): 2pm, 14th November, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London WC1. 

ICC introduction

The text we are publishing below was sent to us by a comrade who has commented on our web site under the handle "Internationalist". We think that this text, on the real nature of the "Green movement" and the Mosavi opposition in Iran, is well worth publishing and bringing to a wider audience above all because it takes position clearly against the reformism of Mosavi who in the past - as the article points out - has been the artisan of the brutal repression of the Iranian working class and the population in general.

In describing the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the article rightly points out that the Shah's government had become a hindrance to Iranian capital, inasmuch as it created an intolerable situation not only for the population (hence the massive workers' strikes that broke out in that period, cf our article written at the time [153]) but even for the bourgeoisie - to the point where not a single fraction of the ruling class was ready to oppose his overthrow (a more detailed analysis see our article "Behind the Iran-US crisis, the ideological campaigns [154]"). The overthrow of the Shah's regime was a real blow to the American bourgeoisie, though the USSR was unable to profit from it and Iran never really escaped the Western bloc.

The article describes the split between what the comrade describes as the "theocratic" and "reformist" wings of the bourgeoisie, quite rightly in our view denouncing the impossibility of real reforms that would benefit the working class. It is less concerned with the possibility of a split in the theocratic wing itself. It seems to us that a possible aspect of the manoeuvrings going on in the Iranian bourgeoisie, especially the splits that have become visible in the clerical hierarchy, is due to the fact that Ahmadinejad is not merely a puppet of the theocratic fraction, but is in fact the leader (or at least a leading figure) of a military/police faction which belongs to the generation that fought in the Iran/Iraq war. This faction - which has the gangsters of the Basij as its armed force within the population, as well as the security services etc. - is busily extending its control over the economy, both the legal and the black-market economy (including smuggling of alcohol, drugs, and other illegal merchandise). As such, it poses a threat to the hegemony of the clerical faction which is divided as to how to react.

At all events, the importance of Iran as a strategic regional player in the Middle East power struggles, and of the working class in Iran which has been historically one of the most combative in the region, means that revolutionaries should follow the situation there attentively and we are glad to publish this contribution to what must be an ongoing discussion.

ICC

Introduction

What happened in Iran in the past few months? Was it a confrontation between bourgeois gangs? Has a communist revolution begun in Iran? How one can explain political situation within the Iranian political milieu? What do all of these events mean for the working class? It is vital and necessary for internationalists to evaluate, analyse, explain and learn lessons to look forward for the most effective and productive internationalist perspective and actions.

Birth of Islamic Republic a paradox

Shah, the king of kings, who was a reliable puppet generally of the capitalist world and in particular of the Western bloc, proclaimed that Iran was a stable island in the Middle East for the capitalist world. Capitalism needs a stable Iran in that region. Since Iran is among the world's top three holders of both proven oil and natural gas reserves and also geopolitically located in a very sensitive and important part of the world.

The stable island within a short period of time became destabilised and Shah's brutal repression couldn't help him to stay in the power, especially when the working class strikes and other movement started throughout the system particularly in the petroleum industry. The bourgeoisie needed an alternative to uphold the capitalist system. The Islamic Republic was a powerless product of the worlds' bourgeoisie to give an alternate to the national capital to set up a capitalist system after the Shah's regime.

Islamic Republic was born with a congenital paradox. Like other republics in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran has its president, parliament, election, but it also has the supreme leader (khamenei), God's shadow on the earth. The supreme leader has power over the law and can dismiss the president. Khomeini dismissed the first elected president of Iran, Banisadr in June 1981.

Capitalism needs stability to assure accumulation of capital both for internal and external investors. Within Islamic capitalism, there have always been two visions or trends to approach this goal. These two visions are theocratic and republic. Today, Ahmadinejad represents the theocratic and Mosavi represents the republic to enforce the capitalist system in Iran.

The theocratic vision of bourgeoisie

This wing of bourgeoisie has a state capitalist vision and very closed social control apparatus of society with an aggressive policy. They have bastions in the Pasdaran, the Basij militia, the priesthood and the state apparatus. This vision, state capitalism with aggressive policy is a risk factor both for internal and external investors. Western world has always proclaimed that this wing must adapt itself to capital's routines. To punish theocrats, Western bourgeoisie, through the German bourgeoisie made a gesture through the Mykonos trial. "In its 10 April 1997 ruling, the court issued an international arrest warrant for Iranian intelligence minister Hojjat al-Islam Ali Fallahian [155] after declaring that the assassination had been ordered by him with knowledge of supreme leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [156] and president Ayatollah Rafsanjani [157]"[1] After this, the bourgeoisie could present a better alternative to reinforce the capitalist system by introducing the new president, Khatami who was introduced as a president who wants "Dialogue Among Civilizations".

The disadvantage and consequence of the theocratic policy is insecurity of capital and loosing capital from Iran. The capital flight from Iran between 1973 to 1988 has been estimated about $8.16 billion. In contrast, the capital flight between 2005 and 2006 was about $200 billion.[2] Iran's Student Correspondents Association explained that the reason for capital flight is "the policies of the ninth government fear for the investment" (The government of Ahmadinejad).[3]

We must point out that this is an official report and exact figures prove impossible to obtain or is more than this. Security and guarantee of capital is necessary to assure accumulation of capital both for internal and external investors.

The republic (reformist) vision of bourgeoisie

As mentioned earlier, today, Mosavi represents this vision usually called reformist. Reformist Mosavi has changed his slogan from "Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic" to "Independence, Freedom, Iranian Republic".[4] What does it mean to be a reformist? Two important and well known elements within reformists are, Mosavi and Hajjarian.

It was during Mosavi's time, when he was the Prime Minster of Iran that hundreds of striking worker were jailed or beaten to death. Thousands of political prisoners were executed when the mass grave of political prisoners (Khavaran) was created and developed and so on.

Saeed Hajjarian, the master mind of reformism, was the one who created and built one of the world's most brutal organization of the century by the name of Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran. "The formation of the ministry was proposed by Saeed Hajjarian to the government of Mir-Hossein Mosavi and then the parliament."[5] We need to point out that the Ministry of Intelligence of Iran is one of the most horrible and dreadful in the world and it is very notorious in its torture and terror methods. Mosavi and Hajjarian are not less guilty than Ahmadinejad when it comes to workers right or other human right issues.

This wing of bourgeoisie strive for privatising parts of the industry, more opening and investment opportunities to the Western World and some reduction in the social controls. In an ideal world this gang try to adapt the national capital to the world capital's routines, to give assurance to accumulation of capital.

Now we need to address this question. Is social reform possible in our epoch? The First World War has proved that capitalism has entered in its decadence and no more permanent social reforms could be possible. Also, it is not longer possible to reform capitalism to make better life for people. As a result, the forms of struggle for the working class have been changed, the struggle for parliament, social reforms are no longer a struggle form for the working class. The fact is that in our epoch, in the epoch of decadent capitalism, parliament and elections are not different than a mystification and the main task of parliament, is to legislate wage slavery.

"Islamic Japan" or Barbarity of capitalism

Eight years of war had destroyed most of Iran's infrastructure and industry and it needed rebuilding. After the Iran-Iraq war when Rafsanjani took presidential office, his title was changed from commander of operations to commander of development. He proclaimed that Iran is going to be a modern, industrialized country, very similar to Japan in terms of development and economics progress, an "Islamic Japan" and recently the supreme leader (Khamenei) referred to Iran as Islamic Japan.[6]

Iran is one of the countries in the world that has many young people. Its labor force has been almost doubled in the last nine years.

That means each month about 125,000 jobs need to be created. However, in practice, it is impossible within a capitalist framework to create that many jobs. Unemployment rate rises in Iran and it has reached up to 12.5% (in real life the rate is always higher than the statistics).[7] In the mean time, Central Bank of Iran reported a 23.6% inflation rate in Iran[8], one of the biggest economic challenges of the century. Unpaid salaries for months are a dilemma for hundred thousand workers in Iran. "No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc."[9]

This means, in reality a worker must have two or three job to support his family and unemployment nightmare never goes away. In the real life the worker is working day after day to create more surplus value to the capitalists. The labour force is goods in the capitalist system but special goods that can create surplus value. Working class is target to be attacked on living conditions every day. With the current situation in Iran, millions of unemployed people, the young generation is suffering and they have no hope with this brutal capitalist regime. The ruling class know that young people are more headaches to them than an American or Israeli bomb attack.

Democratic Illusion

"Down with dictator!" has been a popular slogan in the last months in the streets of not only Tehran, the capital city of Iran, but also in the streets of all the major cities in Iran. The real meaning of this slogan is "Long live democracy!" which democratic mass medium have been blown on these illusions. To add this all democratic governments condemned the police violence of Iran. But the question is why this "honest" democratic mass medium have been shoot up when the butcher of bourgeoisie slaughtered more than hundred or maybe thousands prisons and workers each days in 1981!

What does that democracy mean? The following diagram shows unemployment rate in the USA, EU and Sweden that increase dramatically.

Democracy is not a legal phenomenon without an economic root. Unemployment, job stress and misery at work have been a nightmare for working class in the West world. In the capital's palpating heart USA, it is normal for a worker to have two jobs to support his family. In the cradle of bourgeois civilization, France, job stress and misery at work are reasons for a wave of staff suicides. "A wave of staff suicides which has seen more than 20 workers take their lives in the past 18 months - some leaving notes blaming job stress and misery at work."[10] The real number is 23 not 20! In the paradise of capitalism as a social democracy society, Sweden, where the social democratic governments have been in place for more than hundred years, unemployment has been a nightmare for working class. Unemployment rate is going to be increased dramatically in the next coming years. The National Institute of Economic Research published in its website: "During the forecast period unemployment will soar, and the unemployment rate will reach 11.4% in 2010 and 11.8% in 2011."[11]

For us, capitalist democracy and capitalist dictatorship are two sides of the same coin. Capitalist democracy is not a paradise for the working class without the same hell for other exploited in the dictatorship countries. Democracy is not a perspective for us but a very dangerous trap for our class.

The left of capital

After the election circus in Iran, which resulted in confrontation between bourgeois gangs, political currents took different positions based on the position and classifications. The left of capital as always tried to play its role as effective as possible. Tudeh Party, Fedaian Majority became directly mouthpiece to for Mosavi. The radical part of the left, "Worker"-"Communist" party of Iran proclaimed beginning of the revolution even presented the leader of revolution (Hamid Taqvaee) and on another ways supported the struggling bourgeois gangs.

Also, the other left activities have organized so many demonstrations to education the people of the world about what has happening in Iran. As an example, they have approached in so many creative ways to show the United Nation (UN) and the world what is going on in Iran. One of their requests was to close the embassies of Islamic Republic around the world because they believe those embassies are nothing but spying agencies. However, it is very obvious that UN is only a nest of vultures. These activities and practices of the left are very suitable for the Western World policies and interests to pressure the Iranian government.

In the absence of an established internationalist positions in the Iranian Political Milieu, the organizations who are acting such as left parties, misleading people and in the reality are carrying the interests of bourgeoisie and ultimately will manage to present themselves as leaders of workers and lefts.

Class struggle is the only alternative for working class

The working class in Iran is experiencing the miserable condition of living every day. They have been facing this situation for many years. The conditions and standard of living not only is decline, political situation getting worse. In the past few years, working class has been radicalized gradually and despite brutally of the regime, organized tens of protest actions or strikes all over the country.

Of course workers have been on the streets but they acted as individuals rather than as a social class. The only collective force reaction against the repression comes from Iran Khodro and bus drivers' side. We must avoid acting as cannon fodder for any of the struggling bourgeois gangs. We must expand our struggle, independent of all bourgeois gangs, against capitalism. Our slogan must be against wage slavery, exploitation, unemployment, inflation. We need to fight only for our class interests.

Capitalism is the origin of all misery and adversity in the world. Our interest is not in; to change rolling class as it happened 1979 without in class struggle and our aim must be directed to destroying whole capitalist system. This is only possible from an internationalist perspective. We don't have anything to lose but our chains and a world to win!

Our revolutionary responsibility are contributing to class struggle and building of the minority revolutionary organisation with aim to contribute to building of the world wide Internationalist Communist Party, the indispensable weapon for the victory of the Communist Revolution.

The working class is the only social class that can put an end to capitalist barbarism and misery. This alternative that communists had proposed in the past is more valid today than ever:

"Communist Revolution or the destruction of humanity!"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykonos_restaurant_assassinations [158]

[2] https://iscanews.ir/fa/PrintableNewsItem.aspx?NewsItemID=219653 [159]

[3] https://iscanews.ir/fa/PrintableNewsItem.aspx?NewsItemID=219653 [159]

[4] Asia Times Online, Aug 22, 2009

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Intelligence_of_Iran [160]

[6] https://www.revver.com/video/641815/khamenei-on-iran-being-islamic-japan/ [161]

[7] https://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91586&sectionid=351020102 [162]

[8] https://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/6/Pages/07062009/06082009_218f... [163]

[9] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch0... [164]

[10] https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/09/france-telecom-staff-suicid... [165]

[11]https://www.konj.se/sidhuvud/inenglish/economicconditionsinsweden/econom... [166]

‘Social Darwinism' - a reactionary ideology of capitalism

The elements that have allowed the human race to advance towards civilisation have preoccupied philosophers and thinkers down the centuries. This is nothing less than a question of discovering the motor force of history. In 1848, the appearance of the Communist Manifesto offers a revolutionary vision of this question, one that places man and his activity on the social level at the heart of historical progress. This vision was evidently not satisfactory for the bourgeoisie, which was enjoying the triumphant ascent of the capitalist system. On one hand, because the rise of the capitalist class was based on an ideology of individualism; and on the other hand, it was much too early for the bourgeois to conceive, even on the strictly intellectual level, the possibility of going beyond capitalism.

When, eleven years later, Charles Darwin published the result of his work on the evolution of organisms as a result of natural selection it was tempting for the bourgeoisie to explore a theory of the development of human societies based on the mechanism of the selection of the fittest individuals. This tendency that was amalgamated under the term "Social Darwinism" is still active today, even if its hypothesis remains largely undemonstrated, and even if its point of departure, the competitive struggle for existence, was rapidly ruled out by Darwin himself as a way of explaining the evolution of man[1].

Definition of ‘Social Darwinism'

"Social Darwinism is a form of sociology, the postulates of which are:

As Man is part of nature, the laws of human society are, directly or almost directly, those of the law of nature;

That the laws of nature are the survival of the fittest, the struggle for life and the laws of heredity;

That it is necessary for the well-being of society to make sure these laws are properly applied  in society.

Thus understood, social Darwinism can be historically defined as a branch of evolutionism that postulates a minimal or non-existent separation between the laws of nature and social laws: both are subject to the survival of the fittest, and so it  considers that these laws of nature directly provides a morality and a political standpoint.

We can distinguish two different forms of social Darwinism. One is an individualist idea that considers that the basic social organism is the individual and that, on the model of a struggle between individuals of the same species, the fundamental laws of society are the struggles between individuals of the same group, of which the struggle between ethnic (or racial) groups is only an extension. The other form, on the contrary, takes an holistic approach and considers that the basic social organism is society, that the motor force of history is the struggle between races, and that the struggle between individuals of the same group is a secondary law, even prejudicial to the survival of the race (...).

Individualistic social Darwinism developed from the 1850's (thus even before The Origin of  Species) and constituted an important ideology up to the 1880's (...) It is mostly linked to laissez-faire economics, extolling the non-intervention of the state (...) Holistic social Darwinism, often overtly racist, above all developed after 1880. For the most part it advocated state intervention in society and protectionist practice (economic, but also racial protection:  ‘The purity of the race is in danger'")[2].

The most well-known representative of this ideology is a contemporary of Darwin, Herbert Spencer. Engineer, philosopher and sociologist, Spencer saw in The Origin of the Species the key which allowed the understanding of the development of civilisation, departing from the point that human society evolved from the same principle as all living organisms. From this standpoint, the mechanism of natural selection was totally applicable to the social body. Spencer was a bourgeois ideologue well-anchored in his time. Strongly marked by individualism and the optimism of the dominant class in an epoch where capitalism was fully expanding, he was greatly influenced by fashionable theories such as the utilitarianism of Bentham. Plekhanov said of him that he was a "conservative anarchist, a bourgeois philosopher."[3] For Spencer, society produced and formed the brightest elements who would be selected to allow this society to continue to progress. Deviating from Darwin, the concept of Spencer applied to society, became the "selection of the fittest".

Social Darwinism, such as it was called after its explanation by Spencer, posed in principle the superiority of heredity over education, that's to say the preponderance of innate characteristics over acquired characteristics. If the principles of natural selection are effectively at work in society, it's simply a matter of not standing in its way it in order to assure social progress and the eventual disappearance of "anomalies" such as poverty or particular weaknesses.

In its subsequent evolution, Social Darwinism would be taken up as the basis of political positions and justifications dictated by the necessities of capitalist development.

Still today, the theory of Herbert Spencer continues to serve as a pseudo-scientific premise for the reactionary ideology of the winner and the law of the strongest.

Repercussions, consequences and enduring ideologies

From a strictly scientific point of view, the works of Spencer inspired more or less varied studies, such as craniology (the study of the form and size of the skull, the results of which would allegedly reveal a certain order); attempts to measure intelligence or again criminal anthropology with Lambroso's theory of the "born criminal", the echoes of which are still being spread around today in bourgeois political spheres in attempts to detect future criminals as early as possible

The preponderance of the innate equally led Spencer to sketch out the contours of an educative policy whose repercussions are still visible in the British primary school system, which tries to provide the infant with an environment proper to its personal expansion, to its researches and discoveries, rather than an education susceptible to developing new aptitudes. It's also the theoretical basis that supports the concept of "equality of opportunity".

But the most well-known lineage of Social Darwinism above all remains in the idea of eugenics. It was Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, who put forward the first concepts of eugenics by following the underlying intuition of Spencer that if natural selection must mechanically lead to social progress, everything which prevents it can only hold back the successful rise of humanity. More simply, Galton believed that the measures of social order that the bourgeoisie was led to take, mostly under the pressure of the class struggle, would in time lead to an overall degeneration of civilisation.

Whereas Spencer was an adept of "laissez-faire", of the non-intervention of the state (one of his works, appearing in 1850, was called The right to Ignore the State), Galton advocated active measures in order to facilitate the work of natural selection. For a long time he more or less directly promoted policies of the sterilisation of the mentally ill, the death penalty for criminals, etc. Eugenics is still considered as a scientific stamp of approval central to the ideologies of fascism and Nazism, even Spencer's ideas already contain elements that lead to racist visions and a hierarchy of races. From the 19th century, the work of Spencer has been used to demonstrate the biological roots of the technological and cultural backwardness of the so-called "savage" peoples, scientifically justifying colonialist policies by giving them a moral, civilising characteristic, when in fact these policies were essentially a necessity imposed by the limits of domestic markets.

However, eugenics allowed for a supplementary step by envisaging the suppression of masses of individuals who were judged unfit and thus a threat to the progress of society. Alexis Carrel, in 1935, even advocated and described in great detail the creation of establishments where generalised euthanasia would be practiced.

But it's not just under the scientific or theoretical angle that Social Darwinism should be seen. This line of thought emerged in a historic context that it tried to accompany and justify. The influence of the period is fundamental to understanding how this current developed; similarly it's important to bear in mind that if the responses that it gave are globally false, the questions that it poses still lie at the heart of the understanding that man must have of his own social development.

Theorising the ascent of capitalism

When Darwin published The Origin of Species, Britain was in the thick of the Victorian period, and the European bourgeoisie was in undisputed power, ready to conquer the world. Society teemed with examples of "the self-made man", of men who came from nothing and who, borne by the rise of industrial capitalism, found themselves at the head of prosperous enterprises. At the time, the dominant class was still shot through with radical currents who called into question hereditary privileges which constituted a brake on the new forms of development offered by capitalism. Spencer frequented this milieu of "dissidents" who were strongly anchored in anti-socialism.[4] He saw in the black misery of the British working class the temporary scars of a society in the process of adapting itself; under the effect of the demographic explosion this society would end up re-organising itself, thus constituting a factor of progress. For him, progress was inevitable since man would adapt to the evolution of society, as long as if it were left free to do so.

This euphoria was largely shared by the whole of the bourgeoisie. Especially if one adds the strong feelings of belonging to a nation which had built itself up and which could be strengthened by wars, like France following the defeat by Prussia for example. The development of the class struggle, which accompanied the development of capitalism, pushed the bourgeoisie to develop another conception of social solidarity based on givens that it hoped were undeniable.

All this constituted the compost of a theorisation of capitalist ascendancy and its immediate effects; proletarianisation in sweat, colonisation in blood, competition in filth.

This gets to the fundamental character of Social Darwinism because from a scientific point of view it offers no correct answers to the fundamental questions that it treats.

An ideological stamp of approval without any scientific basis

Science has never, even with the best intentions, been able to demonstrate the hypothesis of Social Darwinism.

Even the name of this current of thought is straightaway incorrect: Darwin is not the father of eugenics, or economic liberalism, or colonial expansionism, or scientific racism.  Neither is Darwin Malthusian. Much more than this, he was among the first put forward the clearest rebuttal of theories of Galton and Spencer.

After exposing his vision of the development and the evolution of organisms in The Origin of Species, twelve years later Darwin published his work on the development of his own species, man. In his book The Descent of Man, in 1871, he contradicted everything that Social Darwinism put forward. For Darwin, man is of course the product of evolution and is thus rightly placed within the process of natural selection. But for man, the struggle for survival doesn't mean the elimination of the weakest: "We civilised men, on the contrary, do everything possible to put a brake on this elimination; we construct asylums for idiots, the disabled and the sick; we have laws on the poor; and our doctors use all their skill to conserve life up to the last moment. Everything leads us to believe that vaccinations preserve thousands of individuals who otherwise, because of their weak constitutions, would succumb to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their nature."[5]

Thus, through the principle of evolution, humanity extricated itself from natural selection by placing itself above the competitive struggle for existence, all of which contributed to favouring the process of civilisation, by moral qualities, education, culture, religion... what Darwin called the "social instincts". Through this he called into question the vision of Spencer on the preponderance of the innate over the acquired, of nature over culture. Through civilisation then, on the social level, natural selection no longer operates in the same way as at the level of organisms. On the contrary, it is led to select social behaviours that oppose the laws of natural selection. This is clearly put forward by Patrick Tort in his theory of the "reverse effect of evolution"[6].

Whereas ‘Social Darwinism' only sees in the evolution of human society the result of the selection of the fittest, Darwin on the contrary saw here the growing reproduction of the social instincts such as altruism, solidarity, sympathy etc. The first conception poses capitalism as the most appropriate framework for social progress, whereas the second demonstrates, with some weight, that the economic laws of capitalism based on competition prevent the human species from fully developing its social instincts. It is by eliminating this last historic fetter, by abolishing capitalism, that humanity will be able to construct a society where these social instincts will come fully into their own  and lead human civilisation to its fulfilment.

GD 31/10/9 

[1] This text uses quotes and approaches from several articles and texts that it would be fastidious to mention systematically. This is their order:

* Wikipedia (notably articles given over to social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton)

* Dictionnaire de Sociologie, Le Robert.Seuil, 1999 (article on "social Darwinism")

* Brian Holmes, Herbert Spencer, "Perspectives" vol. XXIV, no. ¾, 1994

* Patrick Tort, Darwin et le darwinisme, Que Sais-je?, PUF

* Pierre-Henri Gouyon, Jacques Arnould, Jean-Pierre Henry, Les Avatars du gène, la théorie neo-darwinienne de l‘évolution, Belin, 1997

[2] Dictionnaire du Darwinisme et de l'évolution, PUF, pp 1008-09.

[3] In Anarchism and Socialism.

[4] "as much as I hate war, I hate socialism in all its forms", quoted by Duncan, The Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer, 1908.

[5] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.

[6] Read our article on Patrick Tort's latest book: L'effet Darwin https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/04/darwin-and-the-descent-of-man [168]

From Rivoluzione Internazionale 143, December - January 2006.

1. Why go back over the critique of Cervetto's position?

For some time now a lot of comrades have written to ask us what we think of Lotta Comunista (LC), what are our criticisms of it or why is it that we do not consider it to be a proletarian group given that it "claims to be part of the Communist Left", "defends the positions of Lenin" and "is very rigorous politically". These comrades are usually sympathisers of Lotta Comunista who, although critical of it on certain aspects, nevertheless consider the group to be a reference point. Or else they are ex-militants who, in spite of having left LC and often with serious divergences on questions of organisation and analysis, continue to base themselves on the historic positions of LC, that is, on those of its founder, Arrigo Cervetto. The fact that there arises now a necessity to understand if LC answers the needs of the class struggle is by no means strange. All that is happening in the world; the acceleration of history that we are experiencing at all levels (the disappearance of the imperialist blocs, the collapse of entire sectors of the economy, ceaseless and devastating imperialist conflicts, the spread of misery and precarious work at the heart of capitalism, etc) produces not only increasing disgust for this society but also makes it necessary to understand it all clearly in order to see how to react, in what direction to go. In our opinion, this kind of clarity and response cannot come from a group that basically says that nothing has changed in the last 100 years and restricts itself to studying the component factors of this or that productive sector or to reiterating an economist vision of the world, while at the same time continuing a fatal policy of (‘critical') support for the unions, which are one of the sneakiest arms of the bourgeoisie against the workers. LC's inability to give an answer to the problems that the class is facing is not because it is not up to the original positions and politics of Cervetto. It is precisely because of these positions themselves and their method, neither of which have ever been those of the Communist Left or of Lenin himself, as we will show.

However it is not just that the political activity of LC is ineffective for the working class. The very fact that this group passes itself off as in continuity with the historic tradition of the workers' movement while deforming its content and teachings, acts as an obstacle to the process of political maturation taking place within the class and particularly within the new generation of elements searching for a class perspective. As Lenin said in ‘What is to be done?' criticising the Social Democrat Kricevski, one of the defenders of Bernstein's economism,

 "... is it possible to imagine anything more superficial than an opinion on a whole tendency that is based on what the representatives of that tendency say about themselves?".

For this reason we think it important to develop in this article an in-depth critique of LC that takes up its origins, that is, the method and positions of Cervetto. In doing so we will look at the essential points: the construction of the party, class consciousness, the relationship between party and class, the unions. In the discussion we will refer principally to Cervetto's two basic texts, "Class struggle and the revolutionary party" (1966) and "Theses on imperialist development, the duration of the counter-revolutionary phase and the development of the class party" (1957).

In this first article we will find out what kind of party Cervetto thinks that it is necessary to build.

2) What kind of party for the world communist revolution?

The pamphlet "Class Struggle and the Revolutionary Party" aims, as Cervetto himself says in the introduction "to bring out clearly the basic lines of the Leninist conception of the party". This introduction ends with the affirmation that "The need to confront the problem of the revolutionary party through a serious study of Lenin is more than ever urgent today. The formation of the Leninist party in Italy must of necessity include this step." (our emphasis). This brief passage about "the construction of the Leninist party in Italy" contains a whole programme. Given that, in the works of Cervetto (and of LC) in this period, we find no reference to the construction of the vanguard in other countries of the world we find ourselves asking: why only in Italy? Is it possible that the formation of the party that is to lead the world revolution of the international working class must arise only in Italy? But let's look more closely at the origin of this position, affirmed more than once by Cervetto and never contradicted by LC. Cervetto explains in his Theses of ‘57 that, "Given the current level of the world market, of which there are vast zones still in the early stage of capitalist construction (we are talking about 1957, our comment) the revolutionary problem of the advent of the socialist economy on an international scale, is not yet raised. (...). In order for these conditions to be realised concretely, the sectors of the backward economies (two-thirds of the world according to Cervetto, our comment) must all go beyond the first stage of industrialisation. (...) The problem of the socialist revolution at an international level will be placed practically on the agenda only when the economic development of the backward zones has reached a certain degree of autonomy and can no longer absorb the importation of goods and capital coming from the imperialist powers". "So the Communist Left must carry out its political action within the framework of an international evaluation". Where? In Italy of course, given that "the programme of action of the Communist Left" consists essentially of three points: to analyse the Italian situation, from which emerges "the tactic towards the PCI"[1] of "the struggle against the PCI leadership"; to "organise its own union current within the CGIL" and carrying out "negotiations with the anarchist comrades"; to "organise at a national level a series of groups that from a local base co-ordinate together at the level of the province and the region in order to form provincial and regional committees firmly tied to the centre".

We will not elaborate a critique of the megalomania contained in identifying the Communist Left with one's own group and even with one's own person, when the workers' movement has always seen it as ALL the currents and groups coming out of the 3rd International who defended the principles and method of Marxism against its degeneration and the betrayal of the old workers' parties.

The main point is that behind the mountain of words about the Leninist method, scientific analysis, the science of the revolution, etc, there is a complete absence of Marxist method and historic vision. It is amazing that in Cervetto's texts there is no reference whatsoever to how the question of the party has been dealt with within the workers' movement and what answers have been given in the various historic phases. If the Marxist method is to be used, as Lenin used it, the question of the party can only be addressed if situated within the economic and social context of the current historic period and referring to the experience of the workers' movement as it has matured during the various stages of the class struggle. Although the party is an indispensable factor for the revolutionary development of the class, it is also an expression of the real state of the latter at a given moment in its history and of the existing objective conditions.

To present capitalism at the end of the 60s as a system that has yet to fully develop its own potential, concluding that its overthrow is not on the agenda, shows a complete incomprehension of what capitalism is. The spread of the capitalist mode of production throughout the globe does not mean that every single corner of the earth must be industrialised. It means that the mechanisms of production and distribution of goods and the relations of production to which they give rise, govern the entire world economy. In particular capitalism cannot develop homogenously because the capitalist mode of production is based on competition. This means that at a certain stage in its development, once there is a consistent shrinking of the markets in which the surplus value contained in goods must be realised in order to be re-invested in new productive cycles, the development of the stronger national capitals can only take place at the expense of the weaker ones. As late as 1995 LC affirmed that "If throughout the 60s about two-thirds of the world's population was sunk into backwardness, today we estimate that this condition affects about a half of humanity". This is to confuse two completely different things. The economic collapse of entire countries (from the ex-Soviet Union to the famous ‘Asian tigers' and finally to Argentina), the dismantling of entire industrial zones in the advanced countries, the growing inability to integrate into the productive cycle a significant part of the labour force - all of which are effects of capitalism's senility because of its historic crisis - is taken to be an indication of adolescent growth.[2]

To return then to Cervetto's framework, we have to say that it is completely wrong on two levels. Firstly, because a party built on a national basis today would be unable to respond to the political needs of the moment. Secondly, because revolutionaries have striven towards the international dimension of their work from the beginning of the workers' movement. Let's look at the lessons provided by the history of our class.

In 1848 the Communist League was formed. This was the first real party of the modern proletariat and its slogan was "Workers of the world unite. Proletarians have no fatherland", which proclaimed its character as an international organisation. In 1864 there was formed the International Workers' Association, the 1st International, which was founded on the initiative of the workers of France and England and regrouped thousands of workers in the industrialised or developing countries, from America to Russia. Although both the proletariat and capitalism were in the midst of their period of evolution, the two political organisations of the class, while originating in specific countries, placed themselves immediately on an international level because as the Manifesto clearly explains, internationalism is not just a possibility for the working class which has no national interest to defend. It is also a necessity imposed by the nature of its revolutionary task. The struggle of Marx and the General Council within the 1st International against the federalist vision of the anarchists is based on this understanding.

The 2nd International was founded in 1889, in the midst of capitalist development, when reformism had a preponderant weight because the proletariat could struggle effectively to obtain real and lasting improvements in its living and working conditions. In this situation the International was essentially a federation of national parties fighting in their respective countries with different programmes at the level of parliamentarism, the unions, social reform, etc. The possibility of reformist policies not only determines the type of political organisation of the class (mass party) but effectively narrows the horizon of the proletarian struggle to the national framework, However even within the 2nd International, there was a minority, Rosa Luxemburg among them, who fought to see that the decisions taken by its congresses were implemented by the various parties in the respective countries.

From the very beginning of the workers' movement the international perspective has always been present within the various political organisations of the class. However, given the objective conditions of capitalist development and the numerical, political and social growth of the proletariat in this period, it was possible and necessary to form mass parties that acted at a national level to encourage this growth because the proletariat fought for the ten hour working day, for the vote, for the union, by confronting its own national bourgeoisie.

The 1st world war in 1914 and the explosion of the 1st international revolutionary wave, the high point of which was the proletarian revolution in Russia in '17, show the change in the historic phase of capitalist development. The system of capitalist production entered into its decadent phase and the epoch of war and revolution was opened up, which offered the alternative of communism or barbarism. The 3rd International (1919) was constituted around the fractions of the left minorities who came out of the 2nd International, including the Bolsheviks, and was based on the understanding that "A new epoch is born. An epoch of capitalist disintegration, of its internal collapse. The epoch of the communist revolution" (1st Congress). It firmly defended proletarian internationalism, conceived not as a federation of national parties, but as an international political organisation of the proletariat. Lenin himself, within the CI, fought against the idea of the ‘specificity' of each party that acted as a cover for opportunism and he defended against Luxemburg the need to constitute a world party even before communist parties had been consolidated or formed in each country. In spite of the difficulties presented to the revolutionary vanguard by the change in historic period, Lenin was able to carry out a struggle within Russian Social Democracy both prior to the formation of the CI and then within it, for the construction of an international and centralised party, which could speak with one voice to the proletariat of the whole world and give them clear political indications. This was because Lenin always began from an historic analysis and from the general and historic interests of the proletariat as a class, always bearing in mind what the workers' movement had already demonstrated and was then in the process of demonstrating.

It was on the basis of this understanding, defended during the counter-revolutionary period following the Second World War by revolutionary minorities such as Bilan and Internationalisme[3], that our organisation was formed in 1975 at an international level. It carried out an activity of confrontation and regroupment between various groups and nuclei of comrades who had emerged in France, Great Britain, Italy, USA and Spain following the wave of international struggles at the end of the 60s. Today the ICC is present in 13 countries and is able to intervene simultaneously towards the working class in these countries and wherever else it is possible to reach, because it starts from the conviction that the international framework is the departure point for national activity rather than being the result of the latter. For this reason it created an international central organ from the beginning in order to centralise its activity and speak with a single voice anywhere and at any time.

In this first article we have seen how the vision of the party defended by Cervetto completely departs from the international dimension and, by restricting  itself to the national framework, it lends itself to a 19th century vision of the party which is inadequate to the demands of the revolutionary struggle. 

Eva 1/12/5

see also

The conception of the Party held by Cervetto and Lotta Comunista (part two) [169]

The conception of the Party held by Cervetto and Lotta Comunista (Part three) [170]

[1] Italian Communist Party (the old Stalinist Party), the dissolution of which produced: Rifondazione Comunista of Bertinotti, Fassino's Democratici di sinistra and the Partito dei comunisti italiani of Cossutta and Diliberto.

[2] For an analysis of the various historic phases of capitalism and the political consequences coming out of them, see our pamphlet, "The Decadence of Capitalism [171]". Numerous articles on the manifestation of the economic crisis of capitalism are to be found on our internet site in various languages.

[3] The comrades of the Left Fraction of the PCI in France, who published Bilan and those who published Internationalisme knew how to protect and develop the political legacy of the old revolutionary parties, so enabling future generations to bind themselves to this r ed thread.

We have just received and are publishing on our site, this leaflet distributed to the Sydney postal workers strike by a group of Sydney Left Communists.

Despite endless talk by politicians, economists and the media about the ‘end of the recession', workers around Australia and the world are feeling otherwise. Faced with declining profits and savage competition over markets, the bosses have one answer: make the working class pay through job-cuts, wage freezes, ‘modernisation' of working conditions (i.e. getting us to work harder for less) and massive cuts to the public services. All the ruling class politicos, both Labour and Liberal, agree on the need for these attacks, as such neither offers us any choice.

For us there can also only be one answer: resist the attacks on our living and working conditions and fight for their improvement. Around the world workers are struggling, from Egypt to Bangladesh and Britain to Greece. In Australia too: Council workers in Geelong; Smelter workers in SA; High school, TAFE Teachers and University Lectures across NSW, Queensland and Tasmania; Seafarers and Wharfies in WA; Airline engineers and baggage handlers in Sydney; Egg-grading workers at Dora Creek and most recently of all, Bus Drivers across NSW are all engaged in the same struggle.

The posties have taken the correct, albeit difficult choice to take on Australia Post and reject its pitiful offer. Thus, the most pressing current issue isn't whether or not to fight, but how to fight. Faced with a united attack by the bosses including the howling condemnation and bashing by the capitalist media machine, what is vitally necessary now is maximum unity. United we stand, divided we fall. As such all postal workers must stand together and join in united strike action: old and young, foreign and Australian-born, full-time and casual. However, it is not enough for Australia Post workers alone to stand together. To ensure victory it is necessary that we spring the trap of isolation. Most immediately this means spreading the struggle, not only uniting all postal workers but also the other sectors of the working class currently engaged in struggle around the country. When the working class stand as one and fight, the bosses will be forced to back down. This is not just some utopian fantasy, this is a concrete and immediate possibility.

In addition to this, it is also necessary that workers directly control of their own struggle. The recent strike by posties working for Royal Mail in Britain which ended earlier this month holds a vital lesson for their class brothers and

sisters in Australia. Here it was not the bosses or the scabs which ultimately defeated the strike, but the posties' union itself, the CWU, which sabotaged the struggle and sold the workers down the creek. This was the same outcome as the strikes by British posties in 2007. This defeat holds vital lessons for posties in Australia, lessons which must be learnt if we want to avoid the same terrible outcome.

Workers must be vigilant of the machinations of the CEPU and not allow it to co-opt or derail the struggle as the unions have done time and time again. Mass meetings of workers need to be the centres of debate, discussion and decision making for the struggle. Only here can workers can express themselves collectively in contrast to the undemocratic and unaccountable decision making by the union bureaucracy or secret balloting from home through workers are left isolated and atomised. Mass meetings and picket lines must also be open to all workers, including the unemployed and those from other sectors who come to show their solidarity and discuss how the struggle can be extended.

Only by drawing together as many workers as possible, from different sectors, into a common struggle, and by maintaining direct control over the struggle, against being co-opted and derailed by the union bureaucracy, can workers assure victory! The future lies in our hands!

- Left Communists of Sydney 21/12/09

Please write to us at: [email protected] [175]

We greatly appreciate comments and feedback and will quickly respond to any questions or criticisms.

Our section in France received this statement from the anarcho-syndicalist CNT-AIT in Toulouse. We entirely agree with these comrades that this is an attempt by the state to intimidate militants and the working class in general. The contrast between the severity of the punishment called for and the complicit silence over war criminals like Karadic and Maladic ever since the war in ex-Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the state's accusations of ‘terrorism' are completely hypocritical. We want to convey our full solidarity to the imprisoned militants and their families, and we encourage our readers to distribute the CNT-AIT's declaration as widely as possible. 

ICC 27/10/2009

Message from CNT-AIT Toulouse

You will certainly be aware that Serbian anarcho-syndicalist militants, including the current secretary of the AIT (International Workers Association), are being held in prison in Belgrade. The charge against them is ‘terrorism'. At the moment we do not know how far they will take this. The accusation is based on allegations about very minor material damage carried out by an anarchist group against the Greek embassy in Belgrade in solidarity with a Greek comrade who is still in prison. The accused deny these facts but are facing 3 to 15 years in prison. This disproportion between the alleged facts and the potential sentence makes us think that the Serbian power wants to muzzle our comrades whose militant activity visibly embarrasses them.

We ask you to distribute as widely as possible the communiqué by the ASI (the Anarcho-Syndicalist Initiative in Serbia).

Statement of Anarcho-Syndicalist Initiative on Arrests of their Members

On September, 4th 2009 District Court in Belgrade decided that arrested members of ASI will be held for thirty days in detention. Our comrades are accused of an act of international terrorism.

Union Confederation "Anarcho-syndicalist Initiative" found out about the attack on Greek embassy, and of the organisation that took the responsibility for this act, through media.

We use this opportunity to remind the public once again that these methods of individual political struggle are not methods of anarcho-syndicalism, quite the contrary - we proclaim our political positions publicly and through our work we seek to bring masses to the syndicalist movement and all the libertarian and progressive organisations.

Wanting to brutally suppress its fierce critics the state, through its mechanism of repression, acts with banal logic and maps as suspects those who explicitly stated their libertarian beliefs, and by their imprisonment ends the case and gives a false picture of its efficiency to the public.

Unscrupulous actions of regime's organs can be observed from the first moments of arrest, unlawful searches of their apartments, intimidations of their families to extreme charges of international terrorism.

Given the fact that we do not support the acts of now famous anarchist group "Crni Ilija" (Black Iliya) we still cannot characterise what happened as "international terrorism", because terrorism, by definition, entails threats to the lives of civilians, whereas in this case no one was even hurt and only symbolic material damage was done.

It is clear that this state produced farce is just one way of intimidating anyone who decides to point out the injustice and hopelessness of contemporary society.

In times of general social numbness individuals reach for the most unbelievable, sometimes even self-destructive, actions in order to break through the media blockade and to put their case in the centre of attention - let us remember the workers who cut off and eat their own fingers, or, for example, the unlucky, distressed man who threatened to activate a hand grenade in the building of the Presidency of Serbia - that is, trying to shed some light on their problems in a broader social space.

Lets not allow them to persuade us that one symbolic act of solidarity, even if expressed in a certainly ill manner, together with any other act of rebellion of those who are left with no rights should be treated as an antisocial act and an act of terrorism.

We express solidarity with the arrested comrades and their families and demand the truth about this case!

FREEDOM FOR ANARCHO-SYNDICALISTS!

ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST INITIATIVE

Sept. 5, 2009