When the LibDems and the Tories agreed on a coalition the French newspaper Le Monde quaintly described it as "A marriage of reason at 10 Downing Street" and a triumph for "British fair play." In reality, for all the horse-trading and manoeuvring that went on behind the scenes, and despite all the divisions and antagonisms, those involved in the negotiations were united in seeing the seriousness of their task because the formation of a governing team is an important moment for the ruling class.

Above all, the government has the role of defending the interests of the nation's capitalist class. It is essential that it is able to do this competently and effectively. To understand the reasons behind the change of government we need to understand the situation it has to confront.

The most important concerns for the British bourgeoisie at present are:

• Managing the crisis: This is the most violent economic crisis to have hit capitalism in its history: as serious as the Great Depression in terms of its underlying contradictions. It has manifested itself as the most brutal recession since World War II. The ruling class has managed to achieve a temporary stabilisation but it is clear that this is extremely fragile. The bourgeoisie needs a governing team that can effectively maintain stability and confront any new convulsions.
• Repair the damage: This stabilisation of the economy has come at an enormous price. While not yet immediately threatened with default, the UK has an enormous budget deficit which the bourgeoisie has to act quickly to curtail.
• Make the working class pay: The stabilisation gives the bourgeoisie the opportunity to carry out its only response to the crisis, that of attacking the working class. These attacks have already begun with the Emergency Budget heralding the most brutal assault on public spending in decades. By the Coalition's own admission, worse is yet to come. Capital will continue to attempt to increase its rates of exploitation. It is essential for the state to try to persuade the working class that these attacks are necessary, and deflect resistance with ideological and material force.

An essential element in this strategy is revitalising democracy. The expenses scandal which revealed widespread abuse of parliamentary expenses that were essentially funding MPs' personal luxuries created a very deep and widespread disillusionment with politicians. In the context of a situation where the bourgeoisie will be calling on the working class to make sacrifices it hasn't experienced for generations, this disillusionment could have stimulated a questioning among the exploited class. So, one of the key aims is to rehabilitate democracy, with talk of voting systems, accountability of parliament and a new ‘clean' politics.

The new line-up will also have to deal with the reorientation of British imperialist strategy as the conflicts of the last decade have exposed the weaknesses of British imperialism. This is in some respects a subsidiary problem compared to the coming (class) war on the home front, but as the international economic situation continues to be wracked with convulsions foreign policy will play an important role, especially in UK policy towards the Eurozone.

Coalition collaboration and division

Judging from the media, coalition talks were on a knife-edge, with the LibDems negotiating with both Labour and the Conservatives in turn. There was a general presumption that Labour were more natural bedfellows for the Liberals than the Tories. Certainly, the LibDems style themselves as ‘centre-left' and ‘progressive' but there are, in fact, two distinct wings within the party: the ‘market liberals' and the ‘social liberals'. The latter were dominant under Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy, but since the 2005 election there have been signs of the market liberals reasserting themselves with the publication of the The Orange Book - a collection of essays advocating ‘free market' solutions for many aspects of public policy. Many key contributors are now at the centre of the LibDem leadership: Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Chris Huhne, and Ed Davey. The dominance of this faction within the LibDems clearly helped pave the way for the new coalition.

Right from the start of the Coalition there have been reports of the inevitable divisions, with former leaders such as Kennedy and Ashdown openly expressing their doubts. There have also been mutterings, especially from the Tory right, about the new conditions for dissolving parliament. The stability of the Coalition could certainly be in doubt as there are a whole host of divisions concerning Europe, defence, etc. that could easily result in fractures.

However, for the moment, these potential fissions are not the driving force. The bourgeoisie will use the window of opportunity to drive through the enormous cuts required, using the cover of the Liberal Democrats' ‘progressive' credentials to try and soften the blows. The fact that the Governor of the Bank of England has already voiced his support for the £6 billion of cuts announced, shows the primacy the bourgeoisie has given to this aim. The coalition may or may not last the full 5 years - what really matters is what it can achieve in the next 18 months.

The Labour Party, gone but not forgotten

Labour's loss was no surprise. Although there was a real increase in poverty under Labour, for the most part this was masked, even for the majority of the working class, until the latest outbreak of the economic crisis. The bourgeoisie was largely pleased with Labour's capacity to manage the economy, but it was less than impressed with its management of Iraq and Afghanistan, its growing internal feuding which contributed to its losing sight of the national interest.

Most importantly, Labour could no longer pose as the bringer of ‘renewal' to British politics. Also, keeping Labour in power to bring in massive spending cuts would have annihilated its ability (already much reduced in recent years) to claim to be a defender of the working class. In addition, since the election Labour have become useful scapegoats for the state of the British economy.

Opposition will give Labour a chance to revitalise itself, to continue to pose as the champion of public services, and criticise the very austerity policies that it would have been compelled to impose had it retained power. Some turn to the left seems inevitable, although none of the candidates for the Labour leadership offers much that is different from the ‘New Labour' mainstream. A candidate of the left will not be the new Labour leader, but the left in the unions will continue to be an important influence.

Ultimately, the trajectory of the Labour party will be determined by the class struggle. A powerful response from the working class to government austerity measures will increase the pressure for a Labour left-turn. This idea of a ‘real alternative' would serve the needs of the bourgeoisie. However, if the Coalition proves to be unstable, Labour needs to be ready to return to government. This could be difficult with a strong left-turn, but not impossible. After all, it's a ‘socialist' government unleashing the austerity programmes in Greece.

Difficulties ahead

One of the immediate aims of the Coalition has been to defend the LibDems from the backlash they are already getting through their participation in the Coalition. Many supporters voted LibDem to either keep the Tories out or because they genuinely believed in the ‘new politics'. As a result, a number of LibDem policies clearly aimed at the lowest-paid workers have been adopted, such as the raising of the tax thresholds, meaning the lowest paid workers will pay less tax. This is despite the fact that the plans to drastically curtail working family tax credits adopted by the Coalition are, in fact, LibDem policies and are far more ruthless than those of the Tories. The new government is playing the ‘anti-poverty' card early on, in order to mask the full extent of the austerity that is to come. It's also important in trying to stop LibDem voters from feeling betrayed

Nonetheless, the ‘new politics' promised by Cameron and Clegg is a strong theme that can develop into a more overt call for national unity as the cuts begin to bite - ‘if we can sink our differences and work together, then so must the whole country'.

One example of this is the attempt to involve public sector workers in choosing what to cut. This plays to important themes about democracy and the idea that ‘we're all in this together'; as is Clegg's project of asking the public what laws should be cut.

There will also be a more hostile posture towards the class struggle. The policy of using the courts to outlaw strikes seems set to continue as the ongoing saga at British Airways demonstrates - new ‘anti-union' laws are also a possibility. Strikes will be presented as the selfish action of particular interest groups (‘well-paid' public sector workers, BA cabin crew, etc.) with a hard-line government ‘protecting' the public. This will allow struggles to be diverted into a defence of the unions and false campaigns about the ‘right to strike', rather than actually carrying out effective strikes which are, by definition, illegal anyway. However, the austerity regime will also show more starkly the real situation of the working class - that even minimal demands cannot be tolerated by crisis-ridden capitalism. That things seem impossible within capitalism can lead to paralysis - but it may also push forward the understanding that a new social order is required.   

QPCR 10/7/10

The Saville report into the events of Bloody Sunday has been widely praised for its findings. The report cost nearly £200 million and took 12 years to complete. David Cameron's apology has led to calls for him to be given the freedom of Derry. Has the world been turned upside down or is there something more cynical going on?

The tribunal set up by Tony Blair as part of the Northern Ireland peace process in 1998 and led by Lord Saville looked at the events of Sunday 30 January 1972.

The march to the Guildhall in Derry city centre was organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association, a group formed to campaign for Catholic equality in Northern Ireland. During 1971 the Northern Ireland government imposed internment without trial for those accused of paramilitary activity. Only nationalists appeared on the list, many of them not members of the IRA. The march was organised in protest against the new law. The authorities decided to contain the march within the Catholic areas of the city. The British army were sent in to stop the marchers from proceeding and contain any potential trouble.

Soldiers from the First Parachute regiment opened fire on protesters who they claimed had opened fire on them. Thirteen people died of their bullet wounds on the day. None of the victims were carrying weapons, evidence was later fabricated. The British government ordered an inquiry. The subsequent Widgery report into the events of that day cleared the army of any wrong doing. It was widely seen at the time and since as a complete whitewash.

Even though there were killings that were carried out with more ruthlessness and premeditation before and after, Bloody Sunday became an iconic event in the conflict.

The Saville report overturned the findings of the Widgery report. Saville's report stated:

"The firing by soldiers of 1 PARA on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland."

The release of the Saville report was followed by a statement from Prime Minister David Cameron where he said he was "deeply sorry" for what had happened. The report has been well received by almost everyone apart from the Army and some Unionist politicians.

The apology from the British Government should be taken with a pinch of salt. Any thought that the state is moving towards a fairer and less repressive approach can be quickly dispelled. In a parallel with the internment policies of the early 1970s in Northern Ireland the new Coalition government will continue with the previous Government's policy of detaining terror suspects without charge. In Birmingham the police have, temporarily, postponed the "installation of 169 automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, 49 CCTV cameras and 72 ‘covert' cameras in two predominately Muslim areas in Birmingham." (Guardian, 6/7/10). The Northern Ireland Assembly is considering passing a law which requires any parade, protest or assembly, where more than 50 people may be present, to give 37 days notice to the authorities.

While its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan confirms that British imperialism has far from forsaken the military option, it will continue to use mechanisms of democracy to cover its tracks. So, for example, we can look forward to a new inquiry looking into the involvement of the UK secret services in the torture of suspects in the ‘war on terror'. Whatever the report ends up saying it won't change the brutal reality of British state terror

If the British state hasn't changed its spots why has Cameron apologised for its actions in 1972? The answer lies in the ‘peace process' that fosters the image of ‘peace and reconciliation' in Northern Ireland while fundamental antagonisms still exist.

While the ‘troubles' continued there were opportunities for Britain's imperialist rivals to undermine Britain's control of Northern Ireland. The IRA turned to the US and Libya at various times. The need to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland is more important than ever as Britain has been weakened by the economic crisis and its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain can't afford to wage another war in Northern Ireland and fight for its imperialist interests in the Middle East and beyond.

The pressure on the UK internally and externally can only increase. The British bourgeoisie is caught with the need to attack the working class at home and defend its position internationally with less resources.

In Northern Ireland there still exists, not far below the surface, intense sectarianism and the day to day intimidation and violence carried out by loyalist and republican gangs, passing mostly unreported. The discovery of bombs in an abandoned van outside a police station in Aughnacloy and in a beer keg beside a road near Keady in Armagh shows that the threat of a return to conflict still exists.  

Hugin 1/7/10

How can workers defend themselves against redundancies, pay freezes, worsening conditions at work and cuts in public services? The scale of the attacks launched against the working class, both before and after the election (see "Austerity budget: the enemy steps up the class war [8]"), make it clear that there is no option but to fight. But it takes courage to strike in the present climate of rising unemployment and victimisation by bosses and government and the level of action in Britain remains at a historically low level according to official statistics. However, recent strikes and threats of action show that there is growing anger within the working class but also that the will to struggle is developing.

This courage and will, which is the first requirement if workers are to defend themselves, is exemplified by the workers at BA who have remained united and determined in the face of all the attacks from the bosses with majorities of 80 and 90% supporting action. Tube maintenance workers in London went on strike for a day in London at the end of June, again in the face of legal threats from the bosses, and more action may follow. Last year, the workers at Visteon and Vestas showed enormous courage in taking action in the face of redundancies (see WR 324 [9] and 327 [10]).

The need for unity across the working class

However, anger and militancy are not enough on their own. The BA strike may now be entering its final stages with a deal being put to the workers that will give the bosses the job cuts they want and the right to force new workers onto worse pay and conditions. The resistance to the victimisation of the workers, through the withdrawal of travel rights and the use of disciplinary action, which has now become the focus of the strike, is part of the struggle but was not the reason for taking action. However, the deal being put to the BA workers has worse implications than the loss of pay and harsher conditions of work since it may create a divide between workers. As we argued in the article on the strike in the last issue of World Revolution [11], the efforts to divide and isolate the flight attendants has been a feature of the strike. This has been a deliberate strategy of the BA bosses who have created a climate of fear so that workers are not sure who they can trust.

The old lesson that unity is strength has been bitterly learnt and re-learnt by the working class. We have seen it recently with the postal workers who have gone from wildcat strikes that created a dynamic force of unity and strength to separate days of action that dissipated their energy and undermined unity. This is not new. Some 25 years ago the miners' strike ended in defeat because the workers, for all their inspiring courage and class solidarity, struggled alone. This tells us that groups of workers, even when as large and united as the miners were, cannot succeed on their own. This is all the more true in times such as the 1980s and today when the class war is intensified by the bourgeoisie as it makes the working class pay for the crisis of its economic system. In Britain, we have seen the oil refinery construction workers wage a successful struggle by extending the struggle across sites and employers and across different nationalities, despite the nationalism expressed by some of the strikers.

Workers in the public sector face not only the prospect of 600,000 redundancies according to Treasury projections (and must fear more given the comprehensive spending review). The ‘reform' of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme will savage redundancy arragements for civil servants. Talk of the ‘gold-plated' conditions of civil service workers is countered by the Mark Serwotka of the PCS saying this compensates for pay which is on average 7% lower than in the private sector. Both sides are attempting to isolate and divide public and private sector workers when all are under attack and the only way to resist is to unite.

This effort to extend the struggle is a feature of some of today's struggles. Thus, in Spain workers at the shipyards in Vigo joined with unemployed workers (see ICConline - March 2010 [12]) while in Turkey workers at the Tekel tobacco company tired to link with workers in sugar factories facing the same state-led attacks (see ICConline - January 2010 [13]). Tekel workers also posed the question of the need to take control of their struggle away from the union, and since then a minority of workers have organised to discuss the lessons and how to take it forward. More recently we have seen large strikes in Greece and demonstrations in other countries against the austerity measures of the ruling class.

Workers can only unite across all the divisions imposed by capitalism if they take control of their own struggles, something we have seen workers attempt to do in several struggles. At the start of their struggle last year workers from Vestas organised themselves without any union involvement, but when the union did come in they started to isolate the workers, preventing anyone else joining the occupation. Time and again unions keep workers divided. This is not because the unions have bad leaders who sell the workers out but because unions have become part of capitalism. In the nineteenth century workers created unions to fight for their demands. From the First World War  in the early 20th century unions were recuperated into the capitalist state apparatus.

From class unity to class consciousness

Ultimately, the unity that we must strive for goes beyond industries and sectors, beyond ethnic groups and countries, to reach across the whole working class. This dynamic inevitably brings workers face to face with all of the forces that seek to divide them, both obvious enemies like the courts and the state as well as supposed allies, like the unions and the parties of the left, the ‘socialists' and ‘communists'. This requires workers to take the final step: to develop their understanding of what they are fighting against and what they are fighting for. To know who their enemies are and who are their comrades. In short, to develop their class consciousness.

Today there are a million false explanations and solutions for the economic crisis. We are told it is the fault of the bankers, the speculators, the regulators, or the government, or even to the greed of parts of the working class, such as in Greece, who are unwilling to work until they die. We are told that we just need a bit more of Keynes, or a tax on financial transactions or the renewal of manufacturing or that the cuts could be found elsewhere, such as by closing tax loopholes according to one of Unite's bosses. The same union has also been happy to help BA find the savings it wants to make - at the expense of the workers.

As we show elsewhere in this issue, the present economic crisis doesn't come from this or that part of capitalism but from its heart. Economic crisis is not some temporary aberration but the way of life of capitalism. Time after time the working class pays the cost in lives ruined and hopes crushed. The truth is we have all the resources, all the technology, all the skills and knowledge and all the people necessary for every human on earth to have all the food and drink, shelter, education and healthcare necessary to lead a meaningful life. What stands in the way of this? Profits - and the economy and society that produce these profits. As workers' struggles develop, the possibility of ending the profit-based world for one based on human solidarity gives a perspective for our struggles. With will, unity and consciousness every obstacle on the way can be overcome.  

North 09/07/10

Austerity regimes like that gradually being reinforced in Britain are being imposed across Europe. The continuing strikes and demonstrations in Greece have been the most dramatic expression of a working class response, but they are only the most high-profile examples.

The fact that the Greek workers' struggle continues is important. By 8 July there was the sixth general strike this year. But the unions continue to have strikes on different days, the demonstrations are getting smaller in some places, and the government continues to bring in economic measures that extend the offensive on workers' current and future living standards. The demonstrations still express great anger, most recently, for example, against the latest pension ‘reforms'. And while bourgeois analysts suggest that a mood of resignation is beginning to set in and that there is the beginning of an acceptance of belt-tightening, the same experts also see people taking to the streets again as tax increases, wage cuts and other measures begin to have a greater impact.

In Spain on 8 June there was a major public sector strike with demonstrations across the country. This is hardly surprising when you consider the 5% cut in public sector wages that's been imposed. More specifically there has been an on-off strike on the Madrid metro in which there has been a strike committee that seems to be made out of union reps, but a general assembly that is capable of taking its own decisions. In the Spanish media there have been rumours of the possible militarisation of transport - shades of fascist Spain under Franco. For the future the unions are preparing for a national strike for 29 September, as at present they still retain the initiative, holding back the tendencies for workers to hold their own mass meetings and send delegations to other workers.

On 25 June there were major demonstrations in Rome, Milan and other Italian cities. The massive budget cuts include a three-year wage freeze for workers in the public sector. The approach of the unions in Italy is typical. Strikes in Piedmont, Liguria and central Tuscany were delayed until 2 July. In addition, consider the pleadings of Susanna Camusso, deputy leader of the CGIL, who told a march in Bologna "No one denies that we need to make cuts, but they must be cuts which are fair and look to the future, rather than just slashing spending" (Financial Times 26/6/10). The ruling class do indeed insist on the need to make spending cuts, and want the working class to pay the price for the crisis of the capitalist economy. There is nothing ‘fair' about impoverishment in a class society.

Strikes and demonstrations in France on 24 June against the proposal to raise the age for pensions to 62 were widespread across the country, but very much under the control of the unions. Although it is significant that workers from the private sector and many that are not in unions participated in the demonstrations.

In Romania on 25 June thousands joined protests in Bucharest and some workers in the public sector went on strike in protest at measures that are cutting wages and pensions.

On June 8, 40,000 people protested outside the Danish parliament against spending cuts that will hit many benefits, services and employment. As with many of the other demonstrations across Europe this was organised by a union federation.

Going back 8 months, on 24 November last year there was one of the biggest union strikes in Irish history with demonstrations against the Irish state's austerity measures across the country. Since then unions in Ireland have been voting for the Croke Park agreement which effectively means accepting a no-strike deal for the next four years in exchange for a very dubious economic package. Here the two faces of the unions can be clearly seen. On one hand they try to keep control over worker's discontent by channelling it into well marshalled demonstrations and divided strikes. On the other hand they sell state spending cuts.

The reason that the unions have been so recently active is that everywhere that the capitalist state is cutting budgets and attacking workers' living standards the working class is beginning to express its anger.  

Car 10/7/10

 

The impression that Russian imperialism is making more and ground in its immediate sphere of influence has been strengthened by a number of spectacular events recently: the rapprochement with the Yanukovych government in Ukraine and the signing of a an accord allowing for long-term Russian military bases there; the signing of a deal with Ankara for the construction of a Russian nuclear plant in Akkuyu in the south of Turkey; Medvedev's ‘brotherly' visit to Syria in May and the rumours that the elimination of the Bakiyev government in Kyrgyzstan was entirely to the advantage of Moscow. But is this actually the case?

Without doubt, the situation we saw in the 1990s is long gone. Then Russian experienced a very significant enfeeblement. It had lost all its old satellite states and, on the domestic front, under Yeltsin, entered an era of openly Mafia style functioning. The Russian state was urgently compelled to put both its internal and external affairs under the control of its apparatus. The accession to power of the bourgeois faction around Putin in 2000 was a significant sign of the effort to restore the strength of the Russian state and reinforce its imperialist policies.

But do the successes that Russia has achieved allow us to talk about a triumphant forward march of Russian imperialism? Not at all. In reality, Russia today is faced with a desperate struggle against instability in the region of the former eastern bloc. Instability and a loss of control are a general tendency, which most powerfully affects the USA, the world's leading gendarme. But Russia, which aims to maintain its role as leader in this region, and to draw long-term advantages from the weakening of the USA, is itself not able to escape this international dynamic.

Kyrgyzstan : the extension of uncontrollable chaos

At first sight, the overthrow of the government of Kyrgyzstan in April 2010 seems to mark a point for Russia in the imperialist game: the government clique around Bakiyev had broken its promise to Russia to close the country's American military base, so it would be easy to think that the new government clique around Otunbayeva was being placed in power with the official support of Russia, to take revenge on Bakiyev for breaking his word. But the situation in Kyrgyzstan is rather more complex. It's not possible to reduce it to a struggle between two bourgeois factions, one supported by the USA and the other by Russia, as was often the case in third world countries during the Cold War. It's wrong to imagine that with the overthrow of the Bakiyev government, the spoils automatically fall to Russian imperialism and the situation will calm down.

What we are seeing in Kyrgyzstan on the contrary is an extension of chaos and conflicts between national cliques. Russian imperialism is very far from emerging as the big winner in the situation. With the tensions in the south of the country, in the region of Jalabad and Osh, a phase of instability is opening up in a country which is both at the gates of Russia and shares a frontier with China - which is an increasingly aggressive imperialism. Kyrgyzstan is already an important point of entry for Chinese products into the markets of the CIS. But even if Russia and China are really bitter rivals over gaining influence in Kyrgyzstan, they still have a shared concern about this region: the development of uncontrollable battles between regional cliques, which often take the form of ethnic pogroms like the ones we have just seen in Kyrgyzstan.  And even the USA will not accept its military presence in Kyrgyzstan being put into question!  Kyrgyzstan is a country that is getting more and more difficult to govern because it lacks a unified national bourgeoisie. It is now a clear example of the danger of loss of control so feared by the great imperialist powers. The bloody pogroms in Osh this June clearly illustrate the delicate situation facing Russian imperialism: asked to provide military aid by the Otunbayeva government in order stem the chaos, Russia hesitated because it didn't want to get drawn into a second Afghanistan. Independently of the question of the local cliques in power, it is difficult for Russia, which is being shaken by the economic crisis, to intervene with the aim of maintaining its influence, given the enormous military costs involved. On top of this, Russia's efforts to play its role as regional imperialist gendarme are being undermined by the actions of a small imperialist hyena in the region, the Lukashenko government in Belarus which immediately tried to throw oil on the fire by offering asylum to the exiled Bakiyev. 

Election of Yanukovych in Ukraine: a great victory for Russia?

Without doubt, the elections in February 2010 in Ukraine brought to power a bourgeois faction which is much more open to Russia. In April, Ukraine signed a significant deal with Russia guaranteeing a Russian military presence in Sebastopol until 2042, and massive economic concessions for deliveries of Russian gas to Ukraine until 2019. In June, Ukraine took the decision to halt plans to enter NATO drawn up by the previous Yushchenko government. But relations with Ukraine are not at the point where Russia can pat itself on the back and they present it with a real dilemma. Even though Ukraine has been hit hard by the economic crisis and needs immediate financial aid, the Ukrainian state is not jumping once and for all into the arms of its big brother - and it is also asking for something in return from Russia. Russia has to reward the temporary goodwill of the Yanukovych government at the cost of the billions knocked off the price of gas, and this just to maintain its military presence in the port of Sebastopol. But the real imperialist needs and ambitions of Russia towards Ukraine go much further than the deal struck with the Ukrainian government. From the geographical point of view Ukraine represents a passage-way for the export of Russian gas to the west, and the Russian economy is highly dependent on this trade. To avoid this degree of dependence on Ukraine (and even on Belarus), Russia is obliged to undertake hugely expensive alternative routes like the Northstream pipeline. For Russia, a stable, long-term relationship with Ukraine is a necessity, not only on the economic terrain of the transport of gas, but above all on the geostrategic terrain, for its military protection. But Ukraine, with its deeply divided bourgeoisie, does not represent a stable partner and the Yanukovych government offers no guarantees in the long term. If the faction around Timochenko gets back into government, new frictions won't be long in following. For the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, which is motivated fundamentally by its own national interests, its current political orientation is not the expression of a deep love affair with Russia.  The weakness of the European Union means that a rapprochement between Ukraine and the EU is not an option for the former. It is economic necessity and the need to find the cheapest source of energy which is pushing Ukraine into a path so typical of imperialism today: immediatist, unstable and dominated by the ‘every man for himself' philosophy.

After the war in Georgia: no stability in sight in the Caucasus

Even though in the war against Georgia in 2008 Russian imperialism did gain ground by occupying new geographical zones, such as Ossetia and Abkhazia, and even though the USA was unable to intervene on behalf of its friend Georgia because it was bogged down in Iraq, Russian has in no way consolidated its position in the Caucasus.  Russia has not really been able to take advantage of the USA's weakness. This was basically the sign of a new stage in imperialist confrontations, since for the first time since the collapse of the blocs in 1989 the old rivals America and Russia were once again facing each other directly.

But this war also showed clearly that it is quite wrong to think that in the present stage of imperialism a war automatically produces a winner and a loser. In the end this war only produced losers. Not only from the point of view of the working class (which always loses on both sides of any imperialist conflict) but also among the imperialisms involved in it. Georgia has been weakened, so the USA has lost its influence in the region but Russia is confronted with an aggravation of chaos in the Caucasus which is proving impossible to calm down.

In many regions of the Caucasus, in official territories of the Russian Federation, such as Dagestan or Ingushetia, the armed forces of Russian imperialism play the role of an occupying force rather than of a deeply rooted state apparatus. But again the situation in this region is extremely complex: the Russian police and army have been acting in a very brutal manner, but in the end have proved powerless against the numerous local clans at each others' throats.

Apart from the necessity to defend its immediate strategic and economic interests, the aggressive stance of Russian imperialism also contains a historical dimension. Founded on a history of permanent expansion since Czarist times, Russia has today been squeezed back into a reduced territorial corset - a situation which its bourgeoisie cannot accept. 

The May terrorist attacks in Moscow, not far from the area of the city inhabited by the security forces, show that terrorist actions are aimed directly at the authority of the Russian state. The present efforts to increase the powers of the FSB are not a sign of strength but of fear. The situation in the northern Caucasus where Russia finds itself in a state of more or less open warfare in its own national territory - in other words, in a situation where it is constantly threatened with losing control and thus providing an example to other local cliques to start contesting its authority - shows that Russia too is caught up in a process of weakening. A situation like this is specific to Russia. Other big imperialisms like America or Germany don't face such problems in their own territory, or do to a lesser degree, like China. Even if Russia is struggling manfully to overcome the historical crisis it entered with the collapse of the Stalinist form of state capitalism, the development of centrifugal forces in its historical sphere of influence is continuing and getting worse.

The whole situation in Russia's sphere of influence is one more example of the total irrationality of capitalism today. Even if the ruling class arms itself to the teeth, it still can't control its own system.

Mario 29/6/10 

Since the fall of the Kyrgyzstan president Bakayev, exiled from the country following violent riots in the capital city Bishkek, the country has become even more unstable, culminating in a number of horrific pogroms, centred round the town of Osh, where the Uzbek minority was subjected to murder, rape, robbery and arson. 

What lay behind these pogroms?

The majority of the people carrying out the attacks were recruited from among the most lumpenised elements of a very poor population. But the operation was directed by a well-oiled machine, involving at least a part of the armed forces - many witnesses testified to the supportive presence of military vehicles and even uniformed soldiers during the massacre. The orders to carry out the slaughter clearly came from within the higher echelons of the state apparatus, which is the seat of warlords and Mafiosi-type bureaucrats. The ground had already been prepared by these sinister ‘officials', by a gangster ruling class which has long been preaching hatred between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks. In this poisoned atmosphere, "some people began, in Osh for example, to mark out the homes of the sarts (a pejorative term for non-Kyrgyz)" (Courrier International no.1025). Then, on the basis of growing political tensions between the former opposition parties and the Bakayev clan, "the horrors committed by groups of provocateurs transformed these tensions into an inter-ethnic conflict" (Libération, 26 and 27 June 2010). The green light for this bloody offensive was given by masked men carrying out well-targeted attacks. The Uzbek homes previously marked out by zealous vigilantes were then burned down by hysterical crowds. It was due to the hatred that had been carefully fuelled by the bourgeois cliques that these crowds became uncontrollable, ready for any act, from simple pillage to rape and murder. One testimony brings to mind the worst moments of the conflict in the Balkans in the 1990s: "An Uzbek friend told me that a little girl of five had been raped in front of her father and 13 year old sister by a group of fifteen men. The father begged to be killed and he was. The sister went mad" (ibid).

Despite hastily erected barricades, the Uzbeks had little protection against this crazed mob and a soldiery drunk with vengeance. As the above testimony points out, the Uzbeks were often burned to death in their homes. Today, many Uzbeks who fled this nightmare have been forced to return because Uzbekistan is closing its borders to them. Only some women and children were able to get across the frontier, since the men were often suspected of being potential Islamist terrorists. These ‘lucky' ones are now rotting in refugee camps where there is a chronic lack of drinking water and food and cases of diarrhoea are on the increase. There can be no doubt that this chaotic situation will give rise to new murderous conflicts, to an accumulation of trauma and hatred. After this tragedy it will be very difficult for Kyrgyz and Uzbeks to live together.

Victims of imperialism

In Kyrgyzstan, as in most countries in this region of central Asia, the ruling class is torn by confrontations between different gangster clans, and has no hesitation in unleashing pogroms if it suits its sordid interests. There is evidence to suggest that, in this case, forces loyal to exiled president Bakayev were pulling the strings behind the pogromist thugs. But there are other forces acting behind the local cliques. The extreme tensions between rival bourgeois gangs are constantly being manipulated by the big imperialist powers squabbling for influence in this strategically important region.

Certainly the great powers have done little or nothing to help the victims of this ethnic cleansing. At least 400,000 people were forced to flee their homes but they are receiving precious little in aid. Worse still, the more powerful imperialisms are quietly preparing the way for future massacres: "the troubles in Kyrgyzstan are giving rise to a new phase in the chess game between Russia and the USA. Neither country has entered into action immediately but is waiting for the most opportune moment to mix in and score points. And China is not going to stand around with folded arms either".[1]

Since these powers don't hesitate to back one local clan against the other, we can say clearly that their activities in the region, their incessant search for spheres of influence, are a key factor in the barbaric events we have just witnessed, and will continue to witness as long as this decomposing social system is allowed to continue. 

WH 26/6/10

---

[1] See Courrier International 1025. It should be noted that both the US and Russia have military bases in Kyrgyzstan.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico highlights the complete absence of care and the incredibly dangerous character of the search and use of natural resources by capitalism.

Since the explosion on BP's floating platform Deepwater Horizon on April 22, where 11 workers lost their lives and about double that number were horribly injured, over $3 billion has been spent on the ‘clean-up' to date; at least 800,000 litres of oil per day has been discharged into the Gulf and threatens coastlines as far away as Cuba, Mexico, the Caribbean and possibly, given the submerged nature of much of it, may have reached the Gulf Stream and the Atlantic. No-one really knows the precise amount of contamination - methane is also escaping in volumes - but at the end of May, papers leaked from BP suggested that their original estimates of one and then five thousand barrels a day could in fact be one hundred thousand barrels with much of this remaining under the sea. BP CEO Tony Haward was correct to say that oil floats on water but, given the enormous pressures at the depth of the drill, it's likely that there are enormous slicks of oil moving underwater.[1] Even without the development of Hurricane Alex, the operation to plug the well, while being possible, needs to be very precise and is potentially extremely hazardous.

First investigations after the spill showed that "the Mineral  Management Service (MMS), the US administration service responsible for the supervision of oil production, gave its authorisations without carrying out any controls to the plan for security and compatibility with the environment (...) In this concrete case, the MMS failed to verify the capacity of the blowout preventer (a valve central to safety for the prevention of leaks [...] In the hydraulic element of this system there has manifestly been a failure. In fact, some hours before the explosion tests on it failed".[2] A worker who survived, subsequently reported that the preventer was leaking several weeks before the spill, that both BP and Transocean knew of it and that it was turned off rather than repaired.[3]

Other enquiries showed that there was no equipment to draw off any leaking oil and there were no means to undertake relief drilling in the case of an emergency. What does this attitude of exploiting oilfields at this depth, without any possibility of containing any possible leaks, reveal? "The oil platform Deepwater Horizon, at a cost of $560 million, was one of the most modern drilling rigs in the world capable of resisting hurricanes and waves 12 metres high".[4] The production costs for building such a platform are astronomical (more than half-a-billion dollars!) while the drilling costs hundreds of millions of dollars more, yet no safety system or emergency cover was put in place. How can you explain this?

Profit at the expense of nature

When the systematic search for oil began a century ago there was a need for only relatively weak financial and technical investments in order to exploit the resources. A century later however the petrol companies are confronted with a new situation.

"A great part of the global oil of the world has been exploited from fields found over 60 years ago without any large technological investment. Today on the contrary companies must use onerous methods for prospecting the fields, the more so given that they are found in relatively difficult areas that are hard to access from the land - and then only deliver quantities considered marginal up to now (...) Above all, western enterprises no longer have access to easy, cheap sources promising the type of production of Asia and Latin America. These sources are in fact in the hands of national petrol companies such as Saudi Arabia's Aramaco, Gazprom (Russia), NIOC (Iran) or PDVSA (Venezuela) and under control of these national states. These are the real giants in controlling three-quarters of the world's reserves.

"‘Big Oil', as the old private multinationals are still called, control hardly 10% of the reserves of global gas and oil. For the likes of BP this means that projects are onerous, costly and dangerous. It's thus necessary that these firms are pushed to their limits to reach these deposits that no-one else wants to explore..."

Greater costs, bigger risks

"It was some time ago that that the petrol companies abandoned platforms solidly anchored to the marine floor. Some floating monsters called semi-submersibles swam in the oceans with kilometres of water beneath them. Vertical canals of special steel or extremely hard composite material plunged into the obscurity of the depths. Normal conduits broke apart under their own weight. At 1500 metres water temperature is 5 degrees and oil gushed out almost at boiling point. Extreme constraints are exercised on the material as a result of this and the risks are considerable. At this depth the technical demands of drilling are much greater. The technique is dangerous: as the cement goes off fissures can appear through which oil and gas can escape under enormous pressure and it only needs a spark to start an explosion"[5] - which is exactly what happened.

Feverishly, tens of thousands of people have fought, vainly up to now, to hold the oil back from the beaches. Lockheed C-130 planes have dropped tonnes of Corexit, a product that is supposed to dissolve the layers of oil - although we can guess that this chemical cocktail can only damage the aquatic surrounds and beyond. We can also fear the unforeseen and still greater long-term effects on nature from this chemical rescue attempt. The economic effects are already devastating for the local populations with many pushed to ruin. But potential health effects on people close to oil spills are already known, with long-term risks to the central nervous system, kidney and liver damage and of cancer. And US worker safety rules only apply up to three miles offshore, leaving workers near the ruptured well even more exposed. BP had to be compelled to provide respirators and other protective gear to workers on the boats fighting the spill and protecting vulnerable populations on the land. But no respirators can provide enough protection - if you can smell it you're breathing it in. And many locals know the bay area as "cancer alley" from the illnesses put down to the constant pollution from the concentration of chemical and oil-related industries.

New exploitation of oil-fields demand greater investment and as a result of this still greater technical risks are taken. The conditions of capitalist competition lead rivals to show less and less respect to the protection of people and nature and this is the case where it's relatively easier to extract oil from the ground. In the Niger Delta independent experts have estimated  (The Observer, 20/6/10) that during the last 50 years there have been spills equivalent to an Exxon Valdez every 12 months. There are similar stories in Columbia, Kazakhstan and in Ecuador; in the latter, with an even more sensitive eco-system than the marshes of Louisiana, ‘toxic water' from drilling is estimated to be something like 470 times the amount of contamination spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

The thawing glacial caps of the poles, which are opening up the maritime passages of the north-west, and the unfreezing of the permafrost have sharpened the appetites of the petrol companies and provoked tensions between countries laying territorial claims to these regions. Whereas, in reality, the unbridled utilisation of non-renewable and fossil energy constitute a pure waste, and the search for new sources a complete absurdity, the economic crisis and the competition linked to it, lead firms to invest even less resources in the possible and necessary safety systems. Capitalism is pillaging the resources of the planet in a more and more predatory way. In the past, a ‘scorched earth' policy was a method of war. For example, in the first Gulf War of 1991 the United States attacked the oil installations of the Persian Gulf provoking enormous fires and monstrous leaks of oil. Now, it is the daily pressure of the crisis that leads to the practice of ‘scorched earth' and the contamination of seas and land in order to impose economic interests.

This current disaster was foreseeable - as was the catastrophe of 2005, when Hurricane Katrina flooded the town of New Orleans leading to the deaths of 1800 people, the evacuation of the entire town and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. The present event, like the New Orleans catastrophe, is the result of the incapacity of capitalism to offer sufficient protection against the dangers of nature. It is the product of the search to maximise profits undertaken by capitalism.

Dv/B 6/7/10

 

---

 

[1] Volumes of water polluted by particles of oil are found at these depths. Concentrations are at least one litre per cubic metre but the spread of these sheets are important (Wikipedia).

[2]  www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/us-oelpest-schwere-sicherheitsmaengel-vor-explosion-der-oelplattform-a-694602.html [23] and www.spiegel.de/speigel/01518,694271,00.html.              [24]

[3]  The Guardian, 22.6.10

[4]  See footnote 2.

[5]  Idem

August 29 sees the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans flood and the war subsequently declared by the US bourgeoisie on its innocent victims. If this event had happened in an underdeveloped country it would have been shocking enough, but to occur in the richest country in the world indicates the bankruptcy of the capitalist system. This event did for the Bush administration and, more than anything else, necessitated, for the sake of American democracy, the Obama candidature and his election to the White House.

Five years on, and in New Orleans rents are up, hospitals and care facilities are still lacking, every one of 7500 public-school teachers and other school employees have been sacked, public housing has been slashed by 80%, new housing projects have been pulled, 31% of properties remain unoccupied, the Charity hospital has been closed and aid promised by Democrat politicians has still not arrived. Some reconstructed housing had poisonous Chinese-made plaster which had to be removed at a cost of $160,000 a throw, while trailers, costing $70,000 each, provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from disaster funds, had so much formaldehyde in them that they were too toxic to sleep in. The US army corps of engineers has yet to provide a list of projects to protect the New Orleans and Louisiana coastlines from catastrophic hurricanes. The devastation from this ‘natural disaster' was mainly due to the badly maintained levees and the erosion of the protective wetlands due to speculative building. Louisiana is still losing 25 square kilometres of its wetlands each year and the Mississippi carries only half the land building sediment it did a hundred years ago - so problems in this area will get worse.

Investigations are continuing into a number of murders that took place. According to the New Orleans Police Department there were eight murders, but the actual number killed is still an open question, given the presence of Blackwater commandos (who talked of "securing neighbourhoods" and "confronting criminals"), various private security organisations, organised and unorganised vigilantes and an Israeli commando group called "Instinctive Shooting International". Over 46,000 National Guards arrived - in a town where around 30,000 people were stuck, mostly because they were too poor or too sick to get out - and some were still patrolling the town in 2007. The Army Times, 2/9/5 was headlined: "Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans".

The politically-correct mask of the bourgeoisie dropped and the media were overtly racist and contemptuous of the poor. Thousands of miles away, in the ‘liberal' Guardian (8/9/5), Timothy Garton Ash, regurgitating the ‘thin veneer of civilisation' claptrap, could describe the victims as "wild dogs" in "a war of all against all" and "most people revert[ed] to apes". But instead of the ‘social Darwinism' described by hacks like Ash, the main tendency among the poor and the victims was solidarity, mutual-aid and altruism. This included those from outside New Orleans and, in some notable cases, the police who worked with the gangs to provide assistance.

It wasn't a question of race but class. Black mayor Ray Nagin, who, with his cronies, holed up in a luxury hotel, lied that "hundreds of rapes and murders" were made by gangs and black police chief Eddie Compass told Oprah Winfrey, "We had babies in there (...) getting raped". ‘Looting' was played up (echoes of Haiti). Governor Kathleen Blanco called off search and rescue and said that troops had M16s "locked and loaded... and I expect they will [shoot to kill]". The warning given in 2004 about the lack of a credible evacuation plan was ignored by politicians of whatever hue and - again with echoes of Haiti - volunteers, truckloads of supplies and a floating hospital were turned away by FEMA. People were left in misery and filth and places like the Superdome and the Convention Centre were turned into prison camps surrounded by barbed wire, overlooked by snipers, while bridges and roads were manned by troops and police to prevent people escaping. War was declared on the poor of this great, pulsating city and New Orleans was turned into a toxic prison camp. This involved the terrorising of the victims of this disaster, a disaster that capitalism and its lackeys are responsible for. 

Baboon 6/7/10

Sources: A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit and The Observer Review 21/3/10.

For a few years now, certain anarchist individuals or groups and the ICC have overcome a number of barriers by daring to discuss in an open and fraternal way. Mutual indifference or rejection between anarchism and marxism have given way to a will to discuss,  to understand the positions of the other, and to honestly define points of agreement and disagreement.

In Mexico, this new spirit made it possible for a joint leaflet to be signed by two anarchist groups (GSL and PAM[1]) and an organisation of the communist left, the ICC. In France, recently, the CNT-AIT in Toulouse invited the ICC to make a presentation at one of its public meetings[2]. In Germany as well links are being made.

On the basis of this dynamic, the ICC has begun working seriously on the history of internationalism in the anarchist movement. During the course of 2009 we published a series of articles under the heading ‘Anarchists and imperialist war' [3]. Our aim was to show that with each imperialist conflict, part of the anarchists was able to avoid the trap of nationalism and defend proletarian internationalism. We showed that these comrades continued to work for the revolution and for the world working class despite being surrounded by chauvinism and the barbarity of war.

When you know the importance that the ICC attaches to internationalism, which is a real frontier separating revolutionaries who genuinely fight for the emancipation of humanity from those who have betrayed the proletarian struggle, these articles were not only an intransigent critique of the pro-war anarchists but also and above all a salute to the internationalist anarchists!

However, our intentions were not always well perceived. For a while this series met with a frosty reception in some quarters. On the one hand, some anarchists saw the articles as an outright attack on their movement. On the other hand, some sympathisers of the communist left and of the ICC did not understand our efforts to find a "rapprochement with the anarchists"[4].

Aside from certain errors in our articles which may have irritated some people[5], these apparently contradictory criticisms actually share the same roots. They reveal the difficulties in seeing the essential elements which bring revolutionaries together, above and beyond their disagreements.

Going beyond labels

Those who identify with the struggle for the revolution have traditionally been classed in two categories: the marxists and the anarchists. And there are indeed important divergences between them:

-         Centralism/federalism

-         Materialism/idealism

-         Period of transition or ‘immediate abolition of the state'

-         Recognition or denunciation of the October 1917 revolution and of the Bolshevik party

All these questions are certainly very important. It is our responsibility not to avoid them, and to debate them openly. But still, for the ICC, they do not demarcate "two camps". Concretely, our organisation, which is marxist, considers that it is fighting for the proletariat on the same side as the internationalist anarchist militants and against the ‘Communist' and Maoist parties which also claim to be marxist. Why?

Within capitalist society, there are two basic camps: the camp of the bourgeoisie and the camp of the working class. We denounce and combat all the political organisations which belong to the former. We discuss, often in a sharp but always a fraternal manner, and seek to cooperate with, all the members of the second. But under the same label of ‘marxist' there are genuinely bourgeois and reactionary organisations. The same goes for the ‘anarchist' label.

This is not just rhetoric. History is full of examples of ‘marxist' or ‘anarchist' organisations who have claimed with hand on heart to be defending the proletariat, while in reality stabbing it in the back. German social democracy called itself ‘marxist' in 1919 when it was assassinating Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and thousands of workers. The Stalinist parties bloodily crushed the workers' uprisings in East Germany in 1953 and Hungary in 1956 in the name of ‘communism' and ‘marxism'(in fact, in the interests of the imperialist bloc led by the USSR). In Spain, in 1937, the leaders of the CNT, by participating in the government, served as a cover for the Stalinist murderers who repressed and massacred thousands of ...anarchist revolutionaries. Today, in France for example, the same name ‘CNT' covers two anarchist organisations, one which defends authentically revolutionary positions (CNT-AIT) and another which is purely ‘reformist' and reactionary (the CNT ‘Vignoles')[6].

Identifying the false friends who hide behind labels is thus a vital task.

But we should not fall into the opposite trap and believe that we are alone in the world, the exclusive holders of ‘revolutionary truth'. Communist militants are still very thin on the ground today and there is nothing more harmful than isolation. We therefore have to fight against the tendency to stand up for your own ‘chapel', your own ‘family' (whether marxist or anarchist), against the shop-keeper's spirit which has nothing to do with the politics of the working class. Revolutionaries are not in competition with each other. Divergences, disagreements, however profound they may be, are a source of enrichment for class consciousness when they are discussed openly and sincerely. Creating links and debating on an international scale are absolute necessities.

But for this to happen, we have to know how to distinguish between revolutionaries (who defend the perspective of the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat) and reactionaries (those who, in one way or another, help to perpetuate this system), without fixating on the label of ‘marxist' or ‘anarchist'. 

What unites marxists and internationalist anarchists

For the ICC, there are fundamental criteria which distinguish bourgeois from proletarian organisations.

Supporting the combat of the working class against capitalism means both fighting exploitation in an immediate way (during strikes for example) while never losing sight of what's at stake in this struggle on the historical level: the overthrow of this system of exploitation by revolution. To do this, an organisation must never give its support, even in a ‘critical' or ‘tactical' way, or in the name of the 'lesser evil', to a sector of the bourgeoisie - whether the ‘democratic' bourgeoisie against the ‘fascist' bourgeoisie, or the left against the right, or the Palestinian bourgeoisie against the Israeli bourgeoisie, etc. Such an approach has two concrete implications:

1. Rejecting any electoral support or cooperation with parties which manage the capitalist system or defend this or that form of this system (social democracy, Stalinism, ‘Chavismo', etc)

2. Above all, during any war, it means maintaining an intransigent internationalism, refusing to choose between this or that imperialist camp. During the First World War as during all the imperialist wars of the 20th century, all those organisations who supported any of the warring camps abandoned the terrain of internationalism, betrayed the working class and were definitively integrated into the camp of the bourgeoisie[7].

These criteria, outlined here very briefly, explain why the ICC sees certain anarchists as comrades in the struggle, why it wants to discuss and cooperate with them while virulently denouncing other anarchist organisations. For example, we have cooperated with the KRAS (the section of the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers' Association in Russia), by publishing and welcoming its internationalist declarations on war, notably the war in Chechnya. The ICC considers that these anarchists, despite our differences with them, are an authentic part of the proletarian camp. They clearly demarcate themselves from all the anarchists and ‘Communists' (like the Communist parties, the Maoists or Trotskyists) who defend internationalism in theory but oppose it in practice by defending one belligerent against the other in imperialist wars. We should not forget that in 1914, when the First World War broke out, and in 1917, when the Russian revolution took place, the majority of the ‘marxists' of social democracy took the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, whereas the Spanish CNT denounced the imperialist war and supported the revolution. During the revolutionary movements of the day, anarchists and marxists worked sincerely for the proletarian cause, and despite their disagreements found themselves on the same side. There were even efforts to develop an organised and wide scale cooperation between the revolutionary marxists (Bolsheviks in Russia, Spartacists in Germany, Dutch Tribunists, Italian abstentionists etc) who had separated from the degenerating 2nd International, and a number of internationalist anarchist groups. An example of this process is the fact that an organisation like the CNT envisaged the possibility of joining the Third International, although it rejected this in the end[8].

To cite a more recent example, in many parts of the world today there are anarchist groups and sections of the IWA who not only maintain an internationalist position but who also fight for the autonomy of the proletariat against all the ideologies and currents of the bourgeoisie:

- these anarchists call for direct and massive class struggle and self-organisation in general assemblies and workers' councils;

- they reject any participation in the electoral masquerade and any support for political parties who take part in this masquerade, however radical they claim to be.

In other words, they stick to one of the main principles of the First International: "the emancipation of the workers is the task of the workers themselves". Those comrades are part of the struggle for the revolution and a world human community.

The ICC belongs to the same camp as these internationalist anarchists who really defend working class autonomy. Yes, we consider them as comrades with whom we want to debate and cooperate. Yes, we also think that these anarchist militants have more in common with the communist left than with those who, under the label of anarchism, actually defend nationalist and reformist positions and are thus really defenders of capitalism.

In the debate which is slowly developing between all the revolutionary groups and elements on the planet, there will inevitably be mistakes, animated debates, clumsy formulations, misunderstandings and real disagreements. But the needs of the proletarian struggle against a capitalism which is becoming increasingly unbearable and barbaric, the indispensable perspective of the world proletarian revolution, a precondition for the survival of humanity, make this a vital and necessary effort, a duty in fact. And today, when we are seeing the emergence of revolutionary proletarian minorities in many countries, who refer either to marxism or anarchism (or who are open to both), this duty to discuss and cooperate should meet with a determined and enthusiastic response.

Future articles in this series will deal with our difficulties in debating and the way to overcome them. We will also look in more detail at the Anarchist Federation in Britain, which we have mistakenly labelled as a leftist group in the past.

ICC 30/6/10

 

---

[1] GSL: Grupo Socialista Libertario (https://webgsl.wordpress.com [31]); PAM: Proyecto Anarquista Metropolitano (proyectoanarquistametropolitano.blogspot.com)

[2] There was a very warm atmosphere throughout this meeting. Read the report on it written on website: ‘Réunion CNT-AIT de Toulouse du 15 avril 2010: vers la constitution d'un creuset de réflexion dans le milieu internationaliste [32]'

[3] See ‘Anarchism and imperialist war', World Revolution numbers 325-328. All available online, beginning here: https://en.internationalism.org/2009/wr/325/anarchism-war1 [33]

[4] In particular, some comrades were initially uneasy about the joint GSI/PAM/ICC leaflet. We tried to explain our approach in a Spanish article entitled ‘What is our attitude towards comrades who are part of the anarchist tradition?' (https://es.internationalism.org/node/2715 [34])

[5] Some anarchist comrades rightly pointed out certain imprecise formulations and even historical errors in these articles. We will return to this. However, we do want to rectify the most glaring errors here:

- On various occasions, the series ‘Anarchism and imperialist war' asserts that the majority of the anarchist movement fell into nationalism during the First World War while only a handful of individuals risked their lives to defend internationalist positions. The historical elements brought to the discussion by members of the IWA, and confirmed by our own researches, show that in reality a large number of the anarchists opposed the war from 1914 onwards (sometimes in the name of internationalism or anationalism, or under the banner of pacifism)

- The most embarrassing mistake (which up till now no-one has pointed out) concerns the Barcelona uprising in May 1937. We wrote in WR 326 that "When the workers of Barcelona rose up in May 1937, the CNT were complicit in the repression by the Popular Front and the government of Catalonia" - the French version used "anarchists" instead of the CNT, but the ambiguity remains in the English version, since in reality, it was the militants of the CNT or the FAI who made up the majority of the insurgent workers in Barcelona and were the principal victim of the repression organised by the Stalinist hordes. It would have been much more accurate to denounce the collaboration in this massacre of the CNT leadership rather than the "the anarchists". This in any case is the real content of our position on the war in Spain, as defended in particular in the article ‘Lessons of the events in Spain' in no. 36 of the review Bilan (November 1936)

[6] Vignoles is the name of the street where their main HQ is located. ‘AIT' stands for Association Internationale des Travailleurs - in English the International Workers' Association

[7] However, there were groups and elements who were able to break away from organisations which had gone over to the bourgeoisie, for example the Munis group or the group which gave rise to Socialisme ou Barbarie in the Trotskyist Fourth International

[8] See ‘History of the CNT (1914-19): The CNT faced with war and revolution', International Review 129, https://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/CNT-1914-1919 [35]

For many decades two contending gangs of the capitalist class have been busy shedding the blood of the exploited population of Jammu and Kashmir in the name of ‘national unity' on the one hand and ‘liberation' of Kashmir on the other. This has turned this ‘valley of roses' into a valley of death, devastation, poverty and chaos. Hundreds of thousands of people have been violently uprooted and forced to flee Kashmir either through a process of ethnic cleansing against Kashmiri Hindus or a terrorized Muslim population in search of subsistence. The separatists and the Indian state have always tried to negate the very existence of the working class and smother its struggles with the mystification that there is only one struggle in Kashmir, the one that these two bloody gangs are waging.

And yet, the fact is the working class in Kashmir has tried determinedly to assert itself, especially over the last couple of years, and have carried out a number of major strikes and struggles.

Workers try to fight for their class interests

The current cycle of workers struggles in Kashmir can be traced to their combat in 2008. In March 2008, the state government owned JKSRTC (Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation) declared that it is making losses as it has too many workers. Government declared its intention to reduce the number of workers and declared a VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme). But there were not many takers of VRS despite coercive tactics. The government declared that it cannot pay years of accumulated COLA [Cost of Living Allowance] and other back wages. In the face of these attacks on their jobs and the bosses' refusal to pay their back wages, workers tried to develop their struggles. Sensing the anger of workers, transport unions tried to sterilize their discontent by channelling it into ritualistic struggle - 2 hours walk out, march to government offices etc. Management and unions were able to put a lid on this discontent by the former making ‘promises' to consider workers demands and the later pretending to ‘trust' these promises.

More than a year later, the threat of redundancy had become more urgent. In the meantime, nothing had come out of management promises.  Workers still hadn't been paid for months. Their back pay accumulated. The economic situation had also worsened with ‘food inflation' remaining above 16%. This provoked another wave of anger and militancy among transport workers. Toward the middle of 2009, there were a number of short strikes and demonstrations by JKSRTC workers. But SRTC workers were not able to unify their agitation and turn it into a wider strike. They were isolated from other sections of state workers. Unions were able to once again weaken workers resolve and dilute their anger through futile and theatrical rituals. For instance, instead of fostering a militant strike, unions asked workers to bring their children to demos with placards: ‘Pay salary to my papa!'. This may seem touching to a sentimental petty bourgeois, but it was not going to have any impact on the bosses and nor did it. Similar other futile agitations were used by unions to weaken workers resolve and arrest the momentum toward a wider strike.

But SRTC workers were not the only ones trying to resist the attacks of the bosses. Although SRTC workers' agitations expressed an effort to fight back, other sections of the state workers have been facing same attacks. All government workers have back pay accumulating from years that the government was not paying. For them, recurring agitations of transport workers acted as an impulse and a rallying point.

Half a million government workers go on strike

Since January 2010 government workers in Jammu and Kashmir had been trying to unify their fight around common demands - payment of back salaries, better wages, and regularisation of temporary and ad hoc state workers. These struggles were joined by ad hoc and temporary workers as well as teachers. Although unions were able to maintain control, it was an expression of the strength of the workers' mobilisation and their determination to fight that even the unions had to call for repeated one or two day strikes in Jan 2010. Four lakh fifty thousand (i.e. 450,000 - Ed) state government workers were involved in these struggles.

Although the unions did everything, they were not really able to stop the momentum toward more militant struggles. This became clear when state government workers again started pushing for strike action. The strike by 450,000 workers began on 3rd April 2010. The workers' demands were still the same - better pay, payment of back salaries - which now amounted to nearly 4300 crores rupees (i.e. 4.3 billion) - and regularisation of ad hoc and temporary workers. From 3rd April public transport was shut down, class rooms of state run schools were locked and all government offices were closed. Even district government offices were shutdown and administration was paralyzed.

Real face of the state exposed                                                          

Faced with this determined strike action by all its workers, the state began to show its real face - the ugly face of repression.

The state at first targeted what it thought the more vulnerable sections of workers. Government warned ad hoc and contractual workers that in case they continued to strike they will lose their right to be regularised. Day-workers will have to face same consequences if they become part of the strike. But threats were not able to break the strike.

Accelerating the repression, on 5th April 2010 Jammu & Kashmir government invoked the Essential Services Maintenance Act [ESMA] against striking state workers. The State Finance Minister said the government has been forced by workers to invoke ESMA and that striking workers would face one year imprisonment. Another Minister accused the workers of holding ‘society to ransom'.

But J & K Government is not the first or the only one to invoke this draconian law against striking workers and to use threats and blackmail to break strikes. In the last few months, central government and different state governments have shown equal eagerness to resort to repression against strike actions by different sectors of the working class in different part of the country. They have been equally ruthless in suppressing strike actions. All this goes to show bourgeoisie's fear of the working class and its struggles.

The J & K government did not sit idle after invoking ESMA. It continued to work toward sowing divisions among workers and resorted to further repression of striking workers. Processions and demonstrations were broken up by the police. On 10th April thirteen strikers were arrested. When workers tried to march to the city centre in Srinagar opposing the arrests of their comrades, police tried to break up the march and resorted to a baton charge. This resulted in clashes between strikers and the police. Despite this many workers managed to reach Lal Chowk where more workers were arrested.

Given reputation of Lal Chowk in Srinagar as the site of any number of gun battles between Indian state and separatist gangs, clashes between the police and striking workers there were no doubt exceptional.  This fight back by state workers was like a declaration that amid all the gang wars of different factions of the bourgeoisie, workers have been able to preserve their class identity and are capable of fighting for their class interests.

Unions divide and demobilize the workers

While workers were trying to strengthen their strike and resist repression of the state government, the unions were busy dividing the workers. This they did under the garb of contributing to the strike. There are a number of unions among different sectors of state workers - unions of secretariat staff, JCC, Workers Joint Action Committee [EJAC], transport workers' union etc. While workers were already on strike since several days, each of these unions started to put forward their separate actions plans. Thus working to divide the workers and weakening the momentum of their struggle. JCC declared a further 7 days strike. Another declared another program. Amidst all these divisive efforts and state repression, the workers were able to sustain their strike for 12 days.

At the end of 12 days, one of the unions, EJAC declared it was satisfied with its talk with the Chief Minister and promises by the government. It directed workers to go back to work. Thus after 12 days of strike, workers once again have to make do only with the promises of the bosses and go back to work without any material gain.    

Importance of J & K state workers' strike

The April strike by 450,000 J & K government workers was the largest workers struggle in the state in many years. Situated amidst the global spread of workers militancy, it was a product of accumulation of anger among different sectors of state workers over the years. Its way was paved by repeated short strikes and struggles by Transport workers, bank workers and others sectors.

Confronted by the totalitarian and violent ideologies of the Indian state and the separatists, the strike was a powerful assertion of working class identity and class unity. Despite its major weaknesses, this strike showed a different perspective than the one represented by the bourgeoisie. While all factions of the bourgeoisie in Kashmir represent a perspective of hatred, violent divisions, daily killings, terror and barbarism; the working class at the very minimum was able to show coming together of workers of different religions and regions fighting together, in solidarity, for their common class interests.

The setback that the strike suffered goes to show that next time the J & K state workers take up the fight, they will have to reject both the separatist and repressive unitarian ideologies, as they did this time. In addition they will have to see through the manoeuvres of the unions and realize that unions are not their friends. Instead, workers will have to take their struggle in their own hands and run it themselves. This is the only way to conduct an effective struggle.

But to put an end to a life of poverty, terror, violence and fear, they have to develop their fight into a fight for the destruction of capitalism and its national frameworks and to establish communism, the first truly human community.

 Akbar 10/5/10