The uproar over the Hutton inquiry has given rise to a new round of false arguments between the so-called pro- and anti-war camps.
According to the pro-war camp, the inquiry has proved that Blair and co. are men of integrity and that they took Britain to war after making a sober and honest assessment of the available intelligence about the threat that Saddam posed to the world.
The 'anti-war' camp argues that the Hutton inquiry was a smokescreen and that there should be another enquiry into whether the government took us to war on false pretences.
Both arguments hide the truth: that imperialist war is a natural product of the dying social system. And the class that manages this system, the bourgeoisie, has always lied to justify its wars.
You can be sure that no official inquiry would ever come to that conclusion!
The ideological reasons used to justify the assault on Iraq are more hollow than usual. Even before the war, important elements of the British and US bourgeoisie were warning that the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument was too flimsy a pretext for defying 'world opinion' and launching an 'illegal' war. Today, even while Blair continues to profess his faith that the WMD will turn up, his allies in Washington are getting ready to dump this line and put the blame on faulty intelligence about Iraq's real military capabilities.
In the logic of people like Clare Short and Robin Cook, war would have been justified if Saddam really did have WMD. Let's not forget that these 'anti-war' heroes were the same people who supported the war in Afghanistan because it was supposedly a justified response to terrorism, or before that the bombing of Serbia because it was part of a 'humanitarian intervention' to save the Kosovans from the evil Milosevic. But these justifications were no closer to the truth than the suggestion that Saddam could attack London in 45 minutes. All three of these wars were products of capitalism's innate drive to war - in these particular cases, the necessity for US imperialism to launch indirect, pre-emptive strikes against the ambitions of its main imperialist rivals on the world stage (rivals like France, Germany, Russia...).
Cook, Short and their ilk are no less war-mongers than Blair and Bush.
No doubt there are those in the 'anti-war' camp who have more radical views than these former government ministers. After all the Stop the War Coalition is more or less run by the Trotskyists of the SWP. But Trotskyist opposition to imperialist war is no more substantial than Cook's or Short's. Didn't the Trotskyists call for support for Serbia against NATO (or for the NATO-backed Kosovan guerrillas against Serbia), for the Taliban in Afghanistan as a lesser evil than US imperialism? Don't they still call on workers to support the 'Resistance' in Iraq today? Didn't they spend the decades of the 'Cold War' supporting so-called 'national liberation' movements that usually served the interests of the Russian bloc against the American bloc? And before that didn't they support the Second World War because 'democracy' had to be defended against fascism?
In short, every bourgeois political group, party or tendency supports the doctrine of the 'just' war. Bourgeois unity about the Second World War is proof of that. Never have so many different political currents agreed that this, at least, was a war that had to be fought, a just war. As Churchill put it on the day the war started: "This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war for domination or imperial aggrandisement or material gain...It is a war ... to establish ... the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man".
This too was a gigantic lie. Churchill's war to defend all that is sacred to man left the Jews of Europe to their fate, vaporised hundreds of thousand of civilians in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and cynically left the job of crushing the rebellious workers of Italy to the Nazi occupation forces. This was indeed a war for imperialist aggrandisement, as seen in the tremendous gains made by US and Russian imperialism in the post-war carve up.
The ruling class can give all sorts of pretexts when it comes to the mobilisation for war. But whatever ideological poison they use to suck the working class into imperialist massacres, this does not change the reality of war in decadent capitalist society. War is not a particular choice, not the policy of certain belligerent parties, not the option of desperate governments, not the product of exceptional circumstances. No, imperialist conflict is inherent in the very nature of a capitalist system which has covered every corner of the planet and reached the limits of its capacity for further positive development. Every national capital is forced into conflict with its rivals, from economic competition to full military confrontation. They will try and use any means to mobilise the population, but the working class needs to be able to distinguish what its own class interests are, and how to defend them. It also needs to identify the 'anti-war' campaigns that use the same arguments as the open warmongers, and therefore serve the same capitalist interests.
WR, 30/1/04.
In the last few weeks there has been an acceleration of disasters. Most terrible of all was the earthquake in Iran, but we have also seen an air crash in Egypt that left nearly 150 dead, industrial 'accidents' in China, Algeria and Indonesia, and new alarms about contagious diseases - legionnaires disease in France, 'bird flu' in south east Asia: the list just goes on and on.
For marxism, there is nothing natural or fatal about these catastrophes. They are expressions of the fact that the capitalist system is rotting on its feet. Despite having developed all the scientific and technological means to prevent or at least limit such calamities, capitalism in decomposition not only fails to do this, but tends to aggravate and even initiate them. Iran: natural disaster or social disaster?
At the end of December, a terrible human tragedy unfolded in Iran. In a few seconds an earthquake destroyed the town of Bam and its surrounding villages. The death toll has climbed to 40,000, with 35,000 injured and tens of thousands left homeless. As always, it is the poorest sections of the population who lose the most in all this. In Iran alone in the last 30 years, earthquakes have claimed more than 150,000 lives.
Of course, you can't blame capitalism for the earthquake itself. But we can point out that this was by no means the most violent quake in recent years and that even so it has caused a vast social catastrophe. And we can certainly point out that four days earlier, in California, an earthquake of exactly the same strength on the Richter scale killed only three people and destroyed a tiny fraction of the built environment.
There has been a great deal of progress in seismology on a world scale, and Iran is not without scientific competence and experience at this level. But the corruption and backwardness of Iran's political establishment is notorious. As an Iranian architect underlined, "what is lacking is an unfailing political will, a strict and systematic public control of the application of norms, and means and methods worthy of dealing with the problem" (L'Humanite, 3/1/04). More particularly, the social situation in Iran's cities has created a disaster waiting to happen. In recent years the population has grown from 30 million mainly rural inhabitants to 70 million, the majority living in towns and cities: many cities are swollen to the point of bursting. "In this situation, the most deprived elements in society are obliged to build their own housing using the most rudimentary means, while the voracious greed and corruption of commercial and state agencies, from the smallest to the largest, has led to criminal levels of negligence" (ibid). To the criminal neglect of safety norms, we can add the fact that the town of Bam has been largely made of mud brick, and when buildings made in this manner collapse, they cave in completely from top to bottom, leaving little hope for anyone trapped inside.
As in Turkey a few years ago, the Iranian state demonstrated that it had not drawn any lessons from previous earthquakes in the region. Since the last disaster, building continued in an anarchic and unregulated way. The contempt for the population shown by the public and religious authorities was exposed by the following facts: the earthquake took place at 4.30 in the morning and the first batches of aid didn't arrive until around five in the evening. While numerous inhabitants of the main Iranian cities, notably in Tehran, mobilised themselves to collect clothes, food and tents for the survivors, the authorities were incapable of getting this material to the affected zones. Even worse, the response of the Iranian bourgeoisie to this elementary display of human solidarity was to use the tragedy for its squalid electoral interests. In the first hours after the earthquake, with legislative elections due in February, we saw representatives of the two main political clans, the reformers around Mohamed Khatami and the conservatives around Ali Khameni, rushing to the earthquake zone in helicopters - while the aid agencies lacked any such means for bringing supplies or evacuating the wounded. These charlatans rivalled each other to arrive on the scene first and promise that the town of Bam and its citadel would be rebuilt. But it's precisely these politicians who are responsible for the carnage. Even recently constructed buildings, especially hospitals and schools, also collapsed because they had been put up without any reference to anti-earthquake specifications. Capitalism is responsible for these endless catastrophes
At the same moment that the town of Bam was being devastated by the earthquake, a gas explosion in south west China killed 191 people, half of them children; hundreds were wounded and over 3000 poisoned to varying degrees. There was nothing predestined about this accident either. It was the result of a frenzied drive for capitalist profit at the expense of the most basic rules of safety at the workplace. In 2003 alone, "13,283 people were killed in shipyards, factories or mines in China, which is a rise of 9.6% over 2002" (Le Monde, 27.12.03). In order to hide its responsibility for such crimes, the ruling class organises media campaigns to point the finger at such and such a company or person. We saw this with the Boeing crashes at Cotonou, in which over 100 died, and at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt, which left 148 dead, most of them French travellers. In both cases, the campaigns accused the Lebanese and Egyptian companies which ran these planes; and while it's true that these companies failed to apply all the necessary safety rules, this is ultimately the result of cost-cutting aimed at offering the most competitive price for charter fares. And contrary to what was said by the French transport minister, this is in no way a unique characteristic of 'exotic' airlines or of companies that specialise in air-travel price 'dumping'. We only have to recall the Air France Concorde crash at Roissy in July 2000 which claimed 113 victims, or the collision between a Tupolev and a cargo plane over Lake Constance in Switzerland (71 dead), where the investigation pointed to failings in Swiss air traffic control; or again, there was the crash of the A-320 Airbus over Mont Sainte Odile in Alsace ten years ago (87 dead). Victims' families have had considerable difficulty in obtaining compensation, even though it had already been well known that this plane suffered from technical defects. Such accidents, which can only multiply, are the consequence of the ruthless trade war between the air companies, desperately seeking to guard their bit of the market. This compels them to reduce expenses when it comes to safety and the maintenance of the infrastructures needed for air transport to function properly. But air transport is itself no exception in this respect. We only have to look at the long list of train, tube and shipping accidents (particularly the disastrous break-up of oil tankers such as the Erika or the Prestige) in recent years, both in the 'third world' and in Europe.
The rise of new epidemics is further proof of the bankruptcy of capitalism. The SARS epidemic has still not been properly brought under control in Asia, and is now being chased by 'bird flu', while in Pas-de-Calais in France an outbreak of legionnaire's disease has infected 76 people, ten fatally. We are told that the refrigerating towers of the Noroxo factory are to blame. In fact, as a specialist reveals, the annual number of such cases in France has gone up from less than 50 to more than a thousand, and each time the cause is the negligence of this or that factory in maintaining the refrigeration infrastructure. These recurring examples of negligence have brought about a situation in which the hospitals, whose job is to make the population get better, have become sources of epidemics and infections. 800,000 people a year are affected by nosocomial infections (ie, picked up from within the hospital itself) and of these 4000 die in the wards. Capitalism's survival is a threat to humanity
In the face of such tragedies, revolutionaries have to denounce the vile cynicism of the ruling class and reaffirm their class solidarity with the victims of these catastrophes, particularly towards the proletarians in Iran hit by the Bam earthquake. What the bourgeoisie presents as yet another natural catastrophe, as a fatality or as proof that there can be no 'zero risk', marxism analyses much more pertinently: "As capitalism develops then begins to rot on its feet, it prostitutes techniques which could have a liberating use for its needs of exploitation, domination and imperialist pillage, to the point where it transmits its own rottenness into the techniques and turns them against the species�Neither is capitalism innocent of the so-called 'natural' disasters. Without denying that there are forces of nature which escape human action, marxism shows that many catastrophes have been indirectly provoked or aggravated by social causes�Not only does bourgeois civilisation directly provoke catastrophes through its thirst for profit and the predominant influence of profiteering on the administrative machine�but it has also shown itself to be incapable of organising effective protection, since prevention is not a profitable activity" (Bordiga, The Earth's Crust and the Human Species, preface)
Once again, it's not nature, or bad luck, or some divine will which is responsible for these tragedies. The capitalist system always provides partial explanations to prevent the proletariat from understanding that it is the very logic of capital which lies behind such horrors. The growing parade of catastrophes we are seeing today is further proof of the utter putrefaction of this social system, and those who suffer most from it have no choice but to destroy it before it destroys the whole of humanity.
Donald, 29/1/04.
The World Social Forum has recently been held in Mumbai (Bombay), India. This grand festival of 'anti-globalisation' gathered together 80,000 people of numerous political colours and social backgrounds under the slogan 'another world is possible'. In a forthcoming issue of WR, we hope to publish a report on this event written by comrades in India who intervened at some of its many meetings and debates. In the meantime, we are publishing an article written by our French section, Revolution Internationale, on the European Social Forum held in Paris last November. As the article shows, this was yet another rally 'against capitalism' supported from start to finish by the bourgeoisie.
After Porto Alegre in January 2001, Florence in November 2002 and Larzac last summer, the great alternative world show has once again filled the rooms from the 12th to the 15th November in the towns of Paris, Ivry, Bobigny and Saint-Denis on the occasion of the second edition of the European Social Forum. Some hundreds of 'debates' were programmed with 50,000 people coming from the four corners of Europe. A demonstration on November 15, the grande finale of the Forum, brought out about 80,000 people. One could say that the 'alternative world' movement has the wind in its sails. And that doesn't displease the bourgeoisie, quite the contrary. Because it's the bourgeoisie which is its silent partner.
From its beginnings, with the World Social Forum of Porto Alegre, the dominant class has appeared as the main silent partner of the 'alternative world' movement. Thus, the paper, Le Monde Diplomatique and the association ATTAC, the emblem of this movement, was granted 80,000 Euros in January 2002 by the French minister of foreign affairs to financially support the organisation of the 2nd World Social Forum in Brazil. Similarly, some months ago at Larzac, the Regional Council of Midi-Pyrenees forked out a generous contribution of 50,000 Euros. For the European Social Forum of November last in Paris, the least that one can say is that the French bourgeoisie has not been tight-fisted.
Matignon has contributed 500,000 Euros to the 'alternative world' meeting. The general councils of Seine-Saint-Denis, Val de Marne and l'Essone have spent more than 600,000 Euros. Finally, the town hall of Paris has put one million Euros on the table and that of Saint-Denis 570,000. All this without taking into account the enormous logistics freely provided: town hall annexe, theatre, libraries, gymnasium and even local headquarters! "The financial and logistical effort which the Paris Council, the town hall arrondissement and the services of the town put at their disposal for the organisation of this event, the subsidies for fitting out the site of la Villette, the opening of spaces for meetings and lodgings...all this illustrates, I think, a will to be in tune with what's at stake in this assembly" (Bertrand Delanoe).
The involvement of the bourgeoisie in the 'alternative world' movement is so flagrant that it was the town halls in the cities where these events were taking place, via the Parti Communiste Francais or the Parti Socialiste for Paris, who had the great honour of giving the opening speech of the ESF on 12 November. The tone was set! There's nothing surprising about the important presence in the ESF of these bourgeois forces for controlling the working class - the unions and the parties of the left and extreme-left of capital. Effectively, numerous unions, such as the CGT, FO, CFDT, CFTC, the G10 Solidaires part of the SUD, the FSU and many others, from the German IG Metall to the Brazilian TUC, all experienced in the sabotage of class struggle and the techniques for mystifying the working class, not only animated a great number of debates, but some amongst them were co-organising the Forum. That says it all!
The same for the bourgeois parties, hypocritically forbidden from participating, but who in fact were present under the cover of associations, foundations or press organisations under their control. Thus the PS could benefit from the participation of its Young Socialist Movement, from the National Leo Lagrange Federation or the Jean Jaures Foundation. As to the PCF, it was present in the debate notably through its paper L'Humanite and its Karl Marx Foundation. The Trotskyist LCR also had the freedom of the city in the Forum via its weekly publication Rouge (for the duration becoming the daily of the ESF and distributed free) and its JCR - 'Revolutionary Communist Youth'.
Here is the real face of the animators and organisers of 'alternative worldism'. Here's what lies behind the so-called 'renewal' of the alternative political scene: all the old bourgeois merchants of the unions and social democracy, taking in Trotskyism and other components of leftism along the way.
But why should the bourgeoisie give so much money and deploy so much energy in order to animate a movement which harps on about another world (even several) being possible and necessary since this one is not working? Has the bourgeoisie gone daft? Of course not! If it has created the 'alternative world' movement out of nothing, financed it and granted it so much publicity at an international level, it is because behind its mask of 'opposition' to the existing world order is hidden a powerful weapon of mystification against the working class.
The bankruptcy of capitalism is shown by the growing development of barbaric warfare in the four corners of the globe. It is also patently obvious when you look at the aggravation of the insoluble economic crisis, which results in violent attacks on workers' living conditions. The recent attacks around retirement and pensions throughout Europe bear witness to this. All these attacks inevitably raise questions about the future that capitalism has in store for us. For the dominant class, it is imperative to cut short this type of reflection. It is precisely this need which 'alternative worldism' serves. From this point of view, the set-up of the ESF speaks for itself. Four different towns, a headache to get around, 'debating' rooms dispersed from one end of town to the other like a maze. In short, everything planned so that there's the least meeting up and discussion possible outside of the official 'debates'. 'Debates' which, it must be said in passing, were completely stage-managed. In fact, speakers were exclusively experts (philosophers, journalists, trade union officials...) sharing out the role of 'orators' and 'moderators' in order to relegate the public to the role of simple spectators.
'Another world is possible'... 'yes, but which one?' That's the common and agreed critique made of 'alternative worldism' by the newspapers and television. And for good reason. Because it allows the Popes of the movement, like Bernard Cassen for ATTAC and Jose Bove for the Peasant Confederation, to come and explain why alternative worldism is not based on any precise perspective. 'We are reflecting on it' these gentlemen respond, and here is the aim of these ESF-type meetings; a massive 'brain-storming' in order to define the contours of this 'other world' or still more evasive, 'these possible worlds'. In fact, if 'alternative worldism' nestles in the most complete artistic blur it is precisely because it carries no alternative to capitalism but rather a real impasse for the working class.
"Against liberal globalisation, it is necessary to act HERE and NOW for a new social and economic logic!" declared a leaflet of the Republican and Citizens Movement. Here's the archetypal 'alternative worldist' chatter that has been spewed out during the ESF. If the world goes ill, good people, it's the fault of the 'neo-liberalism' of the unscrupulous and wicked multinationals stuffed with profits. In brief, a leftist rant in all its splendour which consists of raising a hue and cry against the villainous bosses 'who organise the system for their profit', made in order to whitewash the capitalist system and sow the illusion that it is useless to overthrow it since it is enough to exchange its 'liberal logic' for one that's more 'humane'.
Faced with all the crises and wars that have ravaged the human race for the past 100 years and more, all this is just ridiculous or, more accurately, it is shameless lying of the bourgeoisie.
"The process of capitalist production is determined by profit. For each capitalist, production has no sense unless it allows him to pocket a 'net gain' every year... But the fundamental law of capitalist production, contrary to any other economic form based on exploitation, is not simply the pursuit of a tangible profit but of an ever-growing profit" (Rosa Luxemburg, Anti-Critique).
"The growth of capital appears as the beginning and the end, the end in itself and the sense of all production... production for profit becomes the law over all the earth and under it, consumption, the insecurity of consumption and moments of non-consumption for the great majority of humanity, becomes the rule" (Rosa Luxemburg, Introduction to Political Economy).
This is the iron law, the immutable logic on which capitalism is based, and it is this which 'alternative worldism' tries to conjure away in order to establish its reformist ideology, ie, the illusion of capitalism with a human face.
The bourgeoisie has sufficient experience to know that it's the old pots that make the best stews. And the 'alternative worldist' stew that it is serving up to the proletariat, despite the pretence that it is something new, is nothing less that the re-heating of the good old pot of reformism.
Making out that another management of capitalism, a more humane management, is possible, is a monumental fraud perpetrated by this so-called 'full of hope' movement. A movement which aims at only one thing: preventing the working class from reaching the conclusion that capitalism is in a situation of irreversible, historical bankruptcy; that it is a system incapable of engendering anything other than misery and barbarity, and that this has been the case since its entrance into its period of decadence at the beginning of the 20th century.
All the same, a problem is posed for the ruling class: what to do with all those who don't feel suitably satisfied by a very clearly reformist ESF? What to do with all those who remain dubious about this vast masquerade of Stalinist inspiration where all the 'debates' are sorted out in advance? Fortunately 'alternative worldism' has thought of everything, including how to organise its own 'counter-forum', in the image of the Libertarian Social Forum that took place at Saint-Ouen at the same time.
"The libertarians propose some immediate demands which break with capitalism". They demand not "a reform of the capitalist economy but its abolition", contrary to the ESF that "doesn't call into question the market economy" (LSF website).
It's thus with a vocabulary borrowed from revolutionaries that the LSF, animated by the official organisations of anarchism (CNT, Libertarian Alternative, Anarchist Federation, OCL...) present and promote themselves. But very clearly, it's only a question here of a showcase whose objective is to attract more perplexed elements looking for a sharper perspective, in order to bring them back into the reformist bosom of 'alternative worldism'. The proof of this lies in the themes debated and the propositions of the LSF 'in order to try to construct alternatives' such as 'the access of all to culture', 'equal education for all' or 'a better sharing out of wealth', identical themes word for word to those programmed by the ESF and still revealing a full blown reformism.
On top of this, of course, comes the libertarian panacea of self-management, which has been revived by 'alternative worldism' as a whole with the famous notion of 'participative democracy'. A dangerous ideology inciting the workers to organise their own exploitation in the factories, or leading local populations to directly manage their own misery without ever being able to resolve it, as at Porto Alegre.
It was not by chance that the libertarians joined up with the alternative worldist procession of November 15, that they animated via Libertarian Alternative a debate within the ESF on the 'question of self-management', or that the Forum at Saint-Ouen was conceived in exactly the same framework as that of the ESF. In fact, on the internet site of the ESF, under the heading "Around the ESF" can be found all the information concerning the "anarchist counter-forum". Official anarchism is thus entirely a component part of 'alternative worldism'. A link in the chain taking a key role, that of a beater flushing out those most critical of the barbarity of the capitalist world, and driving them into the reformist trap of 'alternative worldism'.
'Another world is possible... but above all not communism'. Here is the aim of the 'alternative world' movement: to impede the working class in its difficult effort to develop its class consciousness. In the 'alternative world' ideology, there is no question of a working class but of citizens fighting for their democratic rights or any number of inter-classist categories, homosexuals, women, those fighting for a 'world without pesticides' or for the protection of laboratory animals. No question of a proletarian revolution, but of amendments to bourgeois democracy (that's to say the most advanced form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie against those it exploits).
Faced with the 'alternative worldist' offensive against the proletariat, which is aiming to blur its identity and class consciousness, revolutionaries cannot stand with folded arms. They have the responsibility of reaffirming that only a communist society constitutes a future for humanity, and only the working class is the bearer of this new world. "Inasmuch as the abolition of exploitation is identical, in the main, with the abolition of wages, only the class which submits to this specific form of exploitation, that's to say the proletariat, is up to carrying out such a revolutionary project... The communist project of the proletariat... is perfectly realistic, not only because capitalism has created the premises for such a society, but also because it is the only project which can bring humanity out of the swamp into which it is sinking" (International Review no. 73).
This was the whole sense of the intervention of the ICC against the trap of the ESF: sales of the press (in six languages) and the distribution of a leaflet at ESF sites and the November 15 demonstration; speaking in the ESF debates. All this illustrates the fiercely held will of the ICC to defend marxist positions and to demonstrate how 'alternative worldism' (from ATTAC to the anarchists of the LSF) is a trap directed against the proletariat.
It is only by developing its struggles on its own terrain against the capitalist system that the working class will be able to clearly lay out the perspective that another world is possible: communism.
Azel, 26/11/03.
In the movement of the working class against the attacks of capitalism, the specific role of revolutionaries is not just to insist on the need for workers to take control of their struggles and spread them as widely as possible; it is also to show that the day-to-day struggles of our class are the preparation for an ultimate confrontation with this system, aimed at dismantling it and replacing it with a radically new society.
We are not talking here about the ‘alternative worlds’ proposed by the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement; as we show in our article on the European Social Forum, these are not really an alternative at all, but a slightly modified version of present-day capitalism. We are talking about communism.
Ah, but ‘communism is dead’ we are told: it died when the Berlin Wall fell and the Stalinist regimes of the east collapsed. At best, the argument goes, the idea of communism is ‘utopian’, impossible, contrary to human nature, a daydream of mad fanatics. And indeed, for the vast majority of workers - even those engaged in bitter struggles against the system - communism is also no more than a nice idea, good in theory but unworkable in practice.
And we reply: the claim that communism died in 1989 is a lie - the deceitful propaganda of the ruling class. Because the Stalinist regimes had nothing to do with communism and were capitalist from top to bottom. The demise of these regimes was not the death of communism, but the end of a particular form of capitalist domination.
With the republication of this series written in the 1970s(1), we intend not only to show what communism really means, but also to show that far from being a failed dream, communism is both possible and absolutely necessary, the only real solution to the insoluble contradictions of capitalism in decay.
However, communist conceptions were not fundamentally developed until such time as a new class - the proletariat - made its first appearance in society. For the first time in history, a class existed which carried within itself the real possibility of transforming the old dream into reality. As early as the seventeenth century in England and the eighteenth in France, political currents grew up within the bourgeois revolutions taking place at that time and proclaimed the communist project in more or less explicit terms. Thus, even while the proletariat was not a fully formed class in society, it nonetheless created organisations like the ‘True Levellers’ in England and the Equals in France to defend its historic interests. But it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century, with the growth and concentration of the working class accompanying the development of large-scale industry, that the communist movement was able to make precise its own objectives and the means to attain them. This entailed a break with past utopian conceptions, best-expressed in the work of Fourier, Saint-Simon and Owen, and the distancing of the movement from the sectarian, conspiratorial activity of Blanqui and his cohorts. Religious references which had permeated the movement previously, and which even influenced as lucid a communist as Weitling, were swept aside in 1847 with the appearance of the first rigorous, scientific formulation of communism. The Communist Manifesto provided the theoretical basis for all the later developments in understanding of the proletarian movement. In this document, communism is not presented as the invention of a few visionaries that merely awaits application, but is seen as the only society which can succeed capitalism and overcome its mortal contradictions. The essential argument contained in the Manifesto is that capitalism, like all societies before it, cannot go on forever. If it did at one point represent a progressive step in the development of humanity, notably by unifying the world through the creation of a world market, capitalism today is wracked with insurmountable contradictions. These plunge the system into ever more violent convulsions which will end in it being swept away. By causing an immense development in the productive forces of society, and most important among them the working class itself, capitalism has brought into being the conditions necessary for its own transcendence and the creation of a society based on abundance. The working class is the subject of the social transformation of capitalism, and situated as it is on the lowest rung of the social ladder, it cannot emancipate itself without emancipating the whole of humanity.
Although the Communist Manifesto was mistaken in its conception that capitalism had already reached the limits of its own development and the communist revolution was, therefore, imminent - a mistake which its authors Marx and Engels recognised some years later - nonetheless its essential understanding of the unfolding of capitalist development has subsequently been amply confirmed. This is particularly true with regard to the idea that capitalism cannot escape from its own economic crises, which become successively more violent.
Today, once again, the economic crisis imposes on society an aberration typical of capitalism. Hundreds of thousands of individuals are plunged into the most terrible misery, not because production is insufficient to meet their needs, but because production is too great. However, today’s crisis is of a different type than the crises analysed in the Manifesto. The crises of the last century appeared in a period of full capitalist expansion; the system could ‘solve’ its crises at that time by eliminating the least profitable sectors of the economy in conjunction with its conquest of new markets. The crises of the nineteenth century constituted the heartbeat of a vigorous social organism. But since the first world war capitalism has entered into its phase of historical decline; of permanent crisis. From that time on, no real solution to the crisis has been possible within capitalism. The system can only continue to exist on the basis of an infernal cycle in which increasingly acute crises are followed by war, reconstruction and further crisis. As the Communist International announced in 1919, the era of imperialist wars and revolutions had arrived and communism was on the historical agenda. Since then, the successive convulsions suffered by humanity have confirmed, each time more forcibly, the urgent need for humanity to go beyond the capitalist mode of production which now severely hampers any further human development.
After the first world war, the crisis of 1929 provided another spectacular illustration of the bankruptcy of capitalism. In its wake, the holocaust of the second world war demonstrated that the scope of capitalist barbarism could exceed even the unbelievable horror of the first world butchery. Since capitalism has entered into its phase of decadence, humanity has paid the monstrous price of over 100 million deaths to keep this system functioning; and that is not counting the terrible human losses caused by unnecessary famine, malnutrition and general misery which capitalism forces millions of human beings to endure.
Today’s crisis is not the first indication of capitalism’s bankruptcy, nor the first proof of the need to replace it with communism. In many domains the crisis merely reflects in a clearer light contradictions which have torn the system apart in the past. But to the extent that a startling discrepancy exists between the enormous possibilities this system possesses to satisfy human needs, and the catastrophic usage to which capitalist production is actually put, the necessity for another type of society makes itself felt today in a way which is even more imperative than it was in the past.
The new society which will succeed capitalism must be able to overcome the contradictions which plague society today. This is the only way that such a society can function as a definite objective necessity and not as a utopian construction of the human mind. Its characteristics must be in complete opposition to the negative laws underpinning the development of capitalist society.
The root cause for the evils which ruin capitalism resides in the fact that the aim of capitalist production is not to satisfy human needs but to accumulate capital. Capitalist production does not produce use values but exchange values. Private appropriation of the means of production thus comes into conflict with their increasingly social character. In other words, capitalism decomposes because it produces for a market which is itself more and more restricted since it is based on an exploitation of wage labour. The surplus value produced by the exploitation of the working class can no longer be realised, i.e. be exchanged for goods which can enter into an enlarged cycle of capitalist reproduction.
The economic character of communism must, therefore, be the following:
One objection is often raised against this conception of society. It questions why such a society has not already come into existence since it would contain all the characteristics most appropriate to human development and would most closely constitute an ideal form of society. In other words, why should this form of society be a possibility today when it hasn’t been possible to create a society like this in the past? In their reply to questions like these the anarchists usually answer, as all the utopians answered before them, that in fact communism has always been possible. Since objective material conditions don’t stand in the way of communism, all that is needed is sufficient human will. What the anarchists can’t explain is why human will hasn’t been strong enough in the past to create communism and why the will to create communism, which did exist within minority groupings, didn’t extend itself throughout society in the past.
Marxism, however, gives a serious answer to these questions. It explains why one of the essential conditions for the evolution of humanity is the development of the productive forces, or in other words the productivity of human labour. Each level of development of the productive forces of a particular society corresponds to a given type of productive relationship. The relations of production are the relations established between men and women in their activity of producing goods destined to satisfy their needs. In primitive societies the productivity of labour was so low that it scarcely satisfied the barest physical needs of the members of the community. Exploitation and economic inequality were impossible in such a situation: if certain individuals had appropriated to themselves or consumed goods in greater quantities than other members of this society, then the poorer off would not have been able to survive at all. Exploitation, generally in the form of slavery established as the result of the territorial conquest of one tribe by another, could not appear until the average level of human production had gone beyond the basic minimum needed for physical survival. But between the satisfaction of this basic minimum and the full satisfaction, not only of the material but also the intellectual needs of humanity, there exists an entire range of development in the productivity of labour. By means of such development, mankind steadily became the master of nature. In historical terms, it was this period which separated the dissolution of primitive communist society from the era when fully developed communism would be possible. Just as mankind wasn’t naturally ‘good’ in those ages when men and women weren’t exploited under the conditions of primitive communism, so it hasn’t been naturally ‘bad’ in the epochs of exploitation which have followed. The exploitation of man by man and the existence of economic privilege became possible when average human production exceeded the physical minimum needed for human life to reproduce itself. Both became necessary because the level of human production could not fully satisfy all the needs of all the members of society.
As long as that was the case, communism was impossible, whatever objections the anarchists may raise to the contrary. But it is exactly this situation which capitalism has itself radically modified, owing to the enormous increase in the productivity of labour which it has brought into being. Capitalism methodically exploited every scientific discovery, generalised associated labour, and put to use the natural and human riches of the entire world. But obviously the increase in the productivity of labour set in motion by capitalism was paid for by an intensification of exploitation on a scale unknown in human history. However, such a profound increase in human productivity does represent the material basis for a communist society. By making itself the master of nature, capitalism created the conditions by which humanity may become master of itself.
The capitalist crisis today is an excellent demonstration of the necessity for communism. For the first time in the history of humanity, a society plunges the greater part of its members into the most acute misery, not because it cannot produce enough, but because it produces too much in relation to the laws which govern how it regulates production.
Before the rise of capitalism humanity knew crises, but never crises of overproduction. Today this congenital evil of the capitalist system reveals itself with unequalled violence: unemployment increases relentlessly, underemployment spreads throughout the productive process, more and more murderous and extensive wars break out. All of these things prove that the real utopians are those people who imagine it is possible today to achieve a greater satisfaction of human needs through the reform of capitalism, and not its complete overthrow. The whole gamut of economic, political and military events which have shaken the world over the last decades bear testimony to the fact that humanity, if it remains bound by the laws of capitalism, will find itself moving down the road towards a third world holocaust. The magnitude of that war would make the other two appear almost inconsequential.
While the unbelievable destructive power of past inter-imperialist conflicts has demonstrated that mankind can master nature, and therefore that communism is possible, it has also shown that mankind’s mastery over nature can also be used to destroy humanity itself. Thus, communism becomes a necessity today, not only to ensure the further progress of the human species, but more simply to ensure that humanity survives at all.
In the next article in this series we will examine various objections raised against the viability of communism, mainly those that argue that humanity is ‘naturally’ incapable of realising such a society. FM
(1) See World Revolution 25, 26, 28; the series is also available on our website.
In the concluding part of this series by an ICC sympathiser, we examine the failure of the Trotskyist movement to uphold an internationalist position and draw some conclusions about the response of proletarian political groups to the Second World War.
The Fourth International was founded on the basis that capitalism was in its ‘death throes’, but unlike the Italian Communist Left which defended the same position, Trotsky concluded from this that revolution was on the immediate agenda (1). As the historic course opened towards generalised imperialist war, this led him to defend increasingly dangerous opportunist positions, including:
- support for bourgeois democracy as a ‘lesser evil’ against fascism;
- unconditional defence of the Soviet Union;
- support for ‘national liberation’.
Even before the Second World War these positions led the Trotskyists to take sides in inter-imperialist wars: for example, with the democratic imperialisms against fascism in Spain; Stalinist Russia against Poland and Finland, and China against Japan.
These positions were enshrined in the Transitional Programme; a series of demands supposed to be impossible for capitalism to grant, therefore demonstrating the system’s bankruptcy and pushing the working class to struggle for its destruction. At the beginning of the Second World War, Trotsky set out the main lines of a ‘Proletarian Military Policy’ (PMP), which was essentially an application of the transitional programme to a period of universal war and militarism, centred on the demand for compulsory military training under the control of the trade unions (2).
Trotsky himself remained faithful to internationalism, affirming in his manifesto on the war that: “…the Fourth International builds its policy not on the military fortunes of the capitalist states but on the transformation of the imperialist war into a war of the workers against the capitalists…” (3). But the policies he outlined put the Trotskyist movement on an extremely steep, slippery slope towards abandoning an internationalist position, and supporting the participation of the workers in an imperialist war in the name of defending democracy against fascism. Trotsky argued:
“We cannot escape from the militarisation, but inside the machine we can observe the class line. The American workers do not want to be conquered by Hitler, and to those who say ‘Let us have a peace program,’ the worker will reply, ‘But Hitler does not want a peace program.’ Therefore we say: We will defend the United States with a workers’ army, with workers’ officers, with a workers’ government…”
The role of the Trotskyists was to actively participate in this war for democracy as “the best soldiers and the best officers and at the same time [sic] the best class militants” (4). In his zeal to distance himself from pacifists and liberals, Trotsky even went as far as advocating American military intervention in Europe as the best way to defend democracy in America (5). After Trotsky’s murder by the Stalinists in August 1940, it was left to the members of the Fourth International, led by its largest section the American Socialist Workers’ Party, to turn his proposals into a practical intervention.
In Britain in 1939 the two main Trotskyist groups were the Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL), which was the official section of the Fourth International; and the Workers’ International League (WIL), formed from a split in 1937. Both groups denounced the British bourgeoisie’s war preparations and raised internationalist slogans: ‘Turn the imperialist war into a civil war’, ‘The enemy is in your own country’.
However, other aspects of the Trotskyist programme undermined this opposition:
- Both groups spread illusions in the Labour Party and the trade unions as mass bodies belonging to the working class. Far from warning workers against the dangers of these capitalist organs, which were essential to the bourgeoisie for mobilising workers behind a war to defend democracy, they called for the election of a Labour government with a full ‘socialist’ (i.e. state capitalist) programme, supposedly to ‘expose it in front of the masses.’
- Both groups clung to the un-Marxist idea that Russia was still a ‘workers’ state’ because ‘collectivised property relations’ and a ‘planned economy’ existed there, which must therefore be defended. Even after the Hitler-Stalin pact and the Red Army’s invasion of Finland and Poland, they denied that the Stalinist regime had any imperialist designs, and even saw a ‘progressive side’ to Stalin’s occupation of eastern Poland because he had taken measures like expropriating private landlords (6).
Both the RSL and the WIL raised transitional demands before the war, but it was the WIL which enthusiastically took up the Proletarian Military Policy - thus solving the problem for the Trotskyists of raising such demands inside the capitalist war machine during wartime - while the RSL began to break up and became increasingly inactive. Differences opened up after the German invasion of France in 1940. The WIL explained the victory of fascism as due to the French bourgeoisie’s reluctance to fight for fear of arming the workers. To prevent an invasion of Britain the WIL raised the slogan, ‘arm the workers’, and criticised the British capitalist class for “...refusing to take the one course which would doom any invasion, however formidable, to inevitable futility and defeat: the arming, mobilising and organising of the entire working class for resistance, factory by factory, street by street, house by house.”
The WIL posed the problem as one of transforming the imperialist war, not into a civil war, but “a genuine revolutionary war against Hitlerism” (7), thus crossing the line from internationalism to national defence. The slogan ‘arm the workers’ put forward at the height of an invasion scare could only lead the workers to defend their ‘own’ capitalist state.
Nor was this just a matter of abstract propaganda; it led in practice to support for the increased exploitation of the working class in order to produce guns and material for the imperialist war. The WIL was activist and gained some influence among industrial workers as the war went on and strikes grew. While it opposed the Stalinist-controlled Joint Production Committees, which tied workers to ferocious levels of exploitation in the cause of anti-fascism, the WIL argued that production could be increased as long as it was under ‘workers’ control’. It gave uncritical support to the Trotskyist-led shop stewards’ committee in the Nottingham Royal Ordnance Factory, which was briefly granted control by the management over production and pay, and where output of guns duly rose. An additional justification was that the guns were intended to aid the Russian war effort. In reality of course the workers had no control whatsoever over how the British bourgeoisie directed its war material; and even if the guns did get to Russia they were weapons in the struggle of the democratic gangsters – with their ally, the butcher Stalin - against their fascist rivals.
The WIL’s active support for the war effort was no aberration but the logical consequence of its enthusiastic adoption of the Proletarian Military Policy developed by the American SWP, which publicly declared that it had no intention of sabotaging the war or obstructing America’s military forces in any way. Put on trial for conspiracy in 1941, the SWP’s leaders, far from denouncing the war or calling for the overthrow of the capitalist state, publicly declared their support for a war against Hitler as long as it was under the leadership of a ‘workers’ and farmers’ government’(8).
This open defence of social patriotic views provoked a reaction from some in the Trotskyist movement, particularly Grandizo Munis of the exiled Spanish section, the Revolutionary Communists of Austria (RKD), and the Greek Trotskyist Agis Stinas (9). At first a minority in the WIL also opposed the new line, criticising it as a concession to defencism, but they soon gave in and the policy was confirmed. The centre and left factions of the RSL opposed it, while the right – closely allied to the WIL - supported it. The RSL criticised the WIL for pandering to chauvinism in the working class, and identified the PMP as a symptom of the degeneration of the Fourth International towards the bourgeoisie (10). But when the RSL and the WIL merged in March 1944 it was on the basis of the latter’s positions, and the new organisation, the Revolutionary Communist Party, overwhelmingly adopted the PMP with the full backing of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International.
Trotskyist historians have since tried to play down the significance of this betrayal, claiming that the PMP was merely a tactic, applicable only in certain circumstances, and later dropped. Any errors committed by the WIL or other groups were similarly tactical or the result of polemical excess. In fact, as we have seen, the PMP was devised by Trotsky himself as the specific means of applying the Trotskyist transitional programme in wartime. It became the official position of the Fourth International and was promoted as such by its central organs. Far from being in any way repudiated, the policy and its wartime application were confirmed at the FI’s first post-war congress in 1948. At this point, those revolutionaries who had remained faithful to internationalism, like Munis, Stinas and the RKD (and later Natalia Trotsky), were forced to break definitively with the Trotskyist movement.
Nor was the PMP the only means by which the Trotskyists betrayed internationalism. As we have seen, the slogan of ‘unconditional defence of the Soviet Union’ also led them to give practical support for the war. Only those revolutionaries who were able to recognise that proletarian internationalism was their primary duty in an imperialist war, and who rejected any support for the counter-revolutionary Russian state, were able to avoid the betrayal of internationalism.
The response of political groups in Britain to the Second World War highlights the crucial importance for revolutionaries of opposing any support whatsoever for bourgeois democracy. Any concession to the idea that workers should fight to defend democracy against fascism led straight into the arms of the democratic capitalist gangsters, who did not hesitate to use the horrors of Nazism as an alibi for their own sordid imperialist interests. This is precisely the trap that the Trotskyists plunged headlong into with their call to ‘arm the workers’ for ’a revolutionary war against Hitler’.
For the anarchists of the Freedom group, the trap was sprung earlier, in Spain, where their uncritical support for the capitalist ‘Popular Front’ government led them to take sides under the reactionary banner of anti-fascism, thus passing over to the enemy camp. The heavy influence of anarchism also led the weak council communist current to take sides in this war, and only the split of the anarchist faction – together with the admittedly weak influence of the communist left - allowed the APCF to climb out of this trap and defend a basic internationalist position in the Second World War.
In between these two currents, the grouping around Spain and the World and War Commentary avoided the trap of anti-fascism to a certain extent, but did not break with other aspects of anarchism. As with the Friends of Durruti group in Spain, rather than demonstrating the vitality of the anarchist movement, it expressed the resistance by proletarian elements to anarchism’s betrayals, while its failure to break clearly from anarchist positions weakened its ability to make an organised intervention with clear political perspectives for the class struggle.
In splendid isolation from events, while avoiding an open betrayal, the SPGB still managed to add its own dose of mystification about the war and democratic rights, and showed its unhealthy respect for the niceties of bourgeois legality by giving up any anti-war activity in the face of the threat of suppression by the democratic state.
The profound defeats suffered by the proletariat after 1921 meant that it entered the Second World War with a much more unfavourable balance of forces than the first. Does this mean that the defence of internationalism was of symbolic value only? The class struggle did not stop during wartime and there were important strikes in Britain towards the end, in which it was important for a revolutionary voice to be heard – against the reactionary slogans of the Trotskyists and the vague educational efforts of the anarchists. The strike waves in Italy and Germany and elsewhere testify to the combativity of the proletariat even in the most difficult conditions, and it was the duty of revolutionaries in all these struggles to provide a clear communist intervention.s
In the period of counter-revolution – of which the world war was the ultimate expression - the watchword, as the Italian Left understood, was ‘No betrayal!’. The surviving minorities of revolutionaries in Britain – very, very weak and confused – nevertheless represented the political continuity between the ‘old’ workers’ movement and the proletarian party of the future. Internationalism was the unbroken thread, an essential position in the communist programme of humanity. Even in the extremely hazardous conditions of occupied Europe, under threat from the Gestapo, local police and Stalinist assassins, elements of the surviving communist left undertook anti-war activity, issuing leaflets calling on soldiers to fraternise, etc. This is an example of internationalism in action that revolutionaries must take as their inspiration: the watchword of the workers’ movement, ‘workers’ of the world unite!’, is still our first duty today. MH
In Greece in December 15 men were convicted of the nearly 1000 crimes attributed to the November 17 terrorist group during the 27 years of its activity. There had been 23 murders, dozens of bombings and rocket attacks on a range of targets - typically foreign banks and other businesses, military figures, Turkish and German diplomats, tax officers - as well as raids on police stations to restock on weapons.
Yet, while 'justice' was finally supposed to have been done with the guilty behind bars, there was widespread suspicion throughout Greece of how neatly the November 17 case had been wrapped up. It seemed to have been done just in time to avoid affecting this year's Athens Olympics. There were also questions as to why the Greek state had previously done so little to catch the terrorists who in the end either gave themselves up or confessed: these were alongside questions on the origins of the gang and the 'interests' that initially funded them. Also, three weeks after the end of the N17 trial, the judges were chosen for the trial on February 9th of five members of the ELA - a lesser terrorist group that had carried out hundreds of bombings since 1975 - who had been conveniently arrested as part of the N17 investigation.
There had been suspicions about N17 right from its first killing in 1975, when three unmasked men shot the CIA Athens station chief at point blank range in front of witnesses. Because of the precision and efficiency of the attack little credibility was given to the claims of the previously unknown group. A year later the murder of an army officer was followed by a communiqué in Liberation that had reached the French paper via Jean-Paul Sartre. For a group that was only supposed to amount to two extended families they always seemed to have friends in high places.
Subsequent attacks and the communiqués that accompanied them showed that N17 had a typically nationalist agenda expressed in familiar left-wing terms. As its leader, Alexandros Giotopoulos, said during the trial, "modern Greece is a colony of the USA". N17's targets were American, British, German, French and Turkish, and those Greek bodies that were deemed to have betrayed, sold out or acted as agents of foreign powers. They bombed because of the running down of the health service; against any rapprochement with Turkey; in protest against a judiciary that was not taking action against corrupt industrialists; against privatisations; against German delays in paying reparations for World War II crimes. There were rocket attacks in protest against aspects of the Greek government's foreign policy (any concessions to Turkey or the US), attacks on British and German targets in protest against their role in the war in ex-Yugoslavia.
The left-wing of capitalism in Greece (and elsewhere) criticised N17's "militarism". But while it didn't accept the terrorist methods it had no quibbles with its ideology. N17 was against US imperialism, against Turkish 'expansionism' (that was 'backed by the US'), against the Greek media, against the EU. When PASOK (Greek social democrats) came to power in 1981 it was welcomed by N17 in one of its communiqués because of PASOK's "basic lines, anti-monopolistic, anti-imperialist and democratic". Accordingly, for two years N17 undertook no attacks and issued no communiqués. They renewed their activity when they considered that PASOK was making concessions to the US.
At his trial, Giotopoulous said he had been framed by "British and American secret services". This fitted in with N17's previous protestations, as, for example, when in 1995 they mounted a rocket attack on a TV studio with more than a hundred people in it and complained that they were being misrepresented by a CIA/FBI/Greek media conspiracy. They had no quarrel with Greek capitalism, just the foreign pressures that acted on it. In a 1988 communiqu�� they complained that "there is not a Greek Army but only a NATOite army".
Far from causing any difficulties to the Greek ruling class they seem to have been able to tolerate N17's actions for a long period. In 1994 the Greek minister for Public Order said in an interview that he thought that groups like N17 were controlled by elements from foreign secret services. This seems to contradict the reality of a group whose politics fitted perfectly well into the left-wing of the bourgeoisie's political spectrum, and whose defence of Greece against all foreign encroachments made the Greek state the only body with any interest in sustaining the existence of N17 for so long. There is no other satisfactory explanation for N17's survival. But what of the reasons for its sudden demise?
The 2004 Olympics would have seemed to be a perfect theatre for N17 activity - yet they've been brought to heel. Claims of US intervention behind the scenes need not be far off the mark. Athens has previously shown itself to be antagonistic to US policy in the area: in Greek support for Serbia in the conflicts in ex-Yugoslavia; in the opposition of parts of the Greek ruling class to US initiatives over Cyprus; in Greek opposition to the war against Iraq. But the situation is changing. In particular, the leadership of PASOK is being handed over to George Papandreou who spent much of his early life in the US, speaks better English than Greek, has been the leading figure behind improved relations with Turkey, is enthusiastic about the EU and has ditched the nationalist anti-Americanism of his father, who founded PASOK. Whatever manoeuvres the US has actually undertaken it must be pleased with the way things are going. The US backed the 'colonels' regime that ran Greece from 1967-74, and ever since a certain verbal distancing from American policy has been required from Greek governments. The end of N17, the coming trial of the ELA and the advent of George Papandreou show that, even if PASOK lose elections brought forward to March, Greek capitalism is re-orientating itself to take more account of the weight of US imperialism in the region.
Car, 27/1/04.
Following the Bam tragedy, the Iranian state launched an international appeal for aid, and in the name of human solidarity the great powers of this world sent in rescue and aid teams. From the accounts of several members of non-government organisations, there was a veritable competition between the aid teams to see who would impose their presence first. Their lack of coordination added further confusion to the chaotic state of the local aid agencies. The television teams from France, Britain and Russia produced some frankly indecent publicity about their own teams of rescuers and sniffer dogs. This tragedy was even the occasion for grand gestures between the US and Iran. Whatever the media might say, the sending of American rescuers was simply a 'humanitarian' mask for imperialist ambitions; the speeches about the purely humanitarian nature of the rescue effort were purely lies. The earthquake provided a good opportunity for the US authorities to make an approach to Iran; the latter has a huge influence on the Shiite community in Iraq, which is currently causing considerable difficulties to the American occupying force. As for the Iranians, they are hoping that the US will rein in the armed Mohajedin opposition it has been supporting against the Tehran regime.
And on top of this cynical use of the earthquake as an opportunity for diplomatic manoeuvres, the grand media show about humanitarian aid has been of short duration. Three weeks after the catastrophe, the various aid teams have departed as quickly as they arrived. The victims, of course, have nowhere to go back to. They are faced with the struggle to survive among the ruins and while the government will be carrying on with its sordid international intrigues, they will only have themselves to rely on.
WR, 30/01/04.
A year after the invasion of Iraq was launched, those who openly justified the war are looking more and more exposed.
Not only have the weapons of mass destruction not been found, it has become increasingly clear that the evidence for their existence offered by governments and intelligence services was no more than a tissue of lies, Hutton's attempted cover-up or other bogus 'inquiries' notwithstanding.
Not only has evidence for Saddam's links to Al-Qaida and the September 11 attacks prior to the war not been forthcoming, the war has actually opened the doors of Iraq to international terrorist groups like Al-Qaida, which are now merging with the home-grown 'resistance' forces operating against the occupying armies.
Not only has the war failed to bring prosperity, stability, democracy or even electricity to the Iraqi population, its balance sheet has been horrifying: up to 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed, tens more thousands of Iraqi conscripts, a growing death toll among the Coalition troops, rampant crime, daily acts of terrorism which are increasingly hitting Iraqi civilians.In short, the brutal regime of Saddam has been replaced by an equally brutal and demoralising state of chaos, a quagmire in which peace and stability have become impossible dreams.
The picture is very similar in Afghanistan, which is currently getting very little publicity in the international media. The Taliban have gone from Kabul but continue to resist in their strongholds further south; the murderous warlords whom they replaced in the 90s have re-established their fiefdoms in most of the remaining areas of the country; the oppression of women by the Taliban has been maintained by the same warlords. As in Iraq, attempts to graft a democratic façade over this mess have been an abject failure.
In his response to Clare Short's revelations about British intelligence spying on Kofi Annan, Blair declared that she was being "totally irresponsible". In reality, the military actions carried out by the Blair and Bush governments reveal the depth of irresponsibility of the entire capitalist class today. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not fought to free the people of those countries, nor to make the world safer from terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, but for the military/strategic interests of the world's leading power. The defence of these interests requires the US to impose its authority in the oil-rich Middle East and in Central Asia, to squeeze its main imperialist rivals out of these areas, and, ultimately, to build a ring of steel around both Russia and Europe; it requires, in short, the US to protect its global domination from the threat of the emergence of a new superpower. And to achieve these entirely sordid ends, the US bourgeoisie has made full use of its own arsenal of mass destruction against much weaker states, leaving a trail of death and chaos in its wake. The Blair faction of the British ruling class decided that it was in Britain's best imperialist interests to tail-end the US war-effort, even if other factions (represented by the likes of Short and Robin Cook) are enraged at this, because for them it would be more in Britain's interests to pursue a more 'independent' line vis-à-vis the USA.
But whatever the disagreements there may be within the ruling capitalist class, they can only be over the best tactics to employ in the defence of the national economy and the nation state. And ever since 1914 it has been plain that the defence of the nation means imperialism - policies of war and domination directed against other nations or blocs of nations, policies from which no nation, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, can hold aloof. Thus every nation state, every faction of the capitalist class, for whom 'responsibility' to the national interest is the highest ideal, must be an advocate of imperialism and war, whatever the language they may use at a particular moment. In the build-up towards the invasion of Iraq, France and Germany had to speak the language of peace to defend their interests against those of the USA. It didn't make them any less imperialist. Similarly Cook and Short were only 'pacifists' faced with the Iraq war; they had been openly bellicose war-mongers during the attacks on Serbia in 1999 or Afghanistan in 2001.
The world war of 1914-18 provided the first historical proof that the bourgeoisie was no longer fit to rule human society. The world war of 1939-45 and the long-drawn out period of wars that has followed it amply confirm this. Capitalism has reached a stage in its existence when it lives for war and by war. And in the epoch of imperialism, there are no 'progressive' wars, no wars justified by the need to expand the world market and develop the productive forces. In the epoch of capitalist decay, every war is an expression of that decay and an active factor in its acceleration. The negative balance sheet of the 'war against terrorism' demonstrates this once again. Since the collapse of the USSR, the USA has been faced with the necessity to make use of its vast military superiority to impose its will on a 'multi-polar' world where its former allies have become its principal rivals. But every attempt to intimidate these challengers brings not a Pax Americana, not a world where everyone quietly recognises who's boss, but a world where anti-Americanism has become the ideological bread and butter of more and more states, more and more political factions. A chaotic world where the spread of wars both external and internal have made the Cold War period look stable and harmonious in comparison.
Left to itself, this spiralling nightmare of chaos and war can only overwhelm humanity. But if capitalism has no future to offer, it has created a force which does: the class which it exploits and which produces the essential wealth of society. The working class has no national interest to defend. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the interests of the national economy which 'grows' on the soil of its exploitation; and thus it is no less fundamentally antagonistic to the war-drive of each national ruling class, which is fuelled by its sacrifices at home and on the battlefronts. History has proved that the more the working class raises the stakes of its struggle against exploitation, the harder it is for the ruling class to wage war. In 1917-18 workers' strikes and uprisings brought the world butchery to an end; in 1939, the ruling class was able to drag humanity into another slaughter because it had defeated the first attempts of the working class to get rid of this system once and for all.
In the last year, the world scene has been dominated by war and rumours of war. But after a long period of relative peace on the social front, there have been visible signs of another war brewing - the class war. In France last spring, in Italy, in Spain, Austria, in Britain, even in America, there has been a revival of workers' strikes and demonstrations, giving the lie to the propaganda about the 'end of the class struggle' that has helped to confuse and disorient workers over the past decade and more. These movements are not directly a response to the capitalist war-drive but to a growing series of economic attacks on jobs, wages, pensions and other benefits. But for that very reason they contain the seeds of a wider struggle against capitalism which will inevitably lead workers to reject any enrolment in imperialist war.
There are no short-cuts to this, but there are many diversions. Principal among them is the whole 'Stop the War' carnival which pretends that imperialist war can be halted by a democratic and peaceful alliance of all classes and all decent-minded people. Pacifism has never stopped wars; on the contrary it has prepared the ground for them by helping to spread the deadly illusion that you can have world peace without the world wide overthrow of the bourgeoisie. And the worst part of this illusion is the idea that some parts of the ruling class, some countries or regimes, are really in favour of peace against a minority of war-mongers. In the build up to the Iraq war, the 'peace movement' acted as a direct instrument of the imperialist policies of countries like France and Germany or of the bourgeois cliques opposed to the Bush/Blair line.
The only real struggle against imperialist war is the international class war!
WR, 28/2/04.
Tony Blair and his political allies hoped that the Hutton report would 'draw a line' under all the arguments over the war on Iraq. This did not happen. Critics of Blair's policy of more sustained and closer relations with the US were angered by Hutton's 'whitewash'. Positions are now more strongly polarised and contested. More questions are being asked. More new material is being produced. The Butler inquiry into intelligence matters will provide another arena for opponents of the government's line to continue their combat. There was the well publicised collapse of the court case over the revelation by a secret service employee that the US had asked for British help in spying on certain delegations at the UN prior to the war. Clare Short then detonated her 'bombshell' that Britain eavesdropped on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. By the time you read this there will almost certainly have been further stages in this conflict within the ruling class, flak from Blair's critics, counter-attacks from the government and its friends.
It is necessary to put this in a historical context. From the end of the Second World War to the end of the 1980s the imperialist policy of the British bourgeoisie was mainly determined by the need to play its role in the bloc dominated by the US in the 45-year Cold War confrontation with the Russian bloc. British capitalism had plenty of frustrations with the way that the US treated it - most notably with the way its 1956 action over Suez was subject to US sabotage - but throughout the period the British bourgeoisie was broadly united in accepting the 'special relationship' on American terms. With the collapse of the Russian bloc there was no basis for keeping to the discipline of the western bloc. Since then the central fraction of the British bourgeoisie has tried to maintain an imperialist orientation that is not too tied up with, and therefore overwhelmed by any of the other major imperialisms. This is not accepted by all the ruling class as some - a lot of the Tory party, the Murdoch media - want to strengthen links with the US and distance Britain from European powers such as Germany and France. It is the continuing concessions that Blair has made to the 'pro-US' position which have so alarmed the central faction of the bourgeoisie and provoked the most serious political crisis of the British bourgeoisie since the 1930s.
The policy of appeasement - British imperialism manoeuvring to establish an international framework which might restrain the advances of German imperialism, making concessions if they could be justified in Britain's long term interests - this was the policy of the main part of the British bourgeoisie. In the mid-1930s Churchill was in a minority, crying in the wilderness. His attitude was seen as rash and reckless. After more than a decade of denouncing Russia as 'Bolshevik' he thought they should be included in a 'Grand Alliance' against Germany, as Russia had become "an asset to the cause of peace". As for the Labour party (and even those further to the left) Churchill was prepared to provide "protection" for "their ideas" in "return for their aid in the rearmament of Britain". At one point Churchill even said that he "would speak on every socialist platform in the country against the Government". There was talk about a coalition government led by Churchill and Eden with Labour and Liberal ministers. It came to nothing, not just because the likes of Churchill and Lloyd George were rejected as political adventurers by leading figures in the bourgeoisie, but because the policy of appeasement was still seen as the best way to defend British interests. The conflict over imperialist policy continued for years. It only began to be resolved in March 1939 with the German invasion of Czechoslovakia which prompted a crash acceleration in Britain's defence programme. Even then Churchill didn't become Prime Minister until May 1940, and there were still differences on Britain negotiating a separate peace with Germany.
The present crisis within the British bourgeoisie shows no immediate prospect of being resolved. Following the Hutton report the Blair faction has even less credibility, the bourgeoisie is even more clearly divided. The arguments might focus on whether David Kelly really killed himself, or on the existence of 'weapons of mass destruction' - but the conflict within the ruling class is ultimately concerned with the nature of Britain's relationship with the US. Growth of anti-Americanism
The question of 'weapons of mass destruction' would not be an issue if the bourgeoisie was united. Iraq's possession of materials for chemical and biological warfare was no obstacle to British support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. But with a divided bourgeoisie anything can become contentious. In the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq the faction round Blair was prepared to play a role in the US's 'war on terrorism'. This has taken place while Blair still talks of Britain being a 'bridge' between Europe and America, but that has not satisfied the government's critics.
The central faction of the bourgeoisie accepts that alliances with other powers will sometimes be necessary, but that these will tend to be only temporary coalitions. In the relationship with the US the British bourgeoisie is wary of losing the capacity to defend its own particular interests. For example, it is possible to see how British imperialism gains from having a military presence in Afghanistan or Iraq, but this gain is diminished if British forces are restricted to acting within the framework of American strategy.
Rather than explicitly spelling out the raw selfish national interests that the bourgeoisie want to defend, a part of the ruling class is increasingly embracing anti-Americanism.
We are treated to a vision of the US as a lethal leviathan lead by a right-wing idiot. America is the country that is developing tactical nuclear weapons while demanding that others give up WMDs; it refuses to sign up to or take seriously environmental agreements as it pollutes the world; it has no plan for dealing with the chaos in Iraq; it has a military presence in 130 countries and is responsible for 40% of the world's military spending. Look at all the publicity over Guantanamo Bay. This is portrayed as uniquely 'unjust' and contrary to the 'rule of law'. When asked in Germany whether the US was bound by any international system, legal framework or code of conduct, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld replied "I honestly believe that every country ought to do what it wants to do ... It either is proud of itself afterwards, or it is less proud of itself". Commentators in Britain have said that this is a terrible admission from the US that it will do what it likes - shooting first and asking questions afterwards - regardless of the views of the rest of the 'international community'.
There is also the anti-Americanism that focuses on the way that the US government treats its 'own' people - like the 29,000 American troops that have been killed, wounded, injured or become so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq. This is where the unusually generous coverage in the British media of the US primaries and caucuses comes in to play. The emergence of John Kerry - a 'man with a conscience' - is contrasted with the brutality of Bush, the man who as Governor of Texas executed more people (152) than any in modern US history.
At the moment a lot of the British media is devoted to disparaging the weight of US influence internationally, as a way of discrediting those policies of Blair that seem to sacrifice British imperialism's position through too close association with the US. For example, the British government has been perceived as being less vocal than other governments in its protests at the detention of British citizens in Camp Delta. The bourgeois critics care no more for the detainees than the government does, but their plight is another anti-American stick to hit it with. Britain as a 'bridge'
Media coverage of the recent summit between Chirac, Schroeder and Blair showed how the divisions within the British bourgeoisie operate. The faction that favours closer links with the US chose to focus on Chirac's affirmation of the importance of Franco-German relations, thereby trying to undermine any significance for British participation in European schemes. Meanwhile, British involvement in European projects continues to grow. The blueprint for a 60,000 strong European rapid reaction force was first laid out in 1998. There have been difficulties in this original idea being taken up, so Britain, France and Germany are now going to create 1500-strong battle groups capable of being deployed in 15 days, which will be used as commando forces for missions "appropriate for, but not limited to, use in failed or failing states". There are also advanced plans for a joint aircraft carrier.
This military co-operation is evidence that Britain has not turned its back on Europe. As for Chirac's remarks about relations with Germany, this partly reflects French concerns that Germany is edging closer to Britain. German imperialism, after all, has no interests in Anglo-American relations becoming closer. Some critics of Blair also highlighted Chirac's remarks, as a way of suggesting that Britain was being pushed to the periphery of European developments.
The idea of Britain as a 'bridge' between the US and Europe has not been abandoned by Blair. However, there are still great suspicions in parts of the ruling class that the Prime Minister has forgotten the importance of maintaining an independent imperialist orientation. The arguments are not going away. Bourgeois unity in democracy
The Hutton report has not strengthened the position of the Blair faction. The Butler inquiry will also be a battleground for different factions. However, this intra-bourgeois dispute has not hampered the ruling class's ability to use its divisions for ideological purposes.
For instance, calls for new inquiries feed the illusion that somehow there are figures capable of conducting investigations with their only goal being the disinterested uncovering of truth. In reality, all the inquiries are entirely within the framework of bourgeois politics. Or take the example of the intelligence services. Critics of Blair say that intelligence was perverted for political ends, as if the secret state wasn't an integral part of the bourgeoisie's apparatus of repression, which only exists to serve the needs of the ruling class.
The inquiries and the intelligence services are used in the conflicts within the bourgeoisie. They are integral parts of the democratic state, and, as such, they are supposed to be respected by the whole population, rather than seen as the tools of our exploiters.
The working class must become conscious of the way that the bourgeoisie functions, of the way that, even when it's divided and going through an internal political conflict, it can still act against workers' interests. It must also be aware of the way democracy is used as one of the state's main weapons against workers' struggles.
Car, 26/02/04.
The World Social Forum, that has so far met annually in Porto Alegre, Brazil, this year met at Mumbai, India between Jan 16 and 21, 2004. The WSF at Mumbai was no different from other such gatherings. It had all the trappings of a gigantic fair (it was held at National Exhibitions Grounds, a venue of Trade Fairs) with pronounced 'ethnic' and 'tribal' flavour. The show was definitely big - nearly 80000 people from 132 countries are supposed to have participated in 1200 events around the WSF. Even more are supposed to have joined the Anti-American rally on 21st Jan 2004 at the end of the WSF.
We have often shown that the world bourgeoisie did everything it could to hit the consciousness of working class following the collapse of the stalinist bourgeoisie in the former Soviet Union. It tried to extinguish any thought of destroying the capitalist system. 'There is no alternative to the market economy', the ideologues of capital hammered day in and out. This lying propaganda did not go without its impact. But with deepening crises, spreading misery and more and more genocidal wars, this propaganda has become increasingly exposed. This has allowed the working class to recover the path of class combat and to start a process of questioning of the capitalist system. It has also provoked worldwide anger against the war mongering of the imperialist gangsters.
The bourgeoisie has taken note of this fermentation among the proletariat. It has set about building new instruments of mystification to contain this emerging process. Gatherings like the WSF and its offshoot the European Social Forum, with their sham 'alternatives', have emerged as an important tool of the bourgeoisie to contain the working class and also as a tool of inter-imperialist rivalries. The bourgeois media the world over have done everything possible to build up the WSF.
Long before WSF 2004 began, the bourgeois media in India, following in the footsteps of their western counterparts, was propagating its virtues. Indian press and TV sympathetically covered the events. Indian trade and industry accorded it 'due respect' as a legitimate expression of 'dissent'. Success of the WSF in Mumbai was further assured by the sympathy of the Congress - erstwhile ruling party of India, currently the ruling party in Mumbai - and the participation of the party of the dalit (lower-caste) bourgeoisie: the Republican Party, coalition partners of Congress in Mumbai. Some major events were chaired by top Indian politicians known for their links with 'lower castes' - VP Singh, the ex-Prime Minister of India famous for triggering caste clashes as a means of strengthening the Indian state, and R. K. Naryanan, the ex-President of India.
But the main organisers in India were the biggest Stalinist parties - the CPI (M) and CPI. They mobilised the nation-wide apparatus of their front organisations. The Mumbai office of the WSF was housed in a stalinist building in 'Leningrad Square'. The youth wings of the stalinist parties provided volunteers to the WSF. Stalinist intellectuals adorned the stages at many events at the WSF.
Also present at WSF Mumbai were a large number of NGOs who provide ideological cover for the state's attack on social wages. And there were the regular international personalities: from Le Monde Diplomatique, leader of the French farmers Jose Bove, Labour MPs Clare Short and Jeremy Corbin, Winnie Mandela et al.
WSF Mumbai took up all the well-known chants of 'alternative worldism'. There were 'events' on fair trade, citizens' democracy, corporate governance and many more. Indian flavour, to meet the needs of Indian Stalinists and the dalit bourgeoisie, was provided by 'Anti-Communalism' and 'dalit emancipation'.
But the main focus of the WSF show at Mumbai was imperialism or, in the words of Maoists, 'Imperialist Globalisation'. Anti-imperialism at the WSF boiled down to Anti-Americanism. With slogans like 'US Quit Iraq', 'Bush Quit Afghanistan', the closing WSF rally joined the chorus of America's imperialist rivals. There was no denunciation of other imperialist gangsters like France, Germany, Russia or China, not to mention that local imperialist gangster, the Indian state.
The WSF was of course the biggest show, but, mirroring the spectacle in Paris in November 2003, where the anarchists held a libertarian alternative to the ESF, two parallel shows were organised during this period by rival Maoist groups.
Held in the Veterinary College Grounds, in front of the WSF Venue, Mumbai Resistance 2004 (MR-2004) was second in size. It was held at the initiation of ILPS, an international umbrella of Maoist Groups and their camp followers from different countries including Turkey, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Britain and Greece. MR considers itself not as the opponent of the WSF but parallel to it. Many of the personalities, specially the Indian ones, e.g. Arunditi Roy, Nandita Das, Vandana Shiva and others spoke both from WSF and MR platforms.
The central theme of MR-2004 was the same as that of the WSF. They too thundered against American Imperialism, no doubt with more vehemence. Again there was no discussion of the imperialist appetites of America's rivals, least of all those of the Indian bourgeoisie. All the Maoist rhetoric only provided radical cover to the anti-Americanism of the WSF.
A third, smaller 'Convention Against Imperialist Globalisation', lasting three days, was held a short distance away from the venues of WSF and MR. It was organised by another of the many Maoist Groups (New Democracy). Apart from other obscure differences between MR and this third convention, it was purely local with a solitary German soul providing the international touch. The ICC's intervention: defending internationalism
The ICC intervened in all these three parallel events. Like the ICC intervention at the ESF in Paris in November, our objective was not to intervene in the well-managed conferences. Rather ICC members and sympathisers from different parts of India intervened through leaflets and sales of our publications (almost five hundred publications were sold). Also, during our interventions we carried on hundreds of discussions around the events.
Some of the questions that came up repeatedly during these discussions were:
We insisted that there can be nothing fair about trade, free or protected. It has always been and always will be tilted in favour of the more powerful capitalists or capitalist states. Also, the ICC pointed out that the global character of capitalism is not a new thing. Capitalism has been pushing to become a global system since its inceptions and by the end of the 19th century it had already incorporated the entire planet. While writing the Communist Manifesto in 1848, Marx and Engels already brought out the international nature of the capitalist system. They insisted that the proletarian revolution destroying capitalism can only be a world revolution. Today, in the period of capitalist decadence and decomposition, it is not for the proletariat to defend national particularities against the global nature of the capitalist system. Rather, its task is to destroy this system on a planetary scale, along with its framework of nation states, and to replace it with a worldwide communist community. All talk of fair trade or anti-globalisation and 'another world is possible', without a communist perspective, is a reformist myth aiming to arrest the development of consciousness within the working class.
On imperialism, we underlined that it is not a characteristic of this or that nation, this or that faction of the bourgeoisie. Today, capitalism exists as imperialism with the result that all nations are imperialist. All nations, big or small, are driven by the same imperialist appetites - only their capacity to satisfy these is different. The British ruling class seemingly acting as a poodle to US, or the US bourgeoisie kicking the ass of nations like France, Germany, Russia, China or for that matter Pakistan, Iraq or India, does not make these countries non-imperialist. In a world governed by the law of the underworld, these other countries are only lesser gangsters who have to pursue their imperialist appetites within the limits violently imposed by the top dog, the US bourgeoisie. It is not the task of the working class to play the game of lesser imperialisms against the US, as is being done by WSF, MR and others.
The Maoist 'alternatives' are the opposite of what proletarian politics has always stood for: internationalism. At the apogee of capitalism, in 1871, when in their view German nationalism was still progressive, Marx and Engels took an internationalist position in the Franco-Prussian War. German Socialists went to jail for refusing to endorse national defence. During the First World War, communists defended the slogan 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war'. Lenin above all waged a bitter and ruthless struggle against the patriotic treason of Kautsky et al. Unlike marxists, who have always made internationalism the cornerstone of their politics, Maoists and Stalinists proclaim their patriotism from the rooftops. This is quite in keeping with their class nature - they are the perfect defenders of the personification of national capital, the nation state. The theory of 'India Mortgaged' (or for that matter the Turkey, Iran, Syria or South Africa 'mortgaged' of respective Maoists) ties the working class to the yoke of national capital.
Maoism tells the working class of the 'third world' countries - don't fight for the destruction of the capitalist system and its national apparatus. Instead die for your nation state - as it has been 'mortgaged'. Against all this we insisted that the task of the working class everywhere is to fight for the destruction of capitalism in all countries and work for the setting up of a classless, moneyless society based on the elimination of nation states.
Am, 31/01/04.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain is 100 years old this year. Formed in June 1904 it has maintained the same platform through wars, revolution and recession, it continues to attract the interest of people who are looking for an alternative to capitalism and who have rejected the distortions of socialism offered by bourgeois currents like Stalinism and Trotskyism. The question we have to ask, however, is whether this group genuinely offers a positive way forward for those proletarian minorities searching for a revolutionary critique of the present system. In order to provide a serious answer to this question, we need to place the SPGB in its historical context - to understand its place in the history of the workers' movement and to provide an analysis of what it represents today.
The origins of the SPGB lie in the struggle that took place within the Second International between the revisionist and revolutionary tendencies in the years around the start of the twentieth century. This struggle was taken up by the left of the workers' movement and is particularly associated with Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg. At the Paris Congress of the International, held in 1900, the majority of the British delegation supported a resolution proposed by Kautsky which, while opposing the participation of socialists in bourgeois governments in principle, allowed the participation of the French socialist Millerand in the government of Waldeck-Rousseau in practice. This government included General Gallifet who had been responsible for the massacre of 20,000 communards after the defeat of the Paris Commune of 1870. The resolution, which Iskra called the 'india-rubber resolution', was opposed by the representatives of the left of Social Democracy, including a single British delegate, George Yates, a member of the Social Democratic Federation. Following the congress Yates took a leading role in the struggle within the SDF between the leadership and the faction that was dubbed the 'impossibilists'.
The particular situation in Britain was marked by the failure of attempts over the preceding twenty years to create a real proletarian party [1]. Engels had analysed the development of conditions in Britain in some detail and argued that the deterioration of Britain's economic supremacy, and the consequent worsening of the situation of the working class, would produce conditions favourable for the return of socialism, and a socialist political organisation, to Britain. However, while a number of organisations were created none was able to accomplish this task.
The SDF and the Socialist League that split from it were never able to overcome the stage of circle functioning. The SDF, under the leadership of the adventurer H. M. Hyndeman (more than one revolutionary suggested he might actually be an agent of the state) sought to control and manipulate the workers' movement and opposed the spread of marxism, despite Hyndeman's fiery verbal adherence to it. It was frequently hostile to strikes, which it denounced as futile, and preferred to orchestrate demonstrations and riots of the unemployed. At the international level it supported the possibilist congress against the marxist one that established the Second International [2]. Hyndeman conducted a campaign of slander against Marx, whose work he had plagiarised, and attacked Engels and made accusations against Eleanor Marx and others in the internal struggle that led to the split which produced the Socialist League. He also spread nationalist, anti-German and anti-Semitic poison within the workers movement.
The Socialist League rejected nationalism and supported the creation of the International. It initially received the support of Engels and included Edward Aveling, Eleanor Marx, Belfort Bax, William Morris and other marxists in its membership. However, under the weight of a strong anarchist element, it was unable to escape from a sterile purism that rejected participation in parliament and the struggle for reforms. No decisive combat was waged against the anarchists, partly because they were already so strong, but also because some of the leaders, notably William Morris, didn't understand the danger they posed until too late. By the early 1890s the League had been destroyed, and was used by the anarchists, with the assistance of police spies and agent provocateurs, to throw discredit on the revolutionary movement.
The Independent Labour Party, founded in 1893, seemed to be based on much more solid foundations and was hailed by Engels as the basis for the creation of a genuine workers' party. Again, marxists took an active part in its early years (Aveling was on the executive), but this time confronted not the anarchists, but the reformist weight of the unions, assisted by the Fabians, which eventually emptied it of all revolutionary content, turning it simply into the seed-bed for the Labour Party.
Thus, by the turn of the century, the working class movement in Britain was divided between a small revolutionary current, trapped in dogmatism and weakened by the parasitic manoeuvres of Hyndeman, and a far larger reformist current, dominated by active anti-marxists in the unions and the Fabian Society and increasingly led by careerists such as Ramsay MacDonald and Phillip Snowden. For the revolutionary current to fight effectively against reformism it would first have to break from the circle and sectarian mode of functioning inculcated by the SDF.
The authoritarianism of Hyndeman and the sectarianism of the SDF's programme and practice ensured that it never really made contact with the working class and produced dissension and, more frequently, demoralisation within the membership. Although the SDF never had more than a few thousand members (and these figures were frequently inflated), vast numbers of people passed through its ranks (Bernstein gives a figure of over a hundred thousand; Hyndeman himself spoke of a million - Kendall, The revolutionary movement in Britain 1900-21, p323). While some may have gained an education in socialism as Hyndeman claimed, the vast majority were more likely to have been lost to the revolutionary cause and driven into the arms of reformism or complete inactivity.
The minority who attempted to fight the control of the Hyndeman clique frequently tended to take up even more absolutist positions than the official policy, for example opposing the unity discussions with the ILP in the mid to late 1890s, although they also attacked the personal control exercised by Hyndeman through his domination of the Executive and the SDF's publications (they were produced by a private publishing company owned by Hyndeman). They also challenged the xenophobic and anti-Semitic way in which the SDF initially opposed the Boer war and its subsequent tacit support for a British victory.
From the late 1890s on, the opposition, who were dubbed 'impossibilists', gained ground in Scotland, taking control of the Scottish Executive Council, and to a lesser extent in London.
The elements in Scotland and London both opposed the negotiations with the ILP, the support given to the Kautsky Resolution and Hyndeman's control of the press. However, those in Scotland were distinguished by their more internationalist orientation and greater concern for the organisational question. Specifically, they were strongly influenced by De Leon and the American Socialist Labor Party, whose paper Weekly People was widely sold, and by James Connolly. They stressed the central role of the industrial struggle and the necessity for a strong revolutionary organisation to act as the vanguard of the class struggle.
Attempts by the impossibilists to develop the debate in the SDF's journal Justice were suppressed by the Executive, leading the Scottish elements first to have their positions published in the Weekly People and subsequently to launch their own paper The Socialist. The struggle developed at the SDF conferences between 1901 and 1903. In 1901 the impossibilists were defeated in attempts to repudiate the delegation's support for the Kautsky resolution, to remove Justice from Hyndeman's control and to abandon discussions with the ILP. The following year attempts to have a verbatim report of the conference, to end talks with the ILP and to create socialist trade unions were also defeated. At the 1903 conference Yates and other Scottish delegates were expelled. Immediately afterwards the Scottish Divisional Council disaffiliated from the SDF and two months later (June 1903) the Socialist Labour Party (SLP) was created.
The impossibilists in London refused to join those in Scotland, preferring to continue to try to change the SDF from within and accusing the Scottish elements of not informing them of their plans and of provoking the expulsions with attacks on the Executive. They also opposed the emphasis on industrial action, giving central importance to the electoral struggle. Alongside this were personal animosities and feuds. The London impossibilists accused their Scottish comrades of being undemocratic and their leading figure, Fitzgerald, was unwilling to give up his pre-eminent position. However, after the expulsion of Fitzgerald and another London impossibilist a few months later, they too left the SDF to set up their own organisation, founding The Socialist Party of Great Britain in June 1904.
The two new parties emerged in a particularly demanding period. At the global level, capitalism was entering the transition from its period of ascendance to its decadence. This presented the entire workers' movement with immense theoretical and practical challenges. One response to this was the theoretical works of Lenin and Luxemburg and the fight they led against various forms of opportunism. It is not possible to present our analysis of these developments here and we refer readers to the various publications of the ICC (for example, the articles in the series "Communism is not just a 'nice idea'" in IR 86 and 88). The SPGB and SLP also faced the particular situation in Britain with its legacy of the failures of the previous decades and the enormous weight of reformism on the movement in Britain. At the heart of the problems they faced was a failure to fully grasp the marxist understanding of how consciousness develops in the working class. The same difficulty could be seen in the Socialist League, which opposed any support for reforms and opposed participation in elections, thereby failing to understand the relationship between the immediate struggles of the working class and its ultimate perspective. Indeed, as suggested above, it is possible to encapsulate the problem in Britain as being a result of a failure to unite these two elements. The result was the separation between the minority of revolutionaries, who tended towards a sectarian approach to other organisations and the day to day struggle of the working class, in order to defend their revolutionary integrity, and the majority of reformists who were increasingly drawn towards tacit support for the bourgeoisie and hostility to the proletariat. The challenge that faced the SPGB and SLP was precisely to overcome this separation.
The subsequent development of the SLP is significant for the advances it made at the organisational level and its determined defence of class interests during the First World War and after 1917. It provides an important comparison with the SPGB.
It struggled to become a militant, centralised organisation capable of being the vanguard of the working class. It demanded commitment and discipline from its members, reacting strongly to failure to pay dues or carry out the work of the organisation. It recognised that the working class would have to seize political power and overthrow the bourgeois state. While it gave priority to the industrial struggle, founding the Advocates of Industrial Unionism in 1907, it also participated in elections and, while it saw the struggle for the revolution as its main task, it also (despite the opposition of part of the membership) recognised the need to win reforms to improve the immediate position of the working class. These developments expressed its greater openness to the real life and experiences of the proletariat and were a counterweight to the sectarianism of its origins. However, it did not entirely overcome this sectarianism. It condemned the German Social Democratic Party as reformist, showing a failure to understand the struggle going on within it and also to fully grasp the relationship between the minimum and maximum programme. At the Amsterdam Congress of the International in 1904 it refused to be part of a single British delegation that included non-socialists and reformers and demanded separate representation. When this was denied it refused to take part in the Congress.
In 1914 it took an internationalist position against the war and sought to continue the class struggle, taking a central part in the industrial struggles that developed in Clydeside in 1915-16. It continued to publish The Socialist, despite its presses being seized, and despite the fact that many members had been conscripted or were on the run, in prison or exiled to other parts of the country. It printed various articles by Lenin as well as Liebknecht's speech at his court-martial.
In 1917, almost alone amongst the socialist organisations in Britain (the Workers Socialist Federation led by Sylvia Pankhurst was the other), it hailed the October Revolution and declared complete solidarity with the Bolsheviks. It saw the revolution as confirmation of the correctness of its positions and in 1918 proclaimed "We are the British Bolsheviks". It not only defended the revolution but also participated actively in the struggles of 1918-19, seeking to link the struggles in the various parts of the country together. Between 1919 and 1921 the SLP participated in the discussions that led to the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Part of the SLP joined the CPGB while another part tried to carry on independently, but saw a rapid decline in numbers and sales of publications, leading to the effective closure of The Socialist in 1922 and the disappearance of the SLP.
Both the SLP and SPGB sought to oppose the tide of reformism, to defend marxism and the necessity for revolution. Both were expressions of the working class, but while the SLP struggled to overcome the sectarianism of the SDF, the SPGB remained trapped.
This was shown in the Declaration of Principles and the first discussions in the SPGB. The former, which is still printed unaltered in every issue of the Socialist Standard, sets out the opposed class interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, declares that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the class itself and that it is necessary for it to organise itself politically to achieve this. But within the Declaration can also be seen the basis of the democratic mystification and sectarianism that condemned the SPGB to sterility. Clause six called for the transformation of the machinery of government and the armed forces "from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation". The lessons learnt from the bloody experience of the Paris Commune on the necessity to overthrow the bourgeois state are ignored [3]. Clause 8 declared the SPGB to be the one true church of the revolution and declared war "against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist". They see no genuine expressions of the working class beyond themselves, making no distinction between organisations of the bourgeoisie and those of the proletariat. They will debate with anyone, but the marxist conception of the confrontation of positions as a necessary part of the advance of the workers movement is alien. The SPGB's positions are correct and invariant: the task of the working class is simply to "muster under its banner".
The rigidity with which the SPGB interprets marxism changes it from an incisive method for analysing the world from the perspective of the working class into a dogma to be blindly followed. In the SPGB's own recent history, The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics, Economics and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party, they try to link their rejection of reforms with Rosa Luxemburg's position, giving a quotation from Reform or Revolution? (p26). But Luxemburg's critique of reformism was part of her broader analysis of the relationship between the minimum and the maximum programme: "From the viewpoint of a movement for socialism, the trade union struggle and our parliamentary practice are vastly important insofar as they make socialistic the awareness, the consciousness, of the proletariat and help to organise it as a class" ("Reform or Revolution" in Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p.58). Barltrop, in his account of the SPGB, offers an interesting perspective on the method of the SPGB: "It is true to say, however, that the dialectic was never embraced in any real sense by the Socialist Party. Historical materialism, Marx's demonstration of social superstructures standing on economic bases and the drive to change arising from the compulsion for every class to pursue its interests, was advanced as confidently as the labour theory of value. For the dialectic no such confidence existed. It carried a tinge of mysticism from its philosophical origins" (The Monument, p.11). However, such avoidance did not allow the new party to completely escape the challenges confronting the proletariat.
The first discussion in the new organisation concerned the attitude towards the trade unions. A minority, supported by the Executive, dismissed the unions because they sought to win reforms and did not share the positions of the SPGB. They were defeated by the majority who portrayed the unions as simply a means to defend the economic interests of the working class. Neither saw the unions in a dynamic way, as part of the process of the class coming to consciousness. The 1907 manifesto noted that the industrial equivalent of the SPGB did not yet exist, but nothing was done to create such an organisation. The struggle to defend the economic interests of the working class was separated from the political struggle of the proletariat, showing that the leaders of the SPGB, some of whom had been taught by Marx's son-in-law Aveling, had not understood Marx's analysis of the development of the class struggle and class consciousness [4]. Instead, the democratic process became the universal panacea, with the road to socialism reduced to the level of the consciousness of the individual worker [5].
A second dispute arose over the attitude that socialist Members of Parliament would adopt towards possible reforms. The Executive essentially argued that while the party opposed reformism it could not oppose measures that would benefit the working class, declaring that "the attainment of socialism is dependent on the preservation of the workers in general" (Perrin, p.34). This led to a split with those who opposed support for any reforms since such support would "tend to efface the bitter hostility against the capitalist class required from the working class to finally vanquish their most deadly enemy" (Barltrop, p.38).
At the same time the SPGB gradually detached itself from the international working class movement, declaring the Second International lost to reformism and breaking contact with the leaders of the workers' movement in various countries. They stopped printing the writings and speeches of these leaders and in 1910 wrote in the Socialist Standard, "It is a sad reflection that, except the SPGB, every body that contained the germ of Socialist existence has been swallowed up by...compromise and confusion" (quoted in Baltorp, p35).
In the second part of this article we will look at the response of the SPGB to the challenges posed by capitalism's entry into its decadent period - in particular, to the wars and revolutions which characterised this new epoch.
1. See the series "The struggle for the class party in Britain" in WR nos 198, 205, 208, 213, 215, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, 230, 232, 233 and 237.
2. The Second International was founded in July 1889. At the same time the French 'Possibilist' party held a seprate conference bringing together an assortment of opportunists, reformists and anarchists united only by their opposition to marxism. See the second part of the series on the class party in WR 205.
3. In The Socialist Party of Great Brtain: Politics, Economics and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party, published by the SPGB they claim Marx's support for this position "This passage from the Declaration of Principles closely resembles a phrase used by Marx himself in the preamble to the 1880 programme of the Guesdist 'Federation of the Party of the Socialist Workers in France', where it was stated that socialism 'must be pursued by all the means which the proletariat has at its disposal, including universal suffrage, thus transformed from the instrument of trickery which it has been till now into an instrument of emancipation'" (p.28). Apart from the detail that this quotation in no way supports the SPGB position, since it sees the vote as only one means amongst many, there is also the fact that Marx stated his position quite explicitly in the 1872 introduction to the Communist Manifesto: "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and wield it for its own purposes". The un-marxist position of the SPGB on this is expressed quite clearly in their own publications: In From Capitalism to Socialism, published in 1986, they ask "Where does the state's power come from?" and answer, "The power to form a government is invested in the votes of the electorate" (p44).
4. A 1980 publication, Socialism and the Trade Unions, describes the industrial struggle as "innevitable but…only a rearguard action" (p.21), and warns workers of the fact that "any increase of pay that might eventually be gained has to be set against the loss of wages during the strike" (p.26).
5. In their 1975 text, Socialist Principles Explained, the SPGB tell us that "workers who will not vote for socialism certainly will not strike for it" (p.20).
In the first part of this series, we saw that communism is not merely an old dream of humanity, or the simple product of human will, but is the only form of society which can overcome the contradictions strangling the capitalist system. After developing the productive forces to an unprecedented degree and having constructed a world economy, capitalism then entered into its era of decadence. The permanent barbarism of this era has made communism a necessity not only for the further progress of humanity but even for its simple survival. Thus, contrary to those who announced the ‘death of communism’ when the Stalinist regimes of the east collapsed, it is impossible to reform capitalism or make it more human.
In this second part, we are going to look at those who tell us that a communist society as envisaged by Marx and others is in any case impossible to realise because the characteristic features of capitalism, such as egoism, lust for wealth and power, the war of each against all, are actually unchangeable expressions of ‘human nature’.
‘Human nature’ is a bit like the Philosophers’ Stone for which the alchemists searched for centuries. Up till now, all significant studies of ‘social invariants’ (as the sociologists would have it) — i.e. characteristics of human behaviour which are the same in all societies — have ended up showing the extent to which human psychology and attitudes are variable and linked to the social framework in which the individual develops. In fact, if we wanted to point to a fundamental characteristic of this ‘human nature’, to the feature which distinguishes man from other animals, we would have to point out the enormous importance of ‘acquired’ as opposed to the ‘innate’; to the decisive role played by education, by the social environment in which human beings grow up.
“The operations carried out by a spider resemble those of a weaver, and many a human architect is put to shame by the bee in the construction of its wax cells. However, the poorest architect is categorically distinguished from the best of bees by the fact that before he builds a cell in wax, he has built it in his head.” (Marx, Capital Vol. 1)
The bee is genetically programmed to build perfect hexagons, and it’s the same with the homing pigeon which can find its home at a distance of hundreds of miles, or with the squirrel storing up nuts. On the other hand, the final form of the structure conceived by our architect is not so much determined by a genetic inheritance as by a whole series of elements provided by the society in which he/she lives. Whether we’re talking about the kind of structure we have been told to build, the materials and tools that can be used, the productive techniques and the skills that can be applied, the scientific knowledge and artistic canons that guide us - all of this is determined by the social milieu.
Apart from that, the part played in all of this by ‘innate’ characteristics transmitted genetically to the architect by the parents can be essentially reduced to the fact that the fruit of their union wasn’t a bee or a pigeon, but a human being like themselves: i.e. an individual belonging to an animal species in which the ‘acquired’ element is by far the most important factor in the development of the adult.
It’s the same with behaviour as it is with the products of labour. Thus theft is a ‘crime’, a perturbation in the functioning of society which would become catastrophic if it became generalised. One who steals, or who threatens, abducts or kills people with the aim of stealing, is a ‘criminal’, and will almost unanimously be considered as a harmful, anti-social element who must be ‘prevented from doing harm’ (unless of course he does this stealing within the framework of the existing laws, in which case the skill in extorting surplus value from the proletariat will be praised and generously rewarded, just as generals skilled in mass murder are awarded medals). But the behaviour known as ‘stealing’, and criminals who ‘steal’, ‘murder’, etc, as well as everything to do with them - laws, judges, policemen, prisons, detective films, crime novels - would any of this exist if there was nothing to steal? If the abundance made possible by the development of the productive forces was at the free disposition of every member of society? Obviously not! And we could give many more examples showing just how much behaviour, attitudes, feelings, and relations between human beings are determined by the social milieu.
The peevish-minded will object to this by saying that if asocial behaviour exists, no matter what form it takes, in different forms of society, it’s because at the root of ‘human nature’ there’s an anti-social element, an element of aggressiveness against others, of ‘potential criminality’. They will argue that, very often, people don’t steal out of material necessity; that gratuitous crime exists; that if the Nazis could commit such atrocities, it’s because there’s something evil in Man, which comes to the surface in certain conditions. In fact such objections only show that there’s no human nature which is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in itself; Man is a social animal whose numerous potentialities take on different expressions depending on the conditions that are lived in. Statistics speak eloquently on this question: is it ‘human nature’ which gets worse during periods of crisis in society, when we see a growth in criminality and all kinds of morbid behaviour? On the contrary, isn’t the development of ‘asocial’ attitudes among an increasing number of individuals the expression of the fact that the existing society is becoming more and more incapable of satisfying human needs - needs which are eminently social and which can no longer be satisfied in a system which is less and less functioning as a society, a community?
The same peevish spirits base their rejection of the possibility of communism on the following argument: ‘You talk about a society which will really satisfy human needs, but the desire for property and power over others are themselves essential human needs, and communism, which excludes them, is therefore unable to satisfy human needs. Communism is impossible because man is egoistic.’
In her ‘Introduction to Political Economy’ Rosa Luxemburg described the reaction of the British bourgeoisie when, in the cause of conquering India, they came across peoples who had no private property. They consoled themselves by saying that these people were ‘savages’, but it was still rather embarrassing for people who had been taught that private property was something ‘natural’ to conclude that it was precisely these ‘savages’ who had the most ‘artificial’ way of living! In reality, humanity has such a ‘natural need for private property’ that it did without it for over a million years. And in many cases it was only after bloody massacres, as in the case of the Indians described by Rosa Luxemburg, that they were instilled with this ‘natural need’. It’s the same with commerce, that ‘unique, natural’ form of the circulation of goods, the natives’ ignorance of which so scandalised the colonialists. Inseparable from private property, it arose with it and will disappear with it.
There’s also the idea that if there was no profit to stimulate the development of production, if the individual effort of the worker wasn’t recompensed by a wage, no one would produce anything anymore. True enough, no one would produce in a capitalist way anymore; i.e. in a system based on profit and wage labour, where the slightest scientific discovery has to be financially viable, where work is a curse to the overwhelming majority of workers, on account of its length, its intensity, and its inhuman form. On the other hand, does the scientist who, through his research, participates in the progress of technology, always need a material stimulant to work? Generally they’re paid less than the sales executive who makes no contribution to the advancement of knowledge. Is manual labour necessarily disagreeable? If so, why do people talk about the ‘love of craftsmanship’, why is there such a craze for ‘do-it-yourself’ and all sorts of manual activities which are often very expensive? In fact, when labour isn’t alienated, absurd, exhausting, when its products no longer become forces hostile to the workers, but serve to really satisfy the needs of the collective then labour will become a prime human need, one of the essential forms of the flourishing of human potential. In communist society, human beings will produce for pleasure.
Because leaders and authority-figures exist today, it’s generally concluded that no society can do without leaders, that men and women will never be able to live without submitting to authority and exerting it on others.
We won’t repeat here what marxism has always said about the role of political institutions, about the nature of state power. It can be summarised in the idea that the existence of political authority, of the power of some people over others, is the result of the existence within society of conflicts and confrontations between groups of individuals (social classes) which have antagonistic interests.
A society in which people compete with each other, in which they have opposing interests, in which productive labour is a curse, in which coercion is a permanent fact of life, in which the most elementary human needs are crushed underfoot for the great majority - such a society ‘needs’ leaders, just as it needs policemen and religion. But once all these aberrations have been suppressed, we’ll soon see whether leaders and power will still be necessary. Our sceptic will respond: ‘but men need to dominate others or be dominated. Whatever kind of society you have, there will still be the power of some people over others.’ It’s true that a slave who has always had his feet in chains may have the impression that there is no other way of walking, but a free person will never have this impression. In communist society, free men and women won’t be like the frogs in the fairytale who wanted to have a king. The ‘need’ that people may have to exercise power over others is the flip-side of what could be called the ‘slave mentality’: a significant example of this is the cringing, obedient army adjutant who’s always barking orders at his ‘inferiors’. If people feel a need to exert power over others, it’s because they have no power over their own lives and over the running of society as a whole. The will to power in each person is the measure of their own impotence. In a society in which human beings are no longer the impotent slaves of either natural or economic laws, a society in which they have freed themselves from the latter and are consciously able to use the former for their own purposes, a society in which they are ‘masters without slaves’, they will no longer need that wretched substitute for power - the domination of others.
It’s the same with aggressiveness as with the so-called ‘lust for power’. Faced with the permanent aggression of a society which grinds them into the dirt, plunges them into perpetual anguish and represses all their most basic desires, individuals are necessarily aggressive. This is no more than the survival instinct, which exists in all animals. Some psychologists consider that aggression is an inherent compulsion in all animal species and will therefore express itself in all circumstances. But even if this is the case, let’s give humanity the chance to use this aggression to combat the material obstacles which stand in the way of our own development - then we’ll see whether there’s a real need to exert aggression against other people.
‘Everyone for themselves’ is supposed to be a basic human characteristic. It’s undoubtedly a characteristic of bourgeois humanity with its ideal of the ‘self-made man’, but this is simply the ideological expression of the economic reality of capitalism and has nothing to do with ‘human nature’. Otherwise one would have to say that ‘human nature’ has been radically transformed since primitive communism, or even since feudalism with its village communities. In fact individualism massively entered the world of ideas when small independent owners appeared in the countryside (when serfdom was abolished) and in the towns. Made up of small owners who had been successful - mainly by ruining their rivals - the bourgeoisie was a fanatical adherent of this ideology and saw it as a fact of nature. For example, it had no scruples about using Darwin’s theory of evolution to justify the social ‘struggle for survival’, the war of all against all.
But with the appearance of the proletariat, the associated class par excellence, a breach was opened in the domination of individualism. For the working class, solidarity is the elementary precondition for defending its material interests. At this level of reasoning, we can already reply to those who claim that human beings are ‘naturally egoistic’. If they are egoistic they are also intelligent, and the simple desire to defend their interests pushes them towards association and solidarity as soon as the social conditions allow it. But this isn’t all: in this social being par excellence, solidarity and altruism are essential needs in more ways than one. People need the solidarity of others, but they also need to show solidarity to others. This is something which can be seen even in a society as alienated as ours, expressed in the seemingly banal idea that ‘everyone needs to feel useful to others’. Some will argue that altruism is also a form of egoism because those that practise it do it above all for their own pleasure. Fair enough - but that’s just another way of putting forward the idea defended by communists that there is no essential opposition - on the contrary - between individual interest and collective interest. The opposition between individual and society is an expression of societies of exploitation, societies based on private property (i.e. private to others), and all this is very logical - how could there be a harmony between those who suffer from oppression and the very institutions that guarantee and perpetuate this oppression? In such a society, altruism can only appear in the form of charity or of sacrifice, i.e. the negation of others or the negation of oneself; it does not appear as the affirmation, the common and complementary flowering of the self and others.
Contrary to what the bourgeoisie would like us to believe, communism is not, therefore, the negation of individuality. It is capitalism, which reduces the worker to an appendage of the machine, which negates individuality; and this negation of the individual has reached its most extreme limits under the specific form of capitalism in decay: state capitalism. In communism, in a society which has got rid of that enemy of freedom par excellence - the state, which will have no reason for existing - each member of society will be living in the reign of freedom. Because humanity can only realise its innumerable potentialities in a social way, and because the antagonisms between individual interest and collective interest will have disappeared, new and immense vistas will be opened up for the flowering of each individual.
Similarly, far from accentuating the dreary uniformity that has been generalised by capitalism, as the bourgeoisie claims, communism is above all a society of diversity, because it will break down the division of labour which fixes each individual in a single role for the rest of their life. In communism, each new step forward in knowledge or technology won’t lead to an even higher level of specialisation, but will serve to expand the field of activities through which each individual can develop. As Marx and Engels put it:
“…as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for one to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” (The German Ideology)
Whatever the bourgeoisie and all the sceptical and peevish-minded may say, communism is made for humanity; human beings can live in such a society and make such a society live!
There remains an argument to deal with: ‘OK, communism is necessary and materially possible. Yes, men and women could live in such a society. But today humanity is so alienated under capitalist society that it will never have the strength to undertake a transformation as gigantic as the communist revolution.’ We’ll try to answer this in the next part of the article. FM
There have been a number of TV programmes and newspaper articles over the last month commemorating the British miners' strike of 1984/85 that began precisely 20 years ago in March. They all, either directly or indirectly, pay lip-service to the great courage and endurance of the miners in their battle to defend their jobs and living standards. Nonetheless, they in effect write the strike off as politically nave faced with a ruthless right wing government, economically pointless once the coal industry had been exposed to the laws of the capitalist market, and undemocratic, insofar as it is perceived to have rejected the ballot box and resorted to physical violence in trying to stop the movements of coal. The logical conclusion they draw from this is that the defeat of the miners' strike effectively signalled the death knell for the class struggle in Britain and by implication, beyond Britain too. 'Anti-globalisation' guru George Monbiot made this explicit recently in one of his big Guardian articles, saying that the last 20 years have seen the "collapse of the proletariat as a political force". The historical context
At the start of 1984 we noted the development of a third international wave of workers' struggles following those of 1968-74 and 1978-81: "Since mid-1983, the tendency towards the recovery in proletarian struggles, whose perspectives we had already announced after two years of confusion and paralysis following the partial defeat of the world proletariat in Poland, has come to the surface: in Belgium, Holland, Germany, Great Britain, France, the US, in Sweden, Spain, Italy, etc strikes have broken out against draconian austerity measures imposed by the bourgeoisie and affect all the countries at the heart of the industrial world where humanity's historic destiny will be decided." ('Resurgence of the class struggle', International Review 37).
The 5th Congress of the ICC at the end of 1983 had adopted a document entitled 'Theses on the Present Upsurge in the Class Struggle'. It identified:
Against this the bourgeoisie was entering into this battle fully prepared: "In the 1980s, the 'years of truth', the bourgeoisie can no longer delay its economic attacks on the working class. This attack is not improvised, but has been prepared over several years now by the ruling class at the international level" (International Review 38, 3rd qtr, 1984). The iron fist of capitalist repression was made ready and willing. But more important than this was the deployment of the democratic machinery of the state. There was a clear political strategy for confronting the class with the 'left in opposition', whereby the left fractions were removed from the government teams so that they could pose as opponents of the austerity measures. This was complemented with the deployment of rank and file unionism, using radical rhetoric against the union leaderships' 'betrayals' in order to keep the struggle contained within the union framework. The initial phase of the miners' strike and the state's response.
The British miners' strike was a powerful expression and confirmation of this analysis of the third wave of struggles. The initial rapid dynamic started with the walk-outs in the Yorkshire coalfields challenging the union framework: "Yorkshire miners picketed out, not by force of violence, but by force of argument and discussion, the South Wales miners who had earlier voted against a strike. The miners also sent delegations to other workers in the rail, power and steel industries. In the first weeks of the strike there was a clear tendency towards workers' self-organisation and extension. This initial movement of the workers, building on the lessons of the wildcats of the previous years, acting on their own account, massively directed outwards and against union directives, this movement, even with its own confusions and weaknesses as well as the divisions imposed by the unions, was nevertheless one of the most important lessons of the whole strike" ('1984/85: The NUM led the miners to defeat', WR 173).
The British state had however made extensive plans to be able to cope with the situation: "a special committee was set up by the Tory government; a national police force, drawn up on the basis of anti-strike plans made up by the previous Labour government, was formed to co-ordinate the repression; new, blanket laws were enacted and, much more important for containing the strike, government deals were struck with the steel, power and dock and railway unions, in order to keep 'their' workers under control (and) Arthur Scargill, who two years earlier had needed a police escort to protect him from angry miners, was polished up and presented as the radical head of the NUM.
The strike was made official (by the NUM) in order to control it better at the local level within the union grip of corporatism. This put forward the ideology of fighting in a single industry, of presenting the miners as a 'special case', of 'defending the NUM' or the 'Plan for Coal'. This was the struggle of 'Coal Not Dole'. This corporatism became the ideological cosh that opened up the workers' heads to the police truncheons." (ibid).
The unions had utilised a split that had opened up between the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire coalfields to fixate the miners on closing down the Notts 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 attempt to extend the struggle
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).
The union did subsequently recover control, "But even so, as the strike went through the summer, miners were still fighting and their example was attracting support from other workers, the unemployed and (this was what caused the bourgeoisie to eliminate the possibility of sending in the troops against the miners) a small but significant number of soldiers on leave. In July and August the potential for extension was again shown by strikes of 25,000 dock workers responding to the same attacks suffered by the miners. This was a clear expression of what active solidarity means: not 'defend the NUM' or 'defend British Coal Ltd', but defend ourselves, defend our class interests" (ibid, WR 173).
Of course the unions did eventually succeed in isolating the miners; drawing out the strike far beyond the time when it could have extended to other workers was a key aspect of this. This, however, shouldn't lead to the conclusion that this was the inevitable outcome. The capitalist market andthe decline of coal
One of the distinguishing marks of the 1980s was the way in which a lot of previous state subsidies were withdrawn and 'market forces' allowed to come more into play. This enabled the state to drastically improve productivity by increasing the rates of exploitation and throwing thousands of workers on the dole. This has had dire consequences for those individuals cast into long-term unemployment and for the working class communities to which they belong. A number of the TV programmes and press articles about the strike have graphically illustrated the sense of hopelessness and despair which pervades some of these communities. The end of the miners' strike was not the end of the class struggle
The material 'result' of the miners' strike was the decimation of the coal industry and the virtual disappearance of a sector of the working class which had always been a key figure in the major class battles of 20th century Britain (1911, 1921, 1926, 1972, 1974, 1984-5....). This was without doubt a defeat for the working class, and ever since the bourgeoisie has seized on this defeat to argue that workers' struggles are a waste of time, or indeed that the class struggle itself is a quaint relic of the past.
But there can be no such thing as a capitalism which doesn't have a working class to exploit, and even if the contours of the working class may change, it will always be forced to defend itself from this exploitation. The proof of this is that the end of the miners' strike did not mean the end of the class struggle. To begin with, this whole argument is based on a ridiculously narrow and nationalist vision: the class struggle is by its nature an international struggle and despite the defeat of the miners in Britain there were a number of highly significant class movements in the rest of Europe in the next few years (general strike in Denmark in the summer of 1985, French railway workers in 1986, Italian education workers in 1987, French healthworkers in 1988, etc). Furthermore, the defeat of the miners did not paralyse the struggle in Britain itself: the printers and BT workers both waged important struggles in 1986, and, while the printers got trapped in the dead end of the long drawn-out strike, the BT workers showed clear signs of wanting to avoid this trap. In 1989 there was a new push towards simultaneous struggles, with strikes among transport, health and council workers and new expressions of active solidarity.
What really paralysed the whole international wave of struggles was an event of international, indeed historical importance: the collapse of the eastern imperialist bloc and the massive ideological offensive against class consciousness embodied in the campaigns around the 'death of communism'. This was indeed the beginning a very profound reflux in the class struggle whose effects have still not been fully overcome.
But a reflux in class struggle is not the same as a final defeat, and in the past year we have noted definite signs of a revival in struggles internationally (the massive movement in France last Spring against the attack on pensions, the resurgence of spontaneous movements such as those of airport workers and postal workers in Britain, transport workers in Italy, and so on).
These strikes may seem to be a modest and indeed inadequate response to a system which is threatening to drag the whole of humanity to its doom. But they are part of a historical chain which connects backwards not only to the miners' strike of 1984-5, not only to the international waves of struggles launched by the general strike in France in 1968, but also to those heroic moments in history when the working class emerged as the candidate for taking human society in a radically new direction - France 1848 and 1871, Russia 1917, Germany 1918...
This chain connects forward as well, to the massive struggles which the deepening crisis of capitalism will certainly engender all over the planet; and like all the defeats suffered by the working class, the 1984-5 miners' strike still provides a wealth of lessons for the struggles ahead. In the international leaflet we produced in March 1985, we outlined the most important of these lessons, and in particular, the necessity for active solidarity throughout the working class:
"Faced with this Holy Alliance of exploiters and starvation-mongers, workers' solidarity is more indispensable than ever. But today real solidarity does not mean collecting money to help strikers 'hold out'. The length of a struggle is not its real strength. Faced with long strikes, the bourgeoisie knows how to organise itself. It has just proved this.
Real solidarity, the real strength of the workers, is the extension of the struggle. This alone can push back the bourgeoisie. This alone can threaten the stability of its political and economic power. Only the extension of the struggle can prevent the bourgeoisie defeating the workers in pockets, one sector after another. Only the extension of the struggle can prevent the bourgeoisie from unleashing its repression, as we saw in Poland in August 1980. Faced with the capitalist state, physical courage is not enough. The combat has to be as broad and as extensive as possible. This is why the bourgeoisie was so scared when the dockers entered the struggle in the summer of 1984, in solidarity with their comrade miners.
Each time the workers enter into struggle there is no alternative but to extend the movement, to seek the active solidarity of workers in other factories, towns and regions. And to do this they will have to confront not only their declared enemies - bosses, cops, governments. They will also have to expose the traps laid by those who claim to be their friends: the unions and the parties of the left...
In the hands of the unions, behind union slogans, the struggle can only be led to defeat.
Only by organising themselves into general assemblies, into strike committees, elected and recallable by these assemblies, can the workers extend their struggles and win...
It is by drawing all the lessons of the miners' strike and going forward in this direction that the workers of the whole world will transform the defeat of today into the promise of the victory of tomorrow."
The defeat of the miners does not prove the pointlessness of the class struggle. It is true that faced with a system in terminal decay, even the most powerful class movement can only win a temporary respite from capital's relentless attack on living standards. In the end, the working class will have no alternative but to mount a political offensive for the revolutionary overthrow of world capitalism. This is what we mean by the "victory of tomorrow". But the revolution does not fall from the sky: it can only be prepared by the struggles of today, with all their inevitable defeats and bitter disappointments.
Duffy, 27/03/04.
With the business of wearing the veil (hijab) in school, and all the debates, demonstrations and protests around whether pupils should be able to display visible signs of belonging to a religion, the French bourgeoisie has set in motion a campaign aimed at attacking the consciousness of the working class. From the right to the left and the extreme left, each of them has their own verse for or against, more or less for and more or less against, etc. The media, politicians, associations, organisations of Muslims, Jews or Christians, all participate in what they are calling a "great citizens' debate on secularity". In fact, contrary to the so-called cacophony that reigns in "French society" on this subject, all are going in the same direction: that of creating a maximum of confusion in the heads of the workers, the better to chain them to the bourgeois state and make them accept their lot.
Through this false debate the bourgeoisie aims to divert attention away from the weakness of the capitalist system, the growth of misery, the series of attacks that it is about concoct, and the means to get them through. The bourgeoisie thus exhorts the workers to participate as atomised individuals in the debate. They are invited to reflect as "citizens", in communion with the petty-bourgeoisie, or the bourgeoisie which exploits them. Everyone is equal in the debate! The worker is thus separated from his class and permeable to the whole of the dominant ideology.
But the business of the veil also presents another occasion to develop splits within the population and above all within the proletariat. It is significant that feelings have run high in this debate and this has only exacerbated racism, sexism and community divisions in their most petty aspects. It's a question of getting the workers to compete with one another, not only regarding their nationality, but also their beliefs. It creates a deep feeling of division within the working class through the false opposition between French and immigrant workers, the latter being by definition potentially "Islamist". And within the latter, bourgeois propaganda designates on one side the "bad" immigrants who demonstrate for the unconditional wearing of the veil, and on the other the "good" immigrants who submit to the law of the "secular republic". They transform real workers' solidarity, which goes beyond nationalities and beliefs, into a solidarity of those who "believe" in the bourgeois state as the ultimate judge of peace and social cohesion. Because behind all the debate on the defence of secular society, what's really at stake is whether we should defend the secular bourgeois state. Let's quote the daily Liberation of January 29 2004 that really shows the meaning of the campaign: "In our secular tradition, the state is the protector of free choice for everyone through freedom of conscience, its expression or non-expression. It must intervene when it is threatened." So, in the circumstances, the state is the single, authentic guarantee of individual freedom, it alone opposes the growth of the oppression of individuals that the revival of religion brings with it. This is really one of the objectives of this "debate" - to create a smokescreen about why this revival is taking place and thus prevent the working class from becoming conscious that it is the very decomposition of this capitalist system that is at the root of it (1).
As Marx said 150 years ago: "Religious anguish is, on one hand, the expression of real distress and, on the other, a protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the soul of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of social conditions from which the spirit is excluded. It is the opium of the people." (2) To the cult of religion, the bourgeoisie would oppose the cult of the secular state, the acme of liberation for those oppressed by religion. But it's certainly not by having confidence in the state and its cops that young girls subjected to the diktats of the Islamists can escape oppression. Besides, in no way is it in the designs of the government to abolish cults but, on the contrary, to strengthen them: it is thus under the aegis of the "secular" republican state that, in the name of "liberty" and "respect", cults, mosques and synagogues flourish. Here is the unequivocal evidence that the ends of the democratic state are not opposed to those of religion but that they are complementary, the one with the other.
Ideological oppression, the crushing of thought and consciousness, are the blessed bread with which they all nourish their flocks. In the 19th century, the bourgeoisie, as much as it was a progressive class, tried hard to maintain the church as a force differentiated from the bourgeois state because it represented a hindrance to the development of the productive forces. This culminated in laws on the separation of the church and state. The bourgeoisie, however, always maintained religion as an ideological force. And at the same time, already in this epoch, revolutionaries attacked the illusion that the anti-clericalism that flourished in the French republican bourgeoisie represented in itself a force for liberation. Rosa Luxemburg considered it as a mystifying element of bourgeois ideology. In an article published in January 1902 she affirmed that: "The socialists are precisely obliged to combat the church, an anti-republican and reactionary power, not to participate in bourgeois anti-clericalism but in order to get rid of it. The incessant guerrilla war conducted against the priesthood for dozens of years is, for the French bourgeois republicans, one of the most efficient means of turning away the attention of the labouring classes from social questions (�)" And she added: "Bourgeois anti-clericalism ends up in consolidating the power of the church, in the same way that bourgeois anti-militarism, as the Dreyfuss affair showed, only attacks phenomena natural to militarism, the corruption of the General Staff, and has only succeeded in refining and strengthening this very institution."(3).
With the decadence of capitalism and the entry of this system into its phase of decomposition, these illusions about anti-clericalism and the defence of the secular state are used above all as an ideological arm of the capitalist state to set workers at each others' throats.
Faced with the decay that infects the planet, it's not a question of embracing the cause of religion or that of the "secular" state. It's necessary to reaffirm that, faced with this false alternative, only the proletarian revolution will be able to finish with all these mystification's, whether "secular" or "religious". All of them are the product of capitalist oppression.
AM, 20/2/04.
Notes
Two hundred dead and more than 1500 hundred wounded, four trains destroyed, human bodies so horribly torn apart that they could only be recognised by their DNA - this is the terrifying balance sheet of the terrorist attack on the so-called 'Train of Death' which violently shook the morning of 11 March in Madrid.
As with the attack on the Twin Towers of 11 September 2001, this is an act of war. And once again, the victims are essentially among the defenceless civilian population, especially the workers: those who, like on every other day, like everywhere else, crowd into suburban trains in order to get to work; children of workers who, like on every other day, like everywhere else, take the same trains to get to high school or university. The simple fact that you live in the residential quarters on the city outskirts and have to take public transport to get to work makes you an easy victim of terror, and makes it possible for this terror to take on such huge and macabre proportions.
Like September 11, March 11 is an important date in the history of terrorist massacres. Not only is this the biggest massacre suffered by the Spanish population since the civil war of 1936-39, it's also the biggest terrorist attack in Europe since the end of the Second World War.
The bourgeoisie of diverse nations is now shedding torrents of crocodile tears over the victims. It has proclaimed three days of national mourning in Spain; it is inundating the media with special news broadcasts, it declares minutes of silence, it calls demonstrations against terrorism. For our part, as we did after September 11, we deny the hypocritical bourgeoisie and its pliant media any right to cry over the murdered workers, because "The ruling capitalist class is already responsible for too many massacres: the awful slaughter of World War I; World War II, more terrible still, when for the first time the civilian population was the main target. Let us remember what the bourgeoisie has shown itself capable of: the bombing of London, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the millions of dead in the concentration camps and the gulags.
"Let us remember the hell visited on the civilian population and the routed Iraqi army during the Gulf War in 1991, and its hundreds of thousands of dead. Let us remember the daily bloodletting that is still going on in Chechnya, with the complicity of the Western democratic states. Let us remember the complicity of the Belgian, French, and US states in the Algerian civil war and the horrible pogroms in Rwanda.
"And let us remember that the Afghan population, today living in terror of America's cruise missiles, has suffered twenty years of uninterrupted warfare...These are just some examples among many of capitalism's filthy work, in the throes of an endless economic crisis and its own irremediable decadence. A capitalism at bay." ('In New York and all over the world, capitalism sows death [20]', International Review 107).
Far from attenuating, this barbarism has grown worse; this horrible list has since been supplemented by the second Gulf war, the incessant slaughter in the Middle East, the recent killings in Haiti, the terrorist bombings in Bali, Casablanca, Moscow. And now we have to add the attack on Atocha station in Madrid to the list.
The attacks of March 11 are not an attack on 'civilization', but an expression of the real nature of this 'civilisation' of the bourgeoisie: a system of exploitation which oozes poverty, war and destruction from all its pores. A system that has no other perspective to offer humanity than barbarism and annihilation. Terrorism is not a bastard child of capitalism, it is its legitimate child, in the same way as imperialist war; and the more capitalism sinks into the final phase of its decline, the phase of decomposition, the more terrorism is destined to become more savage and irrational.
One of the characteristics of the decadence of capitalism is that imperialist war has become the system's permanent way of life, with the consequence that "these petty bourgeois classes have completely lost their independence and only function as a mass of manoeuvre and support in the confrontations between different factions of the ruling classes both within and outside national frontiers" ('Terror, terrorism and class violence', International Review 14, 1978). From the 1960s up to now, the evolution of terrorism fully confirms this characteristic as an instrument used by the various factions of the national bourgeoisie, or by each imperialism, in their struggle against internal rivals or competitors on the imperialist arena. Terrorism is indeed a favourite child of capitalism, carefully nourished with human blood by its backers. Terrorism and imperialist conflicts have become synonymous. During the 60s and 70s, the bourgeoisie didn't hesitate for a moment to use the 'selective' assassination of political leaders in order to settle its internal arguments. Let's recall the bomb that blew Carrero Blanco sky high (Blanco was a prime minister under the Franco regime). This action - the high point of ETA terrorism - was used by the bourgeoisie to accelerate a change of regime in Spain. The bourgeoisie has also not recoiled from using terrorism to destabilise the Middle East, as was the case with the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 or Israel's Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. When it comes to defending its interests against rival national factions or competing imperialisms, the bourgeoisie has no scruples about provoking blind slaughter among the civil population. To give but one example, there is the bombing of Bologna station in Italy in 1980, which left 80 dead. For a long time this was attributed to the Red Brigades, but in fact it was carried out by the Italian secret services and the Gladio network installed by the USA in Europe to counter the influence of Russian imperialism. Throughout this whole period, terrorism was above all used in the context of the imperialist conflict between the two superpowers.
The tendency towards generalized chaos has determined imperialist conflicts since the end of the 80s, the period in which capitalism has entered its phase of decomposition ([1]). The framework constituted by the confrontation between the two imperialist blocs set up at the end of the Second World War gave way to the reign of every man for himself ([2]). In this context terrorism has more and more become a weapon of the competing powers. On the one hand their official war machines have increasingly used terrorist methods, aiming less and less at military targets and more and more at the civilian population, as in the wars in the Gulf. At the same time, the horrible chain of attacks by 'unofficial' terrorist groups against a defenceless population was inaugurated by the bombs in Paris in September 1987 and reached a kind of paroxysm with the two planes filed with civilians which crashed into the Twin Towers and left almost 3,000 dead; but it continued with the bombs in Bali, Casablanca, Moscow and now Madrid. It would be a complete illusion to think that this barbarism is going to stop. As long s the working class, the only social force which can offer an alternative perspective to capitalist barbarism, does not finish once and for all with this inhuman system of exploitation, humanity will continue to live under the permanent threat of new and increasingly violent outrages, new and increasingly destructive wars.
As the decomposition of this system advances, the more it will spawn irrational and irresponsible factions, feeding the terrorist groups, the warlords and the local gangsters who are able to acquire increasingly destructive weapons but also more and more backers to profit from their crimes. After the fall of the Two Towers we wrote: "It is impossible to say with certainty today whether Osama Bin Laden really is responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers, as the US state accuses him of being. But if the Bin Laden theory does turn out to be true, then this is really a case of a petty warlord escaping from the control of his former masters" (IR 107). This is a typical expression of the generalisation of barbarism: quite apart from knowing which imperialist power or faction of the bourgeoisie benefits from this or that terrorist action, the latter tend more and more to escape the plans laid out by those who initially conceived them.
As with the apprentice sorcerer, the 'creature' tends to become uncontrollable. As we write this article, we lack really concrete elements, and given that it is not possible to have much confidence in the bourgeois media, we propose to apply our framework of analysis and our historic experience and pose the question as follows: who profits from the crime?
As we saw earlier, terrorism and imperialist confrontations are today blood brothers. The attack on the Two Towers amply profited US imperialism, which was able to compel its former allies, now its main rivals, like France and Germany, to give it full support for its military campaign aimed at the occupation of Afghanistan.
The emotion provoked by September 11 also allowed the Bush administration to get the majority of the American population to accept the second Gulf war in 2003. This is why it's quite legitimate to ask whether the incredible 'lack of foresight' of the American secret services before September 11 was not the result of an actual will to 'let things happen' ([3]). As far as March 11 is concerned, it's clear that they in no way benefit the US, quite the opposite in fact. Aznar was a firm supporter of US policy (he was part of the 'Azores Trio' - Spain, US and the UK - the members of the UN Security Council who met up to call for the second Gulf war); but Zapatero, who succeeded him after his victory of the PSOE at the elections of 14 March, which owed much to the Atocha bombings, has already announced that he will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. This is a slap in the face for the American administration and a definite victory for the French-German tandem that now leads the opposition to American diplomacy.
Having said this, this failure of American policy in no way represents a victory for the working class, as some would have us believe. Between 1982 and 1996, when it was at the head of the government, the PSOE proved itself to be a zealous defender of capitalism. Its return will not put an end to the bourgeoisie's attack on the proletariat. Similarly, the diplomatic success of Chirac and Schroeder is a success for two other loyal defenders of capitalism, which will bring absolutely nothing to the working class.
But worse still: the events we have just seen have made it possible for the bourgeoisie as a whole to score a major ideological victory, because it has strengthened the lie that the antidote to terrorism is 'democracy', that elections are an effective way of ending the anti-working class or warlike policies of the bourgeoisie, that pacifist demonstrations are a real barricade in the way of war.
Thus, the working class has not only suffered a physical attack with all the dead and wounded of March 11, it has also suffered a political attack of the first order. Once again, the crime has profited the bourgeoisie.
This is why, faced with terrorist barbarism, an expression of imperialist war and capitalist exploitation, there is only one answer...
With dozens of bodies still not identified, with dozens of immigrant families (29 of the dead and 200 wounded are immigrants), who don't dare look for their parents in the hospitals or the morgues for fear of being deported, the bourgeoisie is creating huge obstacles to the working class reflecting on the causes and consequences of this attack. From the first moments after the explosions, even before the state's emergency services arrived on the scene, it was the victims themselves, the workers and children of the working class traveling in the 'trains of death', or those waiting at the station, or living in the neighbourhoods of Santa Eugenia or El Pozo, who set about helping the wounded, or finding shrouds for the dead. They were entirely animated by a feeling of solidarity. This feeling of solidarity was also expressed by thousands more who gave their blood or offered to help at the hospitals, but also by the firemen, the social workers and health workers who voluntarily worked overtime despite the dramatic lack of resources resulting from state-imposed cuts in civil protection and health and safety.
Revolutionaries, and the whole world proletariat, must proclaim loud and clear their solidarity with the victims. Only the development of the solidarity implicit in the struggle of the working class can create the basis for a society in which such abominable crimes can be abolished once and for all. The indignation of the working class towards this atrocity, its natural solidarity towards the victims, has however been manipulated by capital towards defending the latter's interests. In response to the carnage, the bourgeoisie called on the workers of Spain to demonstrate "against terrorism and for the Constitution"; it called on it to close ranks as Spanish citizens to the cry of "Spain united will never be defeated"; it appealed for a massive vote on Sunday 14th so that "such acts of savagery will never be repeated".
The doses of patriotism injected both by the right (Aznar declared that "they died because they were Spanish") and by the left ("if Spain had not taken part in the war in the Gulf, these attacks would not have happened") are aimed only at convincing workers that the nation's interests are their interests. This is a lie, a shameful and cynical lie! A lie which also aims at swelling the ranks of pacifism which, as we have always shown in our press, has never stopped wars but always serves to derail the real struggle against the real cause of war - capitalism.
Capitalism has no future to offer humanity except its destruction through increasingly murderous wars, increasingly barbaric terrorist attacks, growing poverty and famine. The slogan raised by the Communist International at the beginning of the 20th century perfectly summed up the perspective facing society when capitalism entered its period of decadence and it remains as valid as ever: "the epoch of wars and revolutions" whose only outcome can be "socialism or barbarism".
Capitalism has to die if humanity is to live, and only one social class can serve as its gravedigger: the proletariat. If the world working class does not succeed in affirming its class independence, if it doesn't fight first for the defence of its specific interests, and then for the destruction of this decaying society, humanity will be overwhelmed by the proliferation of conflicts between bourgeois states and gangs, which will not hesitate to use all the most unspeakable means at their disposal.
ICC, 19/3/04.
Notes
Since the beginning of the year the population and working class of Haiti have been prey to murderous conflicts between the armed bands of President Aristide, the 'Chimeras', and the rival opposition clans with a drug trafficker, former police commissioner, Guy Philippe, at their head. Having conquered the towns in the north of the island, the armed opposition attacked the capital Port-au-Prince. After several days of bloody rioting and pillaging the American and French governments, who support the Haitian opposition, were eager to send several thousand soldiers, with the blessing of the UN, into this part of the Caribbean in order to chase the Aristide clan out of power and to re-establish 'democratic order and civil' peace and to 'protect the population'.
All these justifications are nothing but lies! Haiti is a prime example of bourgeois cynicism. Like Africa, Haiti is ravaged by famine and epidemics: 70% of the population is unemployed, 85% of the population lives on less than 70 pence (1 Euro) a day. The average life expectancy in 2002 was less than 50 years as opposed to about 70 in the other South American and Caribbean countries. 40% of the population have no access to the most basic care and the rates of infection with HIV and TB are the highest in Latin America. Infant mortality is twice as high and half the children under 5 go hungry. The situation is worsened by the western powers who have promised credit and aid which has never been paid. "After the legislative elections contested in 21 May 2000, the United States, the European Union and the international financial organisations have frozen the aid promised to Haiti. This veritable embargo overtook the most vulnerable population on the whole continent, the people which is the poorest, whose economy, environment, and social tissue is the most fragile" (Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2003). To this sombre picture of crushing pauperisation is added the riots and confrontations between pro- and anti-Aristide forces which have left hundreds of dead. These victims have been added to the long list of extortion and massacres committed by preceding regimes, supported by the western democracies, from the bloodthirsty Duvalier, father and son, and their 'Tontons Macoutes' militia, to the generals and military governors who have succeeded each other since the island became independent in 1804. Haiti is sinking into ever more chaos and disorder. It is in the hands of armed gangs and their political representatives who organise all sorts of trafficking: drugs, arms and the organisation of human traffic in illegal migration. Given this level of barbarism, which dramatically illustrates how capitalism is mired in decomposition, it is legitimate to ask what interest the great powers could have in intervening militarily in Haiti. Contrary to what the leftists say, the great powers are not intervening in Haiti to keep the enterprises and banks going. This is secondary as the economy and the state in this part of Santo Domingo are in a state of collapse. We are no longer in the 19th Century, when the European powers fought over the riches of the Caribbean. We are no longer in the 20th Century when the division of the world into military blocs necessitated the absolute control of this region by the American bloc faced with the Soviet bloc and its influence in Cuba. Today it is not the control of Haiti in itself which justifies the intervention of the great powers, but the fact that the United States wants to maintain its grip on the Caribbean to control the growing tide of refugees arriving on the coast in Florida; at the same time it is trying to maintain its influence in this zone, which it regards as its back yard, faced with the European powers, especially France, which, in the Bicentenary year of the independence of Haiti (a former French colony) has been trying to contest the US in this zone. Since the collapse of the Eastern bloc, Uncle Sam has, in the defence of its leadership, been challenged by its old allies from the Western bloc. Already in 1994, it was the opposition from France, Germany and Russia to UN sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War which, among other things, pushed Bill Clinton to make a demonstration of force in Haiti. He sent 20,000 soldiers to 'restore democracy' in Haiti and the United States reinstalled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the very leader they would chase from power a few years later.
Today the priest of the slumdwellers, Aristide, is implicated in the lucrative drug trade and has proved himself as corrupt as other figures in the Haitian bourgeoisie. He has been sacked by his American and French godfathers. Despite the protests from South Africa, from the Community of the Caribbean and from some Democrats in America, who are clamouring for an international inquiry into the undemocratic eviction suffered by their 'pet', the United States has continued to remind one and all that it calls the shots. One more time, military intervention does not have the objective of restoring 'civil peace'. And despite Bush and Chirac's mutual congratulations for their excellent co-operation in Haiti, the only point on which these gangsters agree is that it was necessary to intervene militarily. For the rest, it is competition that dominates and every man for himself is the only policy in operation, even if that generates even more chaos and massacres for the civilian population. Each will attempt to put its own men in government. For the moment it seems that the United States has seized the advantage in this imperialist rivalry: "In ringing the bell for the end of the party for Guy Philippe, who they had supported, the United States imposed itself as the sole masters of the game in Haiti. They have removed Aristide, made his armed opponents surrender, put their own men in the key sectors of the administration. And, in addition, they have excluded France from the final outcome of the crisis in which Paris had, until then, played a role of the first importance" (Liberation 5 March).
The military intervention in Haiti demonstrates once more the worsening of military tensions between the great powers and the irrational character of these policing operations from the economic point of view. The dispute between the White House and the Elysee Palace over the 'spoils' of Haiti is within the framework defended by the ICC on this increasingly irrational aspect of the tensions and wars in capitalism. "War is no longer undertaken to further economic goals, or even for organised strategic objectives, but as short term, localised and fragmented attempts to survive at each other's expense" ('Resolution on the international situation' International Review 102). The semblance of government that the American bourgeoisie is trying to set up cannot resist the fratricidal wars of the different Haitian clans for long, and we are entitled to ask whether Haiti is not to become another mess for Uncle Sam, all the more since the maneuvres of France and the other competing powers will only make it worse. This is how capitalism lives. Under the pretext of democracy and humanitarianism, in reality it exacerbates the imperialist contradictions, feeds chaos and plunges the population and the proletariat into total destitution.
Donald, 20/3/04
In the first part of this series we looked at the development of the SPGB from its origins as part of the tendency within the SDF that struggled against the reformism and opportunism of the latter. We showed that in its first years the SPGB was confronted with important questions arising from the development of capitalism, such as the role of the unions and the relationship between the struggle for reforms and the struggle for the revolution. In this second part we look at the vastly more demanding challenges that faced the whole workers' movement in the second decade of the 20th century. A period in which it became clear through the ravages of the First World War that capitalism has entered a new historical period, the period of its decadence, and in which the proletariat launched a wave of struggles, beginning in Russia in 1917, that for the first time threatened the class rule of the bourgeoisie.
The SPGB portray themselves as the implacable opponents of war. They say that "the party had no hesitation in declaring total opposition when the first world war came in 1914" (Socialist Principles Explained, 1975, p7) and that "the only political organisation to 'unequivocally' oppose the war was the Socialist Party" (Socialist Standard, no.1110, Feb 1997, p14). In fact the SPGB's opposition in both theory and practice never rose to the historical challenge posed by the new period in capitalism's life.
Barltrop in The Monument states that "There was little about European politics in the Socialist Standard up to 1914" (p.51). There were some general articles denouncing capitalist 'peace' (April 1911 and July 1912), one in November 1912 analysing the background to the Balkan war and another in March 1914 on armaments. The issue for September 1914, the first after the outbreak of the war, printed a statement by the Executive Committee on the war that correctly denounced it as a capitalist war and then proclaimed that the party "seizes the opportunity of reaffirming the socialist position", which it did in very general terms, before concluding by "placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working class blood, enters its emphatic protest against the brutal and bloody butchery of our brothers of this and other lands...we extend to our fellow workers the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism". In a more detailed article, 'The war and you', it portrayed the war as one for trade and markets: "Behind the covering screen of cant about British honour and German perfidy is the consciousness, frequently voiced, that it is a question, not of German perfidy but of German trade; not of British honour, but of wider markets for the disposal of British surplus products" (p.4). This was the orthodox position of the workers' movement at the time. For example, the Stuttgart congress of the Second International held in 1907 in its Resolution on War and Militarism declared "As a rule, wars between capitalist states are the outcome of their competition on the world market, for each state seeks not only to secure its existing markets, but also to conquer new ones" (quoted in Lenin's Struggle for a Revolutionary International, Pathfinder Press, 1986, p.33-4).
The SPGB was allowed to continue publishing throughout the war (although it was prevented from sending copies abroad and some libraries refused to take it) and carried articles reiterating their opposition to the war, exposing the propaganda of the bourgeoisie and denouncing the betrayal of those organisations of the working class that supported the war. However they remained at a general level and never expressed the historic significance of the development nor analysed the progress of the war and the strategy of the ruling class in any detail. This failure to analyse the historic significance of the war, in particular, contrasts strongly with the approach taken by the left of the workers movement. Lenin and Luxemburg had both developed analyses that expressed an understanding of the historical evolution of the capitalist system. This understanding was expressed in an early statement by the Bolsheviks: "The growth of armaments, the extreme intensification of the struggle for markets in the latest - the imperialist - stage of capitalist development in the advanced countries, and the dynastic interests of the more backward East-European monarchies were inevitably bound to bring about this war, and have done so" (The war and Russian Social-Democracy in Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p.27). Luxemburg also placed the war in the phase of imperialism: "the last phase in the life, and the highest point in the expansion of the world hegemony of capital" ('Theses on the Tasks of International Social Democracy' in Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p.330). A similar understanding was also expressed by Gorter: "Times have changed. Capitalism is so developed that it can continue its further development only by massacring the proletariat of every country. A world capital is born, which is turning against the world proletariat. World imperialism threatens the working class of the whole world" (quoted in The Dutch and German Communist Left, p110, published by the ICC, 2001).
The publication of the Socialist Standard quite rapidly became the SPGB's only tool of intervention. In January 1915 it voluntarily stopped holding public meetings after a number had been broken up and some of its militants injured, although it continued to discreetly hold its annual meetings. Despite a few reports about industrial action there is no evidence to suggest that the SPGB played any part in the strikes that broke out during the war. Nor is there any evidence that pamphlets were produced during the war and there is only one reference to the production of a leaflet. In October 1914 the Socialist Standard advised the working class "to stay at home and think" and to join the SPGB. The principle opposition conducted by the SPGB was the individual refusal of its members to join the army. While some chose to disappear, the majority sought to be accepted as conscientious objectors, some even leaving protected jobs in order to do so. While the courage shown by individual militants cannot be doubted, it amounted to no more than that shown by people who objected on religious grounds and only served to further reduce the number of militants free to continue political work. The task for revolutionaries in such a situation is not to make gestures, however great the personal sacrifice, but to struggle to defend the interests of the working class.
In sharp contrast to the SPGB the Bolsheviks did not see the war as a time to reduce activity or to accept the dictates of the bourgeoisie, but as a time to increase the struggle: "The conversion of the present imperialist war into a civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan it has been dictated by all the conditions of an imperialist war between highly developed bourgeois countries. However difficult that transformation may seem at any given moment, socialists will never relinquish systematic, persistent and undeviating preparatory work in this direction now that war has become a fact" (Lenin, op. cit. p.34). The Bolsheviks called for illegal organisation and propaganda within the army, participated in workers' struggles and maintained the publication and distribution of its papers despite the efforts of the Tsarist repression. In Britain the approach of the SLP also contrasts with that of the SPGB. The SPGB has made much of the fact that the SLP 'wavered' at the outbreak of the war as proof of their superiority. It is true that at a meeting of the SLP after the declaration of war, one faction supported national defence in the event of invasion but, according to one of its militants, this position was rapidly reversed (Tom Bell, Pioneering Days, p102). Its attitude, while not free of errors, in particular the call for class-conscious workers to sign up in order to get training in the use of weapons, was to try and use the war to develop the class struggle. It continued to hold public meetings and to publish The Socialist even when its presses were attacked. Its militants, many of whom went on the run in order to be able to continue their work, played a central role in the strikes on the Clyde, working with militants from other organisations, such as John Maclean, who continued to defend a proletarian position on the war.
As a result of its failure to understand the qualitative change in the life of capitalism expressed by the First World War, the SPGB was unable to recognise, understand or participate in the revolutionary response of the proletariat. As with its understanding of the war the SPGB remained trapped in the framework of the Second International in its approach to the revolutionary wave that began in Russia. Its consistent identification of the revolution in Russia as bourgeois is based on the orthodox view of social democracy that the bourgeois revolution must be completed before a proletarian one is possible. In April 1917, in possibly its first reference to the Russian Revolution, the SPGB stated "Far from heralding the dawn of freedom in Russia, it is simply the completion of the emancipation of the capitalist class in Russia which started in the 'emancipation' of the serfs some seventy years ago - in order that they might become factory slaves. The revolution's greatest importance from the working-class view-point is that it brings the workers face to face with their final exploiters". The same argument was repeated in the following months. In an article 'Russia and ourselves' they cite the election of Kerensky as evidence that "the Russian capitalist class still hold the field" (Socialist Standard, July 1917), failing to see the class struggle taking place, and conclude by calling for the working class to educate itself, effectively giving up the real struggle going on: "Only through class-conscious organisation on political lines can the Russian proletariat emerge from their long-endured bondage. In this they resemble the workers of all other countries, and to the work of education necessary to achieve such organisation I commend all Russian Socialists" (ibid). The concessions to bourgeois democratic ideology implicit in this argument were made much more explicit in a later article entitled 'The Revolution in Russia - Where it Fails': "Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160,000,000 and spread over eight and a half millions of square miles, ready for socialism? Are the hunters of the North, the struggling peasant proprietors of the South, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces, and the industrial wage-slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity, and equipped with the knowledge requisite, for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life?
"Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place, or an economic change occurred immensely more rapidly than history has ever recorded, the answer is 'No'. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists" (quoted in Perrin (1), The Socialist Party of Great Britain, p.60).
Underpinning this analysis is a view of the revolution in Russia as a purely national phenomenon. If such an error was understandable at the time, given both the limited information available and the weight of the view of the necessity for every nation to complete the bourgeois stage before beginning the proletarian one, this is not the case today. However, Perrin's recent history of the SPGB does precisely this, failing completely to acknowledge Lenin's repeated insistence that the working class could not hold power in Russia unless the proletariat of the other major capitalist countries, and Germany above all others, also seized power. The ability to see the worldwide nature of the proletarian revolution was the corollary of understanding that capitalism had encompassed the globe. It was the position reached in various ways and with various degrees of clarity by the greatest of revolutionaries, by the likes of Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. It was this that allowed Luxemburg to conclude her pamphlet on the Russian Revolution with the famous words: "In Russia the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to 'bolshevism'" (Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p.395).
Conclusion
In failing to grasp the changes in capitalism, specifically its entry into its period of decadence, and the consequent changes in the class struggle, with the proletarian revolution becoming a material possibility for the first time in history, the SPGB was unable to rise to the challenge of the period and so could not be part of the proletariat's forces. However, nor did it betray the working class and become part of the bourgeoisie. As a result it came to occupy a position between the two great classes and has remained there ever since.
North, 25/03/04.
Note
In the first two parts of this article (see World Revolution 271 and 272) we established, first of all, that communism isn’t simply an old dream of humanity or the mere product of human will, but that the necessity and possibility of communism were based directly on the material conditions developed by capitalism; secondly, that against all the prejudices about ‘human nature’ making it impossible for humanity to live in such a society, communism really is the kind of society that is most able to allow each individual to flourish to the full. We still have to deal with another question against the possibility of communism: ‘OK, communism is necessary and materially possible. Yes, men and women could live in such a society. But today humanity is so alienated under capitalist society that it will never have the strength to undertake a transformation as gigantic as the communist revolution.’ We’ll try to answer this now.
Before dealing directly with the question of the concrete possibility of the transition from capitalism to communism, we have to be clear about the idea that communism is certain and inevitable.
A revolutionary like Bordiga could once write: “The communist revolution is as certain as if it had already happened.” This really is a distorted view of marxism. While it can draw out certain laws about the development of societies, marxism resolutely rejects any idea of a kind of human destiny, written in advance in the great book of nature. Just as the evolution of the species doesn’t involve any finality, i.e. it’s not a movement of progressive approximation towards some kind of perfect model, so the evolution of human societies isn’t moving towards a model established in advance. Such a vision belongs to idealism: it was the philosopher Hegel, for example, who considered that each form of society was a progressive step towards the realisation of an ‘Absolute Ideal’ hovering above men and history. Similarly, the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin thought that man is evolving towards a ‘Point Omega’ which has been fixed for all time. While the study of history can enable us to grasp the general laws of social evolution in relation to the development of the productive forces, it also tells us that history is full of examples of societies which have hardly evolved at all; societies which, far from giving rise to more progressive forms of social development, have either stagnated for thousands of years, like the Asiatic societies, or have simply decayed on their feet, like ancient Greek society. As a general rule, the mere fact that a whole society has entered into decadence in no way means that it contains within itself the basis for a higher social form; it can just as easily collapse into barbarism and lose most of the cultural acquisitions and productive techniques which had determined and accompanied its former development.
It’s a very particular kind of society, capitalism, which developed on the ruins of the feudal society of western Europe, and which has created on a world-scale (being the most dynamic form of society that has ever existed) the material conditions for communism. But capitalism, like many other societies, is not immune from the danger of total decay and decomposition, of annihilating all the advances it has made and dragging humanity several centuries or several thousand years backwards. In practical terms, it’s not hard to see that this system has created the means for the self-destruction of all human society, precisely because it has extended its domination across the whole planet and has reached such a level of technical mastery. As we’ve already seen, the conditions which make communism possible and necessary are also the conditions which threaten humanity with irreversible decline or total destruction.
Revolutionaries are not charlatans; they don’t go about announcing the inevitable advent of a golden age which we have only to wait for quietly. Their role isn’t to preach sermons of consolation to humanity in distress. But while they can have no certainty about the inevitable coming of communism (it’s precisely because they’re not certain that they dedicate their lives to the struggle to make what is possible become a reality), they must insist on the real possibility of such a society - not only on the level of material possibilities or of the theoretical capacity of human beings to live in such a society, but also as regards the capacity of humanity to make this decisive leap from capitalism to communism, to make the communist revolution.
Because of the failure of past revolutions, whether they were crushed like those in Germany and Hungary in 1919, or whether they degenerated as in Russia, the average bourgeois draws the conclusion that the revolution is impossible. He has a grim warning for all who want to embark on such ventures: “Woe betide you if you try to revolt! And if you ever do, look what happened in Russia!” It’s quite understandable that the bourgeoisie should think like this: it’s in line with its interests as a privileged, exploiting class. And this doesn’t mean that the bourgeoisie itself isn’t alienated. On the contrary, as Marx and Engels wrote:
“The propertied class and the class of the proletariat present the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at ease and strengthened in this self-estrangement as its own power and has in it the semblance of a human existence. The latter feels annihilated in estrangement; it sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of an inhuman existence.” (Marx, The Holy Family).
But, however ferocious their exploitation, however inhuman their living conditions over the past fifty years, workers have been impressed by such arguments, to the point of virtually giving up any hope of emancipating themselves. This despair has allowed all sorts of theories to blossom, notably those of Professor Marcuse[1] [24], according to which the working class is no longer a revolutionary class, is integrated into the system, so that the only hope for the revolution lies with the marginal strata, those who are excluded from present-day society like ‘the young’, ‘blacks’, ‘women’, ‘students’ or the peoples of the Third World. Others arrived at the idea that the revolution would be the work of a ‘universal class’ regrouping nearly everyone in society.
What actually lies behind all these theories about the ‘integration’ of the working class is a petty-bourgeois disdain for the class (hence the success of these theories in the milieu of the intellectual and student petty bourgeoisie). For the bourgeois and petty bourgeois that follow in his footsteps, the workers are nothing but poor sods that lack the will or intelligence to make anything of their lives. They spend the whole of their lives being brutalised: instead of breaking out of their conditions they fritter away all their leisure-time in the pub or stuck in front of the TV, the only thing that arouses their interest being the Cup Final or the latest scandal. And, when they do demand something, it’s just a measly wage rise so that they can be even more alienated by the ‘consumer society’.
After the patent failure or recuperation of the marginal movements that were supposed to overturn the established order, it’s understandable that those who held such theories should now be giving up any perspective of changing society. The most astute of them are now becoming ‘new philosophers’ or officials of the social democratic parties; the less well provided for are drifting into scepticism, demoralisation, drugs or suicide. Once one has understood that it won’t come from ‘all men of good will’ (as the Christians believe), or from the universal class (as Invariance [2] [25] believes), or from the much-vaunted marginal strata, or from the peasants of the Third World as Maoism and Guevarism claim, then one can see that the only hope for the regeneration of society lies with the working class. And it’s because they have a static vision of the working class, seeing it as a mere collection of individual workers, that the sceptics of today don’t think that the working class is capable of making the revolution.
As early as 1845, Marx and Engels replied to these kinds of objections:
“It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the proletariat as a whole, may imagine for the moment to be the aim. It is a question of what the proletariat actually is and what it will be compelled to do historically as the result of this being” (The Holy Family).
If you consider that the working class will never be anything but a sum of what its members are today, then no, the revolution will never be possible. But such a viewpoint makes an abstraction of two fundamental aspects of reality:
· The whole is always more than the sum of its parts;
· Reality is movement. The elements of nature are not immutable and the elements of human societies even less so. That’s why one must avoid taking a photograph of the present situation and thinking that this is an eternal reality. On the contrary one must grasp what exactly is this “historic being” of the proletariat which pushes it towards communism.
Marx and Engels tried to answer this question in The Holy Family:
“When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletariat as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need - the practical expression of necessity - is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself.” (The Holy Family).
However this answer is still insufficient. This description of capitalist society can also be applied to all class societies; this description of the working class can be applied to all exploited classes. This passage explains why, like all other exploited classes, the proletariat is compelled to revolt, but it doesn’t say why this revolt can and must lead to revolution i.e. the overthrow of one kind of society and its replacement by another: in short, why the working class is a revolutionary class.
As sceptics of all kinds are prone to point out, it’s not enough for a class to be exploited for it to be revolutionary. And in fact, in the past, the opposite has been the case. In their day, the nobility fighting against slave society and the bourgeoisie fighting against feudalism were revolutionary classes. This didn’t make them exploited: on the contrary, they were both exploiting classes. On the other hand, the revolts of the exploited classes in these societies - slaves and serfs - never resulted in a revolution. A revolutionary class is a class whose domination over society is in accordance with the establishment and extension of the new relations of production made necessary by the development of the productive forces, to the detriment of the old, obsolescent relations of production.
Because both slave society and feudal society could only give rise to another exploitative society - due to the level of the development of the productive forces In those periods - the revolution could only be led:
· by an exploiting class;
· by a class which wasn’t specific to the declining society, while those classes who were couldn’t be revolutionary, either because they were exploited or because they had privileges to defend.
In contrast, since capitalism has developed the conditions which make the elimination of all exploitation both possible and necessary, the revolution against it can only be made:
· by an exploited class;
· by a class which is specific to capitalist society.
The proletariat is the only class in present day society which meets these two criteria; it’s the only revolutionary class in present-day society. Thus we can now respond to the central objection which this article set out to deal with. Yes, the proletariat is an alienated class, subjected to the whole weight of the ruling bourgeois ideology; but because it produces the bulk of social wealth and is thus more and more shouldering the burdens of the capitalist crisis, it’s going to be compelled to revolt. And in contrast to the revolts of previous exploited classes, the revolt of the proletariat isn’t a desperate one: it contains within itself the possibility of revolution and communism.
The objection can be raised that there have been attempts at a proletarian revolution but that they have all failed. But just as the fact that the plague decimated society for centuries didn’t mean that humanity would have to suffer this scourge for ever, so the failure of past revolutions shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that the revolution is impossible. The main thing which held back the revolutionary wave of 1917-23 was the fact that the proletariat’s consciousness lagged behind its material existence: although its old conditions of struggle had become obsolete once capitalism had passed from its zenith to its decadent phase, the class didn’t become aware of this in time. It thus went through a terrible counter-revolution which silenced it for decades.
Once again, we don’t pretend that victory is certain. But even if there is only a chance in a thousand that we’re going to win, the stakes involved in today’s struggles are so momentous that, far from demoralising us, this should galvanize the energies of all those who sincerely aspire to a different kind of society. Far from despising, ignoring or underestimating the present struggle of the working class, we must understand the decisive importance of these battles. Because the proletariat is both an exploited class and a revolutionary class, its struggles against the effects of exploitation prepare the way for the abolition of exploitation; its struggles against the effects of the crisis prepare the way for the destruction of a society in mortal crisis; and the unity and consciousness forged during these struggles are the point of departure for the unity and consciousness which will enable the proletariat to overthrow capitalism and create a communist society. FM
At the end of April Tony Blair was looking very haggard. It had been a difficult political month with the generalisation of armed conflict in Iraq, his pained support for Bush's backing of Sharon's plans in Palestine, the letter by 52 former diplomats criticising his support for Bush's policy towards Sharon and his lessening influence on the US; and all of this topped off with his U-turn on the referendum over the European Constitution. No matter where he turns Blair appears to be confronted with serious political problems. But while it may be Blair who is most publicly suffering under the weight of the problems, his political torment is that of the whole British ruling class, faced as it is with an increasingly contradictory world situation that is making it more and more difficult to defend the imperialist interests of British capital.
At the ICC's 15th Congress, which took place soon after the start of the war last year, we made an overall analysis of the predicament of British imperialism. Central to this analysis is the notion of the crisis of US leadership. Faced with increasingly open opposition from its main imperialist rivals over its military, economic, environmental and cultural policies, the US has had to make a massive display of its overwhelming military power. At the time we showed that this could only lead to chaos and that this would deepen the tensions within the British ruling class over how to best defend its interests.
"The crisis of US leadership has placed British imperialism in an increasingly contradictory position. With the end of the "special relationship", the defence of Britain's interests requires it to play a 'mediating' role between America and the main European powers, and between the latter powers themselves. Although presented as the poodle of the US, the Blair government has itself played a significant role in bringing about the current crisis, by insisting that America could not go it alone over Iraq, but needed to take the UN route. Britain too has been the scene of some of the biggest 'peace' marches, with large fractions of the ruling class -not only its leftist appendage -organising the demonstrations. The strong 'anti-war' sentiments of parts of the British bourgeoisie express a real dilemma for the British ruling class, as the growing schism between America and the other great powers is making its 'centrist' role increasingly uncomfortable. In particular, Britain's arguments that the UN should play a central role in the post Saddam settlement, and this must be accompanied by significant concessions to the Palestinians, are being politely ignored by the US. Although as yet there is no clear alternative, within the British bourgeoisie, to the Blair line in international relations, there is a growing unease with being too closely associated with US adventurism. The quagmire now developing in Iraq can only strengthen this unease" (Resolution on the International Situation, point 10, International Review 113).
This unease has gathered pace over the last year as Blair's ability to maintain this 'centrist' policy has further weakened under the increasingly blatant disregard for Blair's efforts to influence US policy. The US may now be talking about the UN having more of a role in Iraq, but this is more to do with the worsening situation in Iraq than British influence. The idea that Britain has a restraining hand in Iraq was completely rubbished in April with the US's brutal assault on Falluja and threats against Najaf. As for the question of Palestine, Bush's declaration of support for Sharon's proposals to withdraw from the Gaza strip whilst maintaining settlements in the West Bank, basically tears up the 'road map' for peace in the Middle East, which Blair used as one of the main arguments for Britain's involvement in the war. To add to his humiliation Blair had to stand next to Bush during his last visit to Washington and openly support the policy.
This was too much for 52 former diplomats who issued a public letter to Blair stating the unease of a majority of the British ruling class "We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues (Iraq and Palestine), and exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure" (The Guardian, 27.4.04). This letter received widespread support from those members of the bourgeoisie who think that Blair has gone too far in his support for the US. The Blair team tried to counter the letter by calling the diplomats 'Arabists', but this was a very weak response.
There has also been increasingly open criticism from British military commanders about the idea of sending more troops to replace the Spanish forces withdrawn by the new Zapatero government, and of the "heavy-handed" tactics used by the US military in Falluja and elsewhere.
It is this growing difficulty of the British bourgeoisie on the international arena that is probably behind Blair's sudden U-turn about holding a referendum on the European constitution. In the period leading up to the war and in the months after, British imperialism was able to form a temporary alliance of countries such as Spain, Italy, and many of the Eastern European countries who were integrated into the EU on May 1, particularly Poland. This alliance was based on a common desire to stop Britain's main European imperialist rivals, Germany and France, from using the constitution to dominate the EU. This alliance used every opportunity to block or undermine French and German efforts to manipulate discussions about the constitution to their own ends. They also opposed themselves to 'old' Europe by their support for the US in Iraq. But now the alliance has effectively been destroyed by the bombs in Madrid and the deepening quagmire in Iraq. The majority of the Spanish bourgeoisie chose very publicly to pull the rug out from the USA's and Britain's feet over Iraq by announcing the withdrawal of its troops; at the same time it delivered a powerful blow against British ambitions in Europe, publicly stating that from now on it would work side by side with Germany and France in the EU. Spain's actions have also had an impact on the other members of the alliance. Poland has wavered over its involvement in Iraq and has been less hostile towards Germany. Thus, by April, the British bourgeoisie were faced with their main imperialist rivals in Europe strengthening their hand and leaving the British bourgeoisie looking isolated, at the same time as getting sucked further and further into the political and military black hole that is Iraq.
The final straw that broke the camel's back was that British diplomats discovered in April that the Irish bourgeoisie, which has Presidency of the EU until the end of June, "intended to have a draft constitution drawn up before the end of June" (The Independent on Sunday 25.4.04). This could only mean its European rivals taking full advantage of its weakened position to formalise their domination of an expanded EU. The calling of the referendum would thus appear to be a desperate bid to try and throw a spanner in the works and open up a whole new period of discussions between the EU's member states.
Britain is not the only country to hold a referendum. The Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, and Portugal are also to hold one. However, these are 3rd or 4th rate imperialist powers desperate not to be totally dominated by Germany and France. Hence the once 'mighty' British imperialism has been reduced to the blunt tactics of some of the weakest powers in Europe.
It is also a great gamble by Blair and his supporters. It has an electoral function inside Britain, in that it immediately deprives the Tories of a major campaign issue for the next election. But if the referendum is lost the clamour for Blair to go will be louder than ever. Nevertheless, the faction around Blair also knows that there is no real alternative to its policies being put forward, so it is possibly laying down a challenge to those elements of the bourgeoisie who are more critical of Blair's current stance: back us over the referendum or see the even more pro-US Tories back in power. This point was certainly made by three top Blair advisors (Alun Milburn, Stephen Byers and Peter Mandelson) in a recent article. The "neocon Tories believe that politics is powerless in face of anonymous forces of globalisation, and that it is largely up to individuals to fend for themselves. They see Europe as a waste of time and are quite happy with a vision of British foreign policy whose only leg is the US alliance"(The Guardian 27.4.04).
It has also been reported that this change of policy was spearheaded by heavyweight members of the government such as the Chancellor Gordon Brown and the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, both of whom have been more circumspect about being too openly pro-US. They are said to see it as a means of removing a weapon from the Tories and placing a difficult question further into the future, i.e., after the next election.
No matter what political calculations lay behind the sudden calling of the referendum, it still expresses the chronic weakness of British imperialism. The UK's European rivals have wasted no time in denouncing London for throwing a spanner in the works at the very moment the EU is 'celebrating' its eastward and southern expansion. But British capitalism is caught between the rock of total submission to the US, and the hard place of falling in behind its traditional German adversary. This isn't a problem that can be conjured away by clever electioneering or a change of personnel at the top.
Phil, 01/05/04.
The working class needs to remember. Just over a year ago, in March 2003, the USA and Britain launched the war on Iraq. In Europe huge pacifist demonstrations raised the slogan 'No to the war in Iraq'. Pacifist campaigns: instrument of French imperialism
The French state, under the leadership of Jacques Chirac, and with the unanimous support of the left and leftists, was at the forefront of the anti-American ideological campaign. French imperialism thus took on the mantle of pacifism. But this lying propaganda, which continues to be dropped on the working class from a great height, must not be allowed to mask the real face of French imperialism. When it comes to war and barbarism, no imperialism on the planet is an exception to the rule. The French media gave maximum publicity to these pacifist demonstrations � while at the same time doing everything possible to obscure the military policy of France in the Ivory Coast. It was at the very same moment, February 2003, that French imperialism went onto the offensive on the Ivory Coast, with more than 4000 troops. In March of the same year the French army went back into Bangui in Central Africa, pushing these countries a step further into total chaos. This is what the pacifist discourse of the French state is really worth.
We are currently �celebrating� a sad anniversary: ten years ago, French imperialism, under the banner of humanitarianism, re-entered Rwanda in force, armed to the teeth with assault cars at the front. It was to preside over one of the worst cases of genocide in history. According to the official figures between 500,000 and a million people were killed in 100 days, almost unnoticed by the world at large. The French army had waited cynically at the frontiers of Rwanda for the ethnic slaughter to reach its climax before intervening. Meanwhile inside Rwanda �our country�s troops, under orders, had trained the killers who carried out the genocide against the Tutsi. We armed them, encouraged them and, when the day came, provided cover for them. I discovered this story in the Rwandan hills. It was hot, it was summer time. It was wonderful weather, it was magnificent. It was the time of the genocide� (Patrick de Saint Exupery, journalist from Figaro and author of the book L�inavouable: la France au Rwanda; see Le Monde Diplomatique March 2004). It was indeed France which, for a number of years, had been training and arming the local gendarmerie, the Hutu militia, and the Rwandan Armed Forces. It was France which had fully supported the regime of president Habyarimana. From the early 90s Rwanda had become a prize in the geo-strategic game between French imperialism and American imperialism. Rwanda had an obvious importance in this inter-imperialist conflict because it is at the frontier of the zone under French control and the one under US control.
In 1994 American imperialism was trying to weaken French imperialism�s African presence in an irreversible manner. This is why the US had been training the Rwandan Patriotic Front (formed by the Tutsi opposition) in the territory of Uganda since 1993. The military advance of the RPF was imminent. It was at this point that plane carrying Rwandan president Habyarimana and Burundi�s president Ntaryamira was shot down; this was the pretext for unleashing the massacre, which began on 6 April 1994. Eventually the RPF advanced on Kigali and a new regime was installed. France then �had to content itself with creating a �secure humanitarian zone� in the west, towards which all the extremist groups and representatives of the Hutu governing apparatus converged� (Le Monde Diplomatique, March 2004).
This zone was a theatre of terrible slaughter and, as Le Monde Diplomatique points out, France refused to militarily disarm the Hutu death-squads. It also kept well away from arresting those responsible for the genocide, because these were the same people it had controlled from a distance and later sheltered in the Congo.
Meanwhile 300,000 orphans were wandering the country. Cholera and famine were on the rise and rapidly carried off more than 40,000 Hutu refugees, while combat helicopters, Mirages and Jaguars belonging to the French army waited for another opportunity to intervene. The power mainly responsible for this vast death-toll was without doubt French imperialism, which used the ethnic conflict to strike at its US rival. It�s the same French imperialism which today hides behind the ideology of pacifism. The humanitarian alibi: a weapon of war
The humanitarian alibi was used to cover the barbaric policy of France ten years ago. It was used again in 1999 to justify the bombing of Serbia and the military occupation of Kosovo. Today in Kosovo there is a renewal of ethnic conflict, and the French army, as it did in Rwanda, is using the opportunity to increase its presence on the ground. Meanwhile, Tony Blair points to the lack of humanitarian intervention in Rwanda to argue in favour of the Iraq war, telling us that the only hope for countries subjected to ethnic slaughter or mass murder by undemocratic states is the benign intervention of the �civilised� powers. Rwanda, like the Balkans, like Iraq, provides us with proof that there can be nothing benign in the intervention of an imperialist state. On the country, its only result can be to take the �local� barbarism onto a higher level. Unless the world capitalist system is overthrown, the Rwandan genocide is a foretaste of humanity�s future.
T.
Last October the Melbourne discussion circle held a meeting on 'Reforms, refugees and a revolutionary perspective'. This circle is part of the effort of a minority within the working class to understand the reality of the world situation today, characterised by economic crisis, attacks on the working class and wars endlessly breaking out around the globe. This is an international effort with the development of similar discussion circles in many parts of the world.
The discussion was also important for the intervention of the ICC in the meeting. The orientation towards a critical examination of the history of the workers' movement and the marxist method is essential for a positive outcome for the efforts of such circles, and the intervention of revolutionaries is always important for this. This particular intervention also had a specific importance is showing our commitment to the work in the Australia, and the work of the circle, despite the fact that the ICC no longer has a direct presence in the country. Our former comrade played an important role in building up the organisation's presence in Australia, but has now left and no longer has any involvement in proletarian politics, which we see as an expression of the discouragement that can overcome communist militants particularly in this period of the decomposition of capitalism.
The more wars or economic devastation create increasing numbers of refugees, the fewer are allowed into countries like Australia, the stricter the border controls, the worse the conditions faced by refugees, often locked up or reduced to destitution. Can we do anything for their immediate needs? In particular, what about attacking detention centres, an area of state power, and freeing the refugees?
In taking up this question the discussion went back to the framework implied in the title of the discussion, 'Reforms, refugees and the revolutionary perspective' to see that in this period of the decadence of the capitalist system it is not possible for the working class to win reforms from the capitalist state, which carries out the policy necessary for the ruling class. Immigration has been allowed when there was a shortage of labour as in the 1920s, but restricted during periods of unemployment such as the depression in the 1930s. The development of the world crisis since 1968 has affected the situation in two ways. The whole working class has been attacked, with unemployment, with casualisation of jobs and increased insecurity. Imperialist tensions have been heightened, the number of wars has risen and the number of refugees increased, just when the ruling class has less need of immigrant labour. Nevertheless the bourgeoisie can use the refugees in its ideological campaigns. By introducing attacks on the refugees first, for instance reducing their right to benefits, it aims to get the working class as a whole used to the idea of further attacks on living conditions. Also it can stir up nationalism and divide the working class along national and racial lines.
Nor can we rely on liberal or left wing parties to defend refugees. They also argue from the point of view of the needs of the national capital and encourage divisions within the working class, aiming to give the illusion that it is possible to make capitalism fair for the refugees. So the ruling class does not only openly scapegoat refugees to undermine the unity and solidarity of the working class - anti-racism is an equally effective way of playing the race card. The bourgeoisie never wants to say that there is a shortage or jobs, housing or whatever, only that it should be equably distributed to all the different groups - in other words the racists and anti-racists agree that it is people from other racial groups who are stopping you from getting what you need and not the crisis of capitalism. What they disagree on is how a diminishing cake should be divided up.
Attacking a detention centre leaves the bourgeois state intact - the same state that makes the refugee illegal, whether in detention or on the run. The refugee question cannot be solved without the overthrow of the capitalist system.
Another aspect to the question was the responsibility of revolutionary organisations. What solidarity can we give to refugees, or any members of the working class, who face destitution right now? Revolutionary organisations have neither the capacity nor the responsibility to solve these problems. On an immediate practical level it is clear that it would be impossible. The real responsibility of communists is to explain clearly that these problems are not soluble within the capitalist system, and to point to the general perspective and line of march of the class struggle.
The best solidarity that workers can give is to develop their own struggle to resist the attacks of capital.
The meeting also discussed the question of the different treatment refugees get in different countries. The person who raised this thought that, in general, developed countries in the West kept refugees out, whereas third world countries were more tolerant, giving the example of refugees from Tibet and Bangladesh tolerated in India. In part this is because the less powerful third world states do not have such totalitarian 'reach' into rural areas. More important is the use of welfarism to encourage workers to identify with the state and nationalism against immigrants taking 'our benefits' or 'using our hospitals' when they haven't contributed. The impossibility of raising this question in a trade union was given as evidence of the success of this campaign.
The way refugees are treated depends on the needs of national capital. In this sense we can see that third world countries can also send refugees back or keep them in camps. In fact refugees are often kept in camps to be used as cannon fodder in imperialist wars, as the Palestinians have been in the Middle East or Afghans in Pakistan.
The other participants in the circle also rejected the notion that the unions represent the working class, or that they resist attacks on Australian workers. What they do is make a show of opposition, negotiate the terms of the attacks and in this way contribute to their introduction.
But the most important point to answer was the idea that workers are somehow bought off by the 'welfare state' and that we should perhaps look to workers in the third world, or even other classes, instead. If we just look at a snapshot of the situation today we can see that the workers do not have a strong sense of their identity as part of an international class with the same interests to defend. This is largely a result of the propaganda campaign since the collapse of the Eastern bloc according to which marxism and working class revolutionary struggle lead inevitably to the brutal form of state capitalism that existed in Russia. Workers must therefore keep their struggles within safe trade union limits. However, if we look back to the development of struggles from 1968 to 1989 we can see that workers really did have a sense of being part of a class, and struggles in one country definitely influenced those in another. The struggles in France in 1868, in Poland in 1980 and the miners' strike in Britain in 1984 were all discussed by workers all over the world. The bourgeoisie were particularly careful to black out news of very important struggles in Belgium in 1983 and 1986 because they gave the example of going beyond the unions or of unity between public and private sector workers.
In order to support the development of a sense of class identity we need to emphasise what unites the working class, and the importance of the development of large scale struggles in this process. The best solidarity remains the development of the struggle of the working class in its own defence.
In this meeting the circle took up the question of immigration and refugees, and was immediately confronted with the need to answer the propaganda of the ruling class. To do so it needed to step back and place these issues in the framework of the historical experience of the working class, and particularly in relation to the question of capitalist decadence and the impossibility of reforms in this period.
Subjects suggested for future discussion included 'Islam in the modern world', 'Multiculturalism and pluralistic democracy' and the 'welfare state'. All these are important issues, and all were posed in reaction to aspects of bourgeois propaganda. It is better to approach such questions by starting from the way they have been posed in the workers' movement in the past, and then examine the media campaigns from that point of view. With this in mind the ICC proposed that the circle look first at some of the important positions taken by the workers' movement, for instance the Theses on Parliamentary Democracy from the Third International, before going on to look at the ideological campaign on pluralistic democracy. Similarly, in looking at Islam in the modern world it makes sense to start with an overview of the marxist critique of religion.
Diana, 1/4/04.
The British press has not been shy about revealing the responsibility of French imperialism for the massacre in Rwanda in 1994; a number of articles appeared in the aftermath of the killing, pointing out that France armed and trained the government death-squads. But it has taken rather longer for Britain's complicity in the genocide to rise to the surface. Two recent books provide a good deal of information about what really happened ten years ago: Conspiracy to Murder: the Rwandan Genocide by Linda Malvern, a journalist who specialises in this story and is undoubtedly knowledgeable about the details; and, as part of a wider expose of Britain's "real role in the world", Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis.
According to Malvern's presentation, "What we do know now it that a corrupt, vicious and violent oligarchy in Rwanda planned and perpetrated the crime of genocide, testing the UN each step of the way."
It is curious that she maintains that the Hutu bourgeoisie which perpetrated the massacre were 'testing' the UN, since she shows quite effectively that the US, Britain and France in particular did not want to stop the massacre. As Malvern puts it herself: "However, the continuing human rights abuses in Rwanda were of little concern in the Security Council, where the French, playing their own secret game, gave confidential assurances to Council members that the parties in Rwanda were committed to peace. Representatives from the UK and the US were reluctant about the creation of a mission to Rwanda. There were simply too many UN operations - with 17 missions and 80,000 peacekeepers worldwide."
It is hardly likely that the US and British position was really based on the idea that UN forces were overstretched. They always find the resources when they want to intervene militarily, whether or not it is under UN auspices - as in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. It is interesting that Malvern takes the explanations for their actions at face value, while the French are reported as playing a "secret game" (not so secret if it is reported in the Guardian, one might think). Malvern's views on the other foreigners involved are equally caustic: "The Belgians were the only European nation to provide peacekeepers for the [UN] mission but they were ill-disciplined and racist."
The fact that the UN did send a very small peacekeeping mission at all in 1994 Malvern explains as a compromise between the reservations of the British and US about over-commitment of UN resources and "ethical considerations". She acknowledges that sending such a small force effectively gave a signal to the Hutu leadership that they could pursue their plans for the massacre with impunity.
Although he relies a great deal on Malvern for her expertise in this subject area, Curtis nonetheless gives a rather more dynamic picture of this business of giving a signal for the pogrom to take place: "After the killings began in early April, the UN Security Council, instead of beefing up its peace mission in the country and giving it a stronger mandate to intervene, decided to reduce the troop presence from 2,500 to 270. This decision sent a green light to those who had planned the genocide showing that the UN would not intervene."
Curtis has this to say about the next steps: "By May 1994, with certainly tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands already dead, there was another UN proposal - to despatch 5,500 troops to help stop the massacres. This deployment was delayed by pressure, mainly from the US ambassador, but with strong support from Britain. Dallaire [the Belgian general in charge of the 270 troops already there] believes that if these troops had been speedily deployed, tens of thousands of more lives could have been saved. But the US and Britain argued that before these troops went in, there needed to be a ceasefire in Rwanda, a quite insane suggestion given that one side was massacring innocent civilians� Britain and the US also refused to provide the military airlift capability for the African states who were offering troops for this force. Eventually� Britain offered a measly fifty trucks� Britain also went out of its way to ensure that the UN did not use the word 'genocide' to describe the slaughter. Accepting that genocide was occurring would have obliged states to 'prevent and punish' those guilty under the terms of the Geneva Convention. In late April 1994, Britain, along with the US and China, secured a Security Council resolution that rejected the use of the term 'genocide'. This resolution was drafted by the British." (p359)
Clearly then, the US and Britain were not merely standing by passively in relation to the massacre, but were quite content for it to occur. And the reason?
We cannot be sure, of course, about the exact calculations and conversations that took place in the corridors of power at the time. What we do know is that Britain and the US were (and still are) both pursuing a policy of taking every opportunity to undermine French influence throughout the African continent, particularly in the central African region. We also know that to counter France's backing for the Hutu government, the US and Britain supported the Tutsi-based Rwandan Patriotic Front which did in fact fight its way to power in the wake of the bloodbath. The question is posed: why didn't the Americans and British push to intervene on behalf of the RPF earlier, to ensure its victory? We can only assume that they opposed a UN intervention because, given France's direct presence in the area, this would have been essentially a French operation, and this would have allowed the French to shore up the Hutu government or at least prevent the RPF from making a clean sweep. And in fact when the French did intervene at the end of the genocide their main activity was precisely to give shelter to the remnants of the Hutu death-squads (see this month's other web special, 'The crimes of French imperialism'). The US and Britain obviously preferred to allow the Hutu bourgeoisie to collapse in its own murderous frenzy, taking hundreds of thousands of innocents with it, than to allow their French rivals to gain the upper hand in the region.
The facts of French, American and British cynicism over Rwanda are amply demonstrated by both Malvern and Curtis. But, since neither of them are marxists and revolutionaries, what they cannot show is why these inhuman calculations are neither abnormal, nor the product of negligence, but expressions of the real morality of the imperialist ruling class in all countries.
Hardin, 1/5/04.
After investigating four controversial killings in Northern Ireland, retired Canadian judge Peter Cory concluded that agents of the security forces were allowed to set up murders, which the army (especially its Force Research Unit), MI5 and special branch were aware of, encouraged and assisted with. As he made his recommendations for full public inquiries there were press reports that the Ministry of Defence was concerned that "further light would be shed on the undercover operations of the FRU after embarrassing disclosures by an ex-soldier under the pseudonym Martin Ingram" (Guardian, 2/4/04).
Ingram, an ex-FRU intelligence officer, has, in conjunction with journalist Greg Harkin, produced a book Stakeknife Britain's secret agents in Ireland, which goes into some of the details that Cory only hinted at. It shows that the role of the security forces went much further than just providing 'assistance'. Bodies such as the FRU controlled, directed and initiated the activities of their agents within the loyalist and republican paramilitary gangs. Sometimes this was unproductive. On a number of occasions army agents in the IRA tortured and murdered agents being run by the RUC, but that doesn't mean that the security services were maverick forces, out of control. On the contrary, they were, and remain, integral to the work of the capitalist state.
One of the distinctive things about the FRU, which ran from 1980-1992 until its name was changed to the Joint Services Group after the first revelations of the activities of its agent Brian Nelson, was that, unlike other intelligence operations run by the army, it did not have an RUC officer running operations. So, when Ingram says of Nelson's activity in the three-year period from Christmas 1986 that he was not only "allowed to kill but actively encouraged to kill" (p.181) this can only be described as government policy. Rather than focus on the particular personality of Nelson it is essential to remember that he was carrying out army orders, just as much as when he served for more than four years in the Royal Highland Regiment. So the arms shipments for loyalists from South Africa, the payments for weapons to be imported into Northern Ireland, the torture, the bombings and shootings carried out with the participation of Nelson, were the policy of the British state.
Ingram says of the late 1980s that, "The thinking of the FRU at that time was not dissimilar to that of recent regimes in Colombia, where right-wing paramilitary death squads were armed and run by the State" (p.190). When he says that "The FRU was using loyalist paramilitaries as an extension of the British Army" (p.191) Ingram is describing a military policy that characterises the whole of the last 35 years.
The Stakeknife book tries to clear politicians or the higher echelons of the army of any role in this activity. But the book provides plenty of evidence to contradict this idea. For example, finance for arms was organised through bank robberies, extortion, etc. "with the tacit understanding and compliance of the FRU". Subsequently imported weapons "were tracked from source to distribution by the FRU and MI5 by electronic means" (p.192). This meant that MI5 knew what was going on, and one of their responsibilities was to keep politicians aware of every development in the situation. An MI5 liaison officer shared an office with the FRU operations officer, so there was clearly some sort of relationship between the secret services. MI5 reported to politicians. "It is certain that ministers were also kept informed by the security services of the ongoing case files on agents, although great care would have been taken to ensure that there was no paper trail, or indeed smoking gun, in the hands of the minister" (p210).
When the Stevens inquiry opened the Army denied it had any agents in Northern Ireland. It was not long before a network of more than a hundred agents was revealed, which had existed for more than 20 years. Later the Army claimed that Nelson's activity had saved 217 lives, on investigation there was evidence for only two - one being Gerry Adams. Secret services obviously want to remain as secret as possible, and it is understandable that they want to keep a lid on revelations about their activities. Ingram obviously appreciates this. He thinks that, "there is a place and a role in all decent democratic societies for an intelligence agency that is working towards acceptable goals" (p33). The 'acceptable' work of the FRU was the infiltration and monitoring of the IRA that led to the sabotage and ambush of republican operations. Ingram's reservations focus on "state-sponsored terrorism" (p94) by Britain in Northern Ireland. To this end he thinks, "there should have been safeguards in place, a series of checks and balances ... our legislators let everyone down by allowing the FRU to operate ... with no written terms of reference or guidelines" (p.210).
This is the democratic myth that capitalism never tires of telling. It says that each revelation, every public inquiry, the investigations of a 'free press', these all show that truth will out, that 'excesses' can be curbed, that justice will be done. Talks are under way to establish a 'truth and reconciliation' commission, as happened in South Africa. In Tony Blair's words, people must be allowed to express their "grief, pain and anger" as part of an organised process. However, the conflicts that cause such feelings will continue, as will the state's role in terrorism and repression, for as long as capitalism continues.
Car, 6/4/04.
14 years ago, just after the collapse of the eastern bloc, George Bush senior, followed by most of the western bourgeoisie, promised us a 'new world order' of peace and prosperity. The least we can say now - and the situation in Iraq is certainly the most crying example of this - is that what we have seen since then is growing chaos all over the planet.
Since the beginning of April, war has spread across Iraq. The murder in Falluja on March 31st of four American employees of the private security firm Blackwater, and the mutilation of their bodies, symbolised the opening of a new phase in the Iraq conflict. The armies of the Coalition, and above all of the US, are now facing not only an armed revolt by the Sunnis, but - and this is an new element - by the Shiites as well, since more and more of the latter have ranged themselves behind the young radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The Wall Street Journal asks, "Is this the key component of a national Islamic front uniting the Sunni and Shiite Arabs against foreign intrusion?" The policies of US imperialism in Iraq are thus threatening to provoke an alliance of convenience, heavy with consequences for the whole region, and which would have been totally unthinkable a few months ago. The American strategy of counting on the Shiite majority in Iraq in order to keep the lid on chaos and maintain control of the Iraqi Governing Council has really come to nought. This increasingly unrealistic plan now depends on the capacity of Ayatollah al-Sistani to control the Shiite population. The generalisation of war across the country shows that the situation is more and more escaping the control of US imperialism.
Despite the necessity to carry on with the ideological campaign justifying their armed presence in Iraq, the US administration is obliged to go some way towards recognising the mess that their troops are in. Thus Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence minister, had of course to declare that "this is a hard test of our determination but we will be equal to it". But he also had to admit, "the Shiite rebellion poses a serious problem".
Equally damaging for US authority since Rumsfeld made this admission has been the decision to withdraw its troops from the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah after pounding the city relentlessly for days, and to try to 'restore order' by bringing in an Iraqi army force under the command of a former Baathist general. In the same week the Americans' credibility as 'liberators' took a further blow when it was revealed that US soldiers had been torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners in one of Saddam's most notorious prisons (and before the British army could repeat its usual claims about having a more softly-softly approach than the crude Yanks, news of torture by British troops also got out).
The weakening of US leadership is now more and more being displayed on the world's TV networks. The imperialist policy of the Bush administration is a resounding failure.
Despite its crushing military superiority over all other countries, the USA does not have the ability to impose its will in Iraq. And this is all the more true in that the weakening of US leadership on the world scale sharpens the appetites of all the other imperialist powers. Amid the confusion reigning in Iraq today, armed terrorist groups are springing up everywhere. These more or less autonomous armed groups are united by one aim - to kick the American ogre out of Iraq. The radicalisation of these groups has been expressed by the growing practise of taking foreign civilians hostage, threatening to kill them if the occupying states don't withdraw their troops from Iraq. One Italian hostage has already been brutally murdered. But more characteristic of the state of imperialist tensions today is the role being played by Moqtada al-Sadr. His close links with Iran are well known. It seems very probable that the current insurrectionary stance of the Iraqi Shiites today has been actively supported by Iran. Iran is thus responding directly to American pressure against it. And despite this, Uncle Sam's current state of weakness is such that the US has had to ask officially for help from Iran in trying to resolve the current conflict. To get a real measure of the problems facing the US, we only have to recall the arrogant declarations thrown in the face of the world at the start of the war in Iraq a year ago. On 9 April 2003, at the annual convention of the American Society of News Editors, the US Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that in no circumstances would the US transfer control of the occupation of Iraq to the UN: "The president has clearly made it known that we won't do it�Our objective is to create and set in motion as quickly as possible an intermediary authority composed of Iraqis, and to transfer authority to them and not to the UN or any other external group". At that point Iraq had been included in the 'Axis of Evil' made up of 'rogue' states such as North Korea, Syria and Iran. These countries were publicly accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction and of being organisers of terrorism. They were clearly identified as potential military targets after Iraq had been dealt with. We can see where things stand today. Kamal Kharazi (the chief Iranian diplomat) said on April 6th that, "The USA has asked for Tehran's help to try to resolve the crisis and reduce the growing violence in Iraq". The head of the Iranian delegation currently in Baghdad declared: "we are here to get a clear idea of the situation and a better understanding of what's happening. There is no mediation". Things are clear for all these imperialist bandits. Everything has its price. And today, because it's in a situation of weakness, it's the US that has to pay its dues.
The development of war and chaos in Iraq does not at all bode well for the future. The priority of the US army is to neutralise Shiite support for Moqtada al-Sadr. With this aim they have begun an assault on Najaf and the neighbouring town of Kufa. Intervening in the holy city of Najaf can only be a factor of further destabilisation, not only in Iraq but also well beyond its borders. It will be an important step in the process of decomposition engulfing the whole region. The US attack on Najaf has already been opposed by the Iraqi Governing Council: "All the Shiite members of the IGC, included the laymen, will oppose such an attack and refuse to cooperate with the provisional authority of the coalition" (Courrier International, 15 April). This will also be the case with the religious leader Ayatollah al-Sistani, who up till now has been one of the few points of support for the US in the country.
There seems to be no port in the Iraqi storm for US imperialism. A majority of the American bourgeoisie has come round to this position. This is why they are pushing the candidature of the Democrat John Kerry so strongly for the next presidential elections. The American bourgeoisie has no choice but to try to limit the damage in Iraq and to find some kind of political solution - contrary to its whole approach at the start of the war. It is now being forced to appeal to its main imperialist rivals - France, Germany and Russia. The days when the USA declared that it didn't need anybody's help in the struggle against the 'Axis of Evil' are long gone. But even if Kerry came to power in place of the Bush administration, nothing would really be resolved. The New York Times pointed out that "John Kerry, was very much present in Washington, but he tried to avoid the Iraq question by focusing his interventions on the American economy. When the journalists insisted on him giving his opinion, he moved away from his prepared speech and launched into one of his most virulent attacks on Bush's policy in Iraq. But he was incapable of saying precisely what he would do if he himself was in command" (Courrier International, 8 April). Certainly the situation in Iraq obliges Kerry to envisage keeping US troops there. This inability of the American bourgeoisie to see a way of halting the erosion of US leadership on a world scale was also demonstrated in George Bush's press conference on 13 April. The Los Angeles Times found it highly significant that "faced with a situation in Iraq which is more and more escaping him, Bush insisted on his determination to make this country a stable democracy, without saying how that might come about". But an even more eloquent sign of the disarray of the American bourgeoisie occurred at this conference when a journalist asked Bush what lessons he drew from events since 11 September 2001. This is how the Washington Post describes it: "Bush stopped speaking, shook his head, apparently unable to come up with an answer to a question which he must have worked on a great deal with his advisers in preparation for the press conference. In the end, the only thing he was able to say was 'I am sure that an answer will come to mind in the very particular conditions of this press conference where you always have to have an answer for everything. But for the moment, it's not coming'" (Courrier International, 15 April).
Whatever the result of the next US presidential election, and however much it modifies its imperialist policy, the weakening of American leadership can only serve to deepen the chaos in Iraq and accelerate the global process of decomposition. The profound disarray and impotence of the world's leading power is a clear expression of this.
In the months ahead, Iraq is doomed to increasing bloodshed. The entrance of the Shiites into the conflict can only have deeply destabilising effects throughout the region, especially in Iran where they represent a major part of the population. Furthermore, while in Afghanistan the Karzai government and the American troops only control the capital and its immediate surroundings, the US administration has simply rubber stamped Sharon's expansionist policy on the West Bank of the Jordan. The embarrassed silence of a good part of the US bourgeoisie at the UN when Germany, France and Russia were denouncing Sharon's policy tells us a lot about the objectives of the USA's main imperialist rivals. To let the US get sucked into the mess in Iraq, to take advantage of its difficulties elsewhere in the world - this is the only real concern of these 'peace-loving' powers.
The impotence of the US bourgeoisie faced with the military chaos in Iraq is a concrete expression of the general impasse facing capitalist society as a whole. The whole world bourgeoisie faces the same situation, and this can only lead to increasingly warlike policies from all of them. The working class has to understand that decaying capitalism can only create more Iraqs across the planet - including in the heartlands of the system. The development of the situation in Iraq is a new confirmation that the future facing humanity is communism or the total destruction of civilisation.
Tino, 1/5/04.
The second part of this article in last month's World Revolution concluded that the failure of the SPGB to rise to the challenge of the First World War and the revolutionary wave meant that it "could not be part of the proletariat's forces". However, nor did it pass into the camp of the bourgeoisie. As a result "it came to occupy a position between the two great classes". What this meant became clear in the following decades and above all during the war in Spain and in the Second World War. Spain
The impact of the war in Spain in the late 1930s was such that "for one of the few occasions in its political lifetime the SPGB was split on a fundamental issue" (Perrin, The Socialist Party of Great Britain, p.111). One part of the party called for the defence of democracy, basing itself on the SPGB's own position that the revolution would be won through the democratic process: "Democracy opens up a new vista to the working class. Socialist parties can precede democracy, but they cannot have the character demanded by working class interests when the workers have attained political power...It is only because all necessary reforms have been won by reformers, and democracy has in consequence become a perfect political instrument for working-class political ends, that it is possible to organise the workers in a political party on non-reform, independent, hostile, class lines" (leaflet by Jacomb of the minority, quoted in Barltrop, The Monument, p.98). The majority, although proclaiming support for "the main body of the workers" against "those headed by Franco, who threaten to deprive the workers of the power to organise politically and industrially in their own interests" (Socialist Standard, March 1937, quoted ibid) took the position that "Democracy cannot be defended by fighting for it" (ibid, p99) and refused to support the republican side in the war. While Perrin describes this position as "circumspect" (p.111) and refers to "a marked attempt to steer a steady course between two incompatible positions" (ibid), Barltrop is more critical: "No stand was made or decision taken that would have rendered anyone's position untenable in the party; the Party had said it was on the side of the Spanish government and it had also said it would not support the Spanish government" (p.99). What this contradictory position really expressed was the contradictory position of the SPGB itself. On the one hand, its support for democracy was a fundamental concession to bourgeois ideology, while the call to defend democracy, which, as the minority pointed out, was consistent with the stated position of the party, opened the door to the betrayal of the working class. On the other hand, the refusal of the majority to follow this logic expressed a recognition, all confusions notwithstanding, that the war was really a capitalist one and so prevented the SPGB from supporting the war and betraying the working class.
One of the founding principles of the SPGB was that the democratic process provided the most effective means for the struggle for socialism. Basing itself on the correct position that the emancipation of the working class "must be the work of the working class itself" (Point 5 of the SPGB's Declaration of Principles) and that the struggle is a political one, the SPGB concluded that this meant that it was necessary for there to be an absolute majority of socialists before the revolution, and that this majority could be measured through the bourgeois electoral system. This view, for all the SPGB's vigorous criticism of reformism, showed the continuing weight of the one of the main reformist weaknesses of the Second International: its concessions to bourgeois democracy. It failed to recognise the nature of bourgeois democracy or to take account of how consciousness actually develops. The SPGB has recognised that the democratic bourgeoisie does not practice what it preaches but this has led it to a defence of the principle of democracy rather than a critique of it, such as was developed by the Italian Communist Left.
In 'The democratic principle [33]' (1) written in 1922, the Italian communist Bordiga showed the class nature of democracy: "Communism demonstrates that the formal juridical and political application of the democratic and majority principle to all citizens while society is divided into opposed classes in relation to the economy is incapable of making the state an organisational unit of the whole society or the whole nation. Officially that is what political democracy claims to be, whereas in reality it is the form suited to the power of the capitalist class, to the dictatorship of this particular class, for the purpose of preserving its privileges". The very form of democracy, in that it reduces the proletariat to a mass of isolated individuals, is an expression of bourgeois ideology since it denies the existence and primacy of classes - a denial that is necessarily in the interests of the dominant class.
The class nature of democracy was exposed in practice by the Italian Fraction of the Communist Left in its journal Bilan when it dealt with the events in Spain in the 1930s. Far from being a step forward for the working class in Spain, the Republican government was introduced as the most effective means of combating it: "the Republic has appeared as the specific form for anti-working class repression, the form which best corresponds to the interests of capitalism, because as well as being able to resort to bloody repression it can count on the support of the UGT and the Socialist Party" (Bilan no.33, 1936, republished in International Review no.4, 1976). Time and again the governments of the republic, whether 'left' or 'right', did not hesitate to massacre the workers, as for example, after the Asturian insurrection of 1934. Following the putsch by Franco in 1936 and the start of the war in Spain the majority of the Fraction recognised that it was an imperialist war in which the ideology of democracy was used to enrol the working class.
The SPGB has never made any such critique of democracy and, in fact, through its defence of the democratic principle it actually reinforces one of the greatest obstacles facing the working class. Reflecting and in turn strengthening this is the SPGB's conception of the development of consciousness as an accumulation of individual socialists rather than a class process. As an accumulation it becomes a matter of sufficient number, hence the fixation on getting a majority of the working class "to muster under its banner" (Declaration of Principles, point 8). As a process it is above all a question of a class dynamic, hence there is a qualitative as well as a quantitative aspect. The development of consciousness as a class process has two aspects - its breadth and also its depth. The communist organisation forms the vanguard the SPGB so objects to because of the depth of its consciousness and its will to struggle. The communist vanguard is not outside the working class but merely at the head of the movement of the whole class. The revolution certainly requires the spread of socialist or communist consciousness within the working class and it has to reach a certain maturity before the revolution is possible. The overthrow of capitalism requires a political force greater than that of the bourgeoisie and the strength of this force depends above all on its consciousness; but it is the consciousness of a class, not a mass of individuals and, as such, the class may achieve this decisive force before the mathematical majority of proletarians have each fully developed their individual consciousness. The communist revolution is about the transformation of human relations and this is not something that can be decreed when, in parliamentary fashion, the winning majority is assembled.
The outcome of the SPGB's individualist approach was to leave the Spanish proletariat to its own devices: "It must be assumed that the Spanish workers weighed up the situation and counted the cost before deciding their course of action. This is a matter upon which their judgement should be better than that of people outside the country" (Socialist Standard, March 1937, quoted Barltrop, p98-9).
In 1936 the SPGB produced a pamphlet War and the Working Class, in which it declared war to be an inevitable product of capitalism and opposed any participation by the working class: "There is only one safe rule for the working class to follow when urged by the capitalists to support capitalist wars. No matter what form the appeal may take, they should examine the question in the light of working class interests. Ask yourself the question: 'have the working class of one nation any interest in slaughtering (and being slaughtered by) the workers of another?'...'Have they any interest in supporting one national section of the capitalist world against another'"; "War...solves no problem of the working class. Victory and defeat alike leave them in the same position...They have no interest at stake which justifies giving support to war" (quoted in War and Capitalism, SPGB (2), 1996). In the issue of Socialist Standard following the declaration of war the Executive Committee printed a statement which reiterated the position that the war was a product of capitalism and denounced both sides in the war. It expressed its concern at the "sufferings of the German workers under Nazi rule", declared its wholehearted support for "the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights" but repeated its position on "the futility of war as a means of safeguarding democracy". It called on workers to refuse to accept the prospect of war and "to recognise that only Socialism will end war". It concluded by repeating the expression of "goodwill and socialist fraternity" to all workers that it had made in 1914.
However, as a result of its failure to understand the issues of democracy and consciousness, that is, to understand the real historical context of the class struggle, the SPGB's opposition to the war remained trapped in the individualist and essentially pacifist refusal to participate in the war and, hence, within the framework of bourgeois ideology.
In June 1940, faced with the threat of prosecution under the Defence Regulations the party voluntarily censored itself, the Executive deciding not to publish anti-war material in the Socialist Standard, while plans to republish War and Socialism were dropped. As a consequence the Socialist Standard continued to appear throughout the war, filled with 'historical' and 'theoretical' articles. The government allowed a number of other papers to continue, including Peace News, the ILP's paper New Leader, and the anarchist War Commentary. Further, unlike during the previous war, the party was also able to continue holding public meetings, often attracting large audiences. Both Barltrop and Perrin, in their histories of the SPGB, underline the difference between the response of the working class in 1914 and 1939 towards those expressing anti-war views.
As in the First World War the party's main form of opposition was the individual conscientious objection of its militants. But here again the situation was different: the government created a legal process for conscientious objectors, including the grounds that would be accepted. The party saw an influx of members, reaching 800 at its peak; and it is clear that many saw membership as a way to increase their chances of being accepted as a conscientious objector since numbers declined rapidly after the war. The status of conscientious objector was not presented with such hostility as in the last war and Barltrop comments that "The treatment of conscientious objectors by the government in wartime was surprisingly reasonable" (p.113).
What this suggests is that the state understood what it was doing: it was using various organisations, including the SPGB, as a way of containing the opposition to the war that it knew would develop in the working class. Its method was to channel any such opposition into an individual and pacifist form that neither threatened the state practically, by encouraging workers to organise on a class basis, nor theoretically, by deepening class consciousness.
This contrasts sharply with elements of the left communist milieu who, despite their dispersal and the exceptionally difficult conditions in which they worked in Europe, maintained an intervention against the war, risking their lives for example to produce and distribute leaflets denouncing the war. Even more importantly, as we show in our book The Italian Communist Left, they were able to make important theoretical advances on such issues as the nature of the USSR and the role of war in capitalism. Thus while the left communists had no significance at a quantitative level they made a vital contribution at the qualitative level through the deepening of class consciousness. Their personal sacrifices were not aimed at setting an individual example but at the collective defence of the class. As a result, even in the midst of the most terrible imperialist war in history, at the time of the physical and ideological defeat of the working class, they struck a real blow against the rule of the bourgeoisie.
North, 1/5/04.
Notes
From Revolution Internationale no. 64
In the previous articles in this series, we have seen:
For a long time revolutionaries, along with the proletariat as a whole, have groped for an answer to the question: how will the workers organise themselves to make the revolution? In earlier times (from Babeuf to Blanqui) small conspiratorial sects were in favour. Subsequently, different workers' societies, such as trade unions or co-operatives, like those gathered inside the International Workers' Association (First International founded in 1864) seemed to represent this self-organisation of the working class with a view to its emancipation. Then the great mass parties assembled in the Second International (1889-1914), and the unions attached to them, presented themselves as the lever for transforming society. But history shows that if these forms of organisation corresponded to stages of development in the capacity of the working class to struggle against exploitation, and to become conscious of the goals of this struggle, none of them were appropriate for the actual accomplishment of its historic task: the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of communism. It is when the historic conditions of capitalism itself put the proletarian revolution on the agenda that the working class found a suitable form of organisation to carry it out: the workers' councils. Their appearance in Russia in 1905 signified a turning point in the history of capitalist society: the end of its progressive epoch, its entry into decadence, into "the era of imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions" as revolutionaries subsequently understood it. Similarly, if since Blanqui revolutionaries understood the necessity for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a lever for the transformation of society, the concrete form that this dictatorship would take only became clear with the experience of the class itself, and even then with some delay. Falling into step with the old conceptions of Marx and Engels, Trotsky, who nevertheless played a decisive role at the head of the Soviet (workers' council) of Petrograd, could still write in 1906, twenty-five years after 1871: "International socialism considers that the republic is the only form possible for the socialist emancipation, on the condition that the proletariat tears it from the hands of the bourgeoisie and transforms it, 'from a machine for the oppression of one class by another' into an arm for the socialist emancipation of humanity".
Thus, for a long time, a 'real democratic republic' in which the proletarian party would play the leading role was seen as the shape and form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's only with the revolution of 1917 in Russia that revolutionaries, and in particular Lenin, understood clearly that the "finally found form" of the dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing other than the power of the workers' councils, these organs which appeared spontaneously from 1905 during the course of the revolutionary struggle and which were characterised by:
This specific form of organisation of the working class is directly adapted to the tasks which await the proletariat in the revolution.
In the first place, this is a general organisation of the class, regrouping all of the workers. Previously, all forms of organisation , including the unions, only regrouped a part of the class. While that was enough for the working class to exert pressure on capitalism in order to defend its interests within the system, it is only through self-organisation in its totality that the class is able to carry out the destruction of the capitalist system and establish communism. For the bourgeoisie to make its revolution, it was enough for a part of this class to take power; this is because it only constituted a small part of the population, because it was an exploiting class, and because only a minority of the bourgeoisie itself could raise itself above the conflicts of interests generated by the economic rivalries between its various sectors. On the other hand, such rivalries don't exist within the working class. At the same time, because the society that it is called upon to establish abolishes all exploitation and all division into classes, the movement that it leads is " that of the immense majority for the benefit of the immense majority" (Communist Manifesto). Therefore only the self-organisation of the class as a whole is up to accomplishing its historic task.
In the second place, the election and instant revocability of different officers expresses the eminently dynamic character of the revolutionary process - the perpetual overturning of social conditions and the constant development of class consciousness. In such a process, those who have been nominated for such and such a task, or because their level of understanding corresponds to a given level of consciousness in the class, are no longer necessarily up to speed when new tasks arise or when this level of consciousness evolves.
Election and revocability of delegates equally expresses the rejection by the class of all definitive specialisation, of all division within itself between masses and 'leaders'. The essential function of the latter (the most advanced elements of the class) is in fact to do everything they can to eliminate the conditions that provoked their appearance: the heterogeneity of consciousness within the class.
If permanent officials could exist in the unions, even when they were still organs of the working class, it was due to the fact that these organs for the defence of workers' interests within capitalist society bore certain characteristics of this society. Similarly, when it used specifically bourgeois instruments such as universal suffrage and parliament, the proletariat reproduced within itself certain traits of its bourgeois enemy as it cohabited with it. The static union form of organisation expressed the method of struggle of the working class when the revolution was not yet possible. The dynamic form of workers' councils is in the image of the task that is finally on the order of the day: the communist revolution.
Similarly, the unity between taking a decision and applying it expresses this same rejection by the revolutionary class of all institutionalised specialisation. It shows that it is the whole of the class that not only takes the essential decisions that concern it, but also participates in the practical transformation of society.
In the third place, organisation on a territorial basis and no longer trade or industrial expresses the different nature of the proletariat's tasks. When it was solely a question of putting pressure on an employer's association for an increase in wages or for better working conditions, organisation by trade or by industrial branch made sense. Even an organisation as archaic as the craft-based trade union was efficiently used by the workers against exploitation; in particular, it prevented the bosses calling in other workers of the trade when there was a strike. The solidarity between printers, cigar makers or bronze gilders was the embryo of real class solidarity, a stage in the unification of the working class. Even with the weight of capitalist distinctions and divisions upon it, the union organisation was a real means of struggle within the system. On the other hand, when it was a question not of standing up to this or that sector of capitalism, but of confronting it in its totality, of destroying it and establishing another society, the specific organisation of printers or of rubber industry workers could make no sense. In order to take charge of the whole of society, it is only on the territorial basis that the working class can organise itself, even if the base assemblies are held at the level of a factory, office, hospital or industrial estate.
Such a tendency already exists at the present time in the immediate struggle against exploitation. Here again there is a profound tendency to break out of the union form and to organise in sovereign general assemblies, to form elected and revocable strike committees, to spill over professional or industrial boundaries and to extend at the territorial level.
This tendency expresses the fact that, in its period of decadence, capitalism takes on a more and more statified form. In these conditions, the old distinction between political struggles (which were the prerogative of the workers' parties in the past) and economic struggles (for which the unions had responsibility) makes less and less sense. Every serious economic struggle becomes political and confronts the state: either its police, or its representatives in the factory - the unions. This also indicates the profound significance of the present struggles as preparations for the decisive confrontations of the revolutionary period. Even if it is an economic factor (crisis, intolerable aggravation of exploitation) which hurls the workers into these confrontations, the tasks which are subsequently presented to them are eminently political: frontal and armed attack against the bourgeois state, establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletarian revolution: political power as a basis for social transformation
This unity between politics and economics expressed by the organisation of the proletariat into workers' councils requires some elucidation. Which aspect is primary?
Communists since Babeuf have recognised that, in the proletarian revolution, the political aspect precedes and conditions the economic. That is a schema completely opposed to the one that prevailed in the bourgeois revolution. The capitalist economy developed inside feudal society, in the chinks of the latter one could say. The new revolutionary class, the bourgeoisie, could thus conquer economic power in society while the political and administrative structures were still linked to feudalism (absolute monarchy, economic and political privileges of the nobility, etc.). It is only when the capitalist mode of production became dominant, when it was conditioning the whole of economic life (including those sectors which weren't directly capitalist, such as small scale agricultural and craft production), that the bourgeoisie launched its assault on the political power. This in turn enabled it to adapt the latter to its specific needs and lay the ground for a new economic expansion. This is what it did, notably with the English revolution of the 1640s and the French revolution of 1789. In this sense the bourgeois revolution completed a whole period of transition during the course of which it developed inside feudal society, until it came to the point of supplanting it on the basis of a new economic organisation of society. The schema of the proletarian revolution is quite another thing. In capitalist society, the working class possesses no property, no established material springboard for its future domination of society. All the attempts inspired by utopian or Proudhonist conceptions have failed: the proletariat cannot create 'islands' of communism in present-day society. All the workers' communities or cooperatives have either been destroyed or recuperated by capitalism. Babeuf, Blanqui and Marx understood this against the utopians, Proudhon and the anarchists. The taking of political power by the proletariat is the point of departure of its revolution, the lever with which it will progressively transform the economic life of society with the perspective of abolishing all economy. It is for that reason that, as Marx wrote: "Without revolution, socialism cannot be realised. It needs this political act, inasmuch as it needs destruction and dissolution. But here its organising activity begins and here its own aim emerges; its soul, socialism rejects its political envelope" (Poverty of Philosophy).
Inasmuch as capitalism had already created its economic base at the time of the bourgeois revolution, the latter was essentially political. The revolution of the proletariat, on the contrary, begins with a political act that conditions the development not only of its economic aspects, but also above all of its social aspects.
Thus, the workers' councils are in no way organs of 'self-management', organs for the management of the capitalist economy (ie., of misery). They are political organs whose primary tasks are to destroy the capitalist state and establish the proletarian dictatorship on a world scale. But they are also organs for the economic and social transformation of society, and this aspect makes itself felt from the very start of the revolutionary process (expropriation of the bourgeoisie, organisation of essential supplies for the population etc). With the political defeat of the bourgeoisie, the economic and social dimension will more and more come into its own.
This year sees the 60th anniversary of some of the final acts of the end of the Second World War. From Washington to London to the beaches of Normandy, one of the central ideological themes of the Allies' commemorations has been the continuity between the 'Good War' against fascism, and the post 9/11 'War on Terror'.
In his radio address on the day of the dedication of the National World War II Memorial in Washington, George Bush said that, "this Memorial will stand forever as a tribute to the generation that fought that war, and to the more than 400,000 Americans who gave their lives. Because of their sacrifice, tyrants fell; fascism and Nazism were vanquished; and freedom prevailed." (https://www.whitehouse.gov [35], 29/5/04). Indeed, the construction of the Memorial itself is the result of a long campaign by those in the media who hyped up the mythology of the 'Great Generation' (epitomised by the film 'Saving Private Ryan' and the TV series 'Band of Brothers'). In reply to this campaign, Internationalism - the ICC's section in the US - pointed that "the media has been intent on demonstrating that wars can be good, wars can be popular, and that war is heroic. They are trying to take advantage of the aging veterans who are reportedly dying at the rate of several thousand a day - the fathers and grandfathers of the current generations of the working class, which has not been ideologically defeated by the ruling class and convinced to sacrifice itself for imperialism - to glorify the "honor" of imperialist slaughter." ('Remembering the 'Greatest Generation': Media campaign to glorify imperialism [36]', Inter 116, Feb/Mar 2001).
For Bush, the same 'great honour' has befallen the sons and daughters of the Great Generation. "Today, freedom faces new enemies, and a new generation of Americans has stepped forward to defeat them. Since the hour this nation was attacked on September the 11th, 2001, we have seen the character of the men and women who wear our country's uniform. In places like Kabul and Kandahar, Mosul and Baghdad, we have seen their decency and brave spirit. And because of their fierce courage, America is safer. And two terror regimes are gone forever, and more than 50 million souls now live in freedom." (ibid). Of course, there are those rivals of the US that are unhappy with the portrayal of the most recent war in Iraq as a "Good War", particularly in France (and also some within the British bourgeoisie). Referring to Bush's planned visit to the Normandy beaches in early June, one of the French Presidents' close advisors is reported to have said, "He'd better not go too far down the road of making a historical comparison because it's likely to backfire on him... [T]he French would not appreciate any public mention linking the events. Photographs of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisons do not sit well with the image of D-Day heroes." ('Bush warned against comparing D-Day to Iraq', The Guardian, 2/6/04.)
Furthermore, while some may make criticisms of the US in drawing an analogy between the 'Good War' against fascism and the letter day 'War on Terrorism', the underlying assumption remains that WWII was somehow 'different', heroic and above criticism. Indeed, the mythology of WWII is such a key to all current bourgeois propaganda that it is considered insane (or fascist) to be against it! The ICC has on several occasions had to defend the PCI's article 'Auschwitz or the Grand Alibi' against those who accuse it of being somehow revisionist (see 'Nazism and democracy share the guilt for the massacre of the Jews [37]', IR113). However, WWII was different from previous wars in two respects. Firstly in the total ideological defeat inflicted upon the working class since the end of the international revolutionary wave of 1917-24: the bourgeoisie had learnt that to avoid a repeat of October 1917 it had to have the working class fully supportive of the 'national interest'.
Secondly WWII was unique in the unprecedented level of barbarism on both sides. "For five years the world was shaken by an orgy of destruction and unprecedented levels of barbarity. The most obvious expression of this was the Nazi death camps and the wholesale genocide against the Jews, gypsies etc. But this barbarity was seized upon by the Allies at the end of the war to serve as an alibi for their own slaughter of millions of innocent people in the war. This slaughter took many forms: the policy of terror bombing all German cities ("An offensive of extensive bombing could sap the morale of the enemy providing it is directed against the working class areas of the 58 German towns which have a population of more than 100,000..." - Linndeman, Churchill's adviser, March 1942, quoted in International Review No 66); the bombing of cities in France and other occupied areas during the war and after D-day (for example Caen and St Malo were flattened in '44); the carefully calculated atomic liquidation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the forced starvation of millions in West Bengal in 1943 - approximately three million died when the crops were taken to feed the troops... As regards the death camps, the Allies didn't mention them until the end of the war, though they knew about them. In fact when then the SS offered to release a million Jews in exchange for 10,000 lorries or other goods the Allies refused. In 1943, Roosevelt made clear the thinking behind such a refusal: "transporting so many people would disorganise the war effort" (Churchill's Memoirs, Vol 10). Thus, the refusal to help the Jews, the starvation and bombing of civilian populations were not signs of moral weakness but part of the logic of imperialism: nothing must get in the way of the war effort." ('Imperialist slaughter dressed up as democracy [38]', WR227, September 1999).
The main idea the bourgeoisie would have the working class believe is that it owes its 'freedom' and 'security' to those imperialist nations who defeated their rivals, that war is a 'necessary evil' if 'freedom' is to be victorious. Again Bush says, "Through our history, America has gone to war reluctantly because we have known the costs of war... Those who have paid those costs have given us every moment we live in freedom, and every living American is in their debt." (ibid.) A freedom which has seen more deaths from imperialist war since World War Two than during it. Every moment where children die from curable diseases and starve while food is destroyed because it can't be sold profitably. Every moment workers receive their redundancy notices and their whole lives and families are thrown into chaos and insecurity. Every moment where mothers hold their babies infected with HIV not knowing which of them will survive the longest. Every moment rainforests are cleared and turned into deserts
While the bourgeoisie seek to cynically manipulate the remaining veterans of D-Day, encouraging them to relive times they'd much rather forget - capturing on video their tears and sorrow - the responsibility of the communist left is to remind the working class that while millions of workers were slaughtering each other on the beaches of Northern France and elsewhere, there still remained tiny minorities who had remained faithful to the proletarian principles of internationalism. On this 60th anniversary of D-Day we are again republishing the Manifesto of the Communist Left to the Workers of Europe (June 1944). We hope that this Manifesto will speak to the 'New Generation' of how all wars in the epoch of capitalism's decadence are imperialist, that they are never in the interests of the working class. And most importantly of all, the Manifesto points to the Russian Revolution, which was the proletariat's answer to the horrors of the First World War, and is a beacon that proves that the only way to bring permanent relief from the infernal spiral of capitalist war and economic crisis is the communist revolution of the proletariat.
As we said in 2001, "Rather than celebrate the imperialist butchery as the bourgeois ideological campaign tries to do, to genuinely honour the suffering and hardships of our fathers and grandfathers requires that the working class today guarantee that capitalism will never again lead humanity into another orgy of destruction and murder, that the working class today destroy the capitalist system. This generation, and the generations to come, have challenges waiting. There is a real need to fight the most important war, the war against the decadent capitalist system. Such a revolutionary struggle, on an international scale, can develop the basis for a new society freed from the rule of capital and controlled by the vast majority of the population - the proletariat." (Inter 116 [36]).
Trevor, 3/6/04.
This article was written for our German publication Weltrevolution, no 118 ('Internationalist voices against the war'). It was written in response to a growing number of groups and elements who are searching for an internationalist response to the capitalist war-drive. As such its arguments are not merely of local significance but can be applied to many similar efforts throughout the world, including Britain. We will come back to some of the latter in another issue of WR.
When the Iraq war was unleashed a year ago there were a number of voices that took up a postion against the war from an internationalist point of view and which unequivocally denounced both imperialist sides. In our press we mentioned several of these voices Apart from the importance of the condemnation of the war from the point of view of the working class and the denunciation of the so-called 'peace camp' (Germany, France etc.), we pointed out that there are a number of different approaches to explaining the roots of the war. Now, one year after the war, we want to come back to some of these explanations, because revolutionaries are obliged to verify their analysis of the situation and the perspectives in the light of reality.
Why was the war waged? One central theme of the explanations of some groups was that the war was unleashed in order to give a boost to the economy. Thus the Frankfurt Proletarian Circle wrote: "Imperialist wars are not just a simple mistake of the system, a mere coincidence, which flows from the antagonistic interests of the states and the companies and their struggle to acquire oil. Wars are an expression of the crisis of the capitalist world system. A promising way out of this economic crisis, which all the industrial states are presently experiencing, is war. This is the option that the USA is presently choosing. Since capitalism is constantly hit by the crisis, the violent destruction of commodities and capital, the redistribution of the market, resources and zones of influence - that is war - have become a cyclical necessity. The 'peaceful' roads of capital maximisation, as we constantly see them in the form of mass lay-offs, worsening of the relations of exploitation, destruction of social welfare and hostile take-over bids, are no longer sufficient for the long-term profit maximisation." ('No peace in Iraq, no peace with the imperialist system!') Unfortunately we do not know what the comrades of the Proletarian Circle say about the subsequent developments because the circle has since dissolved.
On the one hand, the war filled the pockets of the armaments companies and those companies who received contracts through the reconstruction programme. But does it mean that the US economy has recovered since the war? Is the economy about to recover?
According to US figures, the costs of the war during its 'hottest phase' amounted to some $70 billion - if there are any realistic figures at all. To these figures we have to add the cost of the occupation forces: 145,000 US-soldiers require about $1 billion a week, which amounts to more than $50 billion a year - with no end of the occupation in sight. Furthermore, we have not mentioned the cost of the British, Polish, Spanish, Korean, Japanese troops, and that the cost of their maintenance is also being financed to some extent by the USA. The total costs of the war far exceed the revenue of the armaments companies and of those companies that received contracts for reconstruction.
The idea that war serves as a boost for the economy is a naive miscalculation, because in reality this war will mean a gigantic blood letting, a real haemorrhage, for the US state and for US capital. Both the immediate costs of war as well as the entire armaments programme adopted under Bush have led to the biggest budget deficit in the history of the USA. While the budget surplus during Clinton's last year in office was still $120 billion (due to the brutal austerity policy of the Democratic President at the expense of the working class), now, after 3 years of intensive rearmament under the Bush administration, the USA will be facing a deficit of more than $500 billion. All in all, this amounts to an increase of more than $600 billion. In 2005 armaments expenditure is scheduled to rise by 7% to $402 billion, yet the cost of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet included in these figures. In 2003 alone, the USA spent some $10 billion for its 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, while the country itself received only some $600 million in 'development aid'. The budget of the Ministry for Homeland Defence is scheduled to increase by 10% to $33.8 billion. Thus under Bush 'defence expenditure' will have risen by a third. What were these $600 billion spent on? Maybe a small portion on civilian recovery programmes (certainly not on programmes for fighting poverty), but a large part has certainly been poured into the war machine.
Contrary to the position of the Frankfurt Proletarian Circle, the ICC thinks that, "The wars of decadence, unlike the wars of ascendancy, do not make economic sense. Contrary to the view that war is 'good' for the health of the economy, war today both expresses and aggravates its incurable sickness�War is the ruin of capital - both a product of its decline and a factor in its acceleration. The development of a bloated war economy does not offer a solution to the crisis of capitalism...The war economy does not exist for itself but because capitalism in decadence is obliged to go through war after war after war, and to increasingly subsume the entire economy to the needs of war. This creates a tremendous drain on the economy because this expenditure is fundamentally sterile...The present war in the Gulf, and more generally the whole 'war against terror', is linked to a vast increase of arms spending designed to totally eclipse the arms budgets of the rest of the world combined." (from the 'Resolution on international situation', adopted by the 15th International Congress of the ICC, which took place at the time of the war).
From an economic point of view the goals of the war have become more and more irrational. Because of the war the US state undermines the competitiveness of its economy. Even if some armaments companies make gigantic profits, the US state itself has to increase its debts astronomically. The money that flows into the pockets of the armaments companies in reality is financed by the credit policy of the US state, which is forced to collect money everywhere for financing the war machinery. But unlike 1991, when the costs of the war (some $60 billion) were financed collectively by the 'Coalition', the US is now forced to finance most of the cost of the war itself. At the recent Madrid 'donor conference', where the US had hoped to collect some $36 billion for the next four years, they received a blank refusal from the other states. The US only collected $13 billion, which was given not as grants but as credits. In addition, most of the money designated for reconstruction has been spent on financing the USA's military presence: it was not spent on the actual reconstruction. In 2003, out of the total special US budget funds for Iraq of $80 billion, only $20 billion was actually spent on reconstruction programmes. The largest part was swallowed by the costs of the occupation. The relationship between the military and 'civilian' expenditure is approximately 3:1.
In decadent capitalism wars do not serve to boost the economy. It is not the economy that chooses the option of war, but it is militarism that has imposed its laws more and more on the economy. (See Chapter 7 of our pamphlet The Decadence of Capitalism).
Another major element of explanation put forward by many groups was that it was a 'war for oil'.
Attac and other leftist groups claim that Bush is only a puppet of the oil industry. For them it was above all Vice-President Dick Cheney - as the man of the oil and construction industry - who was the driving force in the war against Iraq, who had imposed the idea of controlling the oil resources in the region onto the US state. Even if the groups of the internationalist camp do not repeat this crude argument, some place their whole emphasis on the importance of oil resources and the control of oil prices. Thus a representative of the Berlin group Aufbrechen explained months before the war at a discussion in Berlin: "Antagonistic interests are clashing with each other. The question is who controls the oil tap? Oil is not only the last raw material that cannot be replaced by synthetics, but because of its central role in the production of energy it has become the 'lubricant' for the capitalist economy. This is why a low crude oil price corresponds best to the conditions of accumulation of capital, in order to achieve high profits and to keep the costs of reproduction of the proletariat in the industrial countries low�For Washington, the long-term and direct control of the second biggest oil reserves of the world seems more important than a low oil price in the short-term [with a special reference to the instability and the significance of Saudi-Arabia]. In this context, the oil reserves of Iraq have moved into the focus of the US administration, which is known as a lobby of the US oil industry" (Leaflet of invitation to a public debate by Aufbrechen, Gruppe Internationale Sozialisten, November 2002).
Can the war be explained by 'local' factors (availability of raw materials) and the respective role and importance of these raw materials in the economy? What link is there between the availability of raw materials and the development of militarism?
The booty the US has received so far from the oil wells is fairly 'modest' to say the least. One year after the war, oil production has not really got off the ground. In January 2004, Iraqi oil production reached 2.2 million barrels, out of which 1.8 million are exported. Before the war production capacity was around 3.5 million barrels. So far, the hope that Iraqi oil resources might enrich the oil companies has not materialised: it was hoped that Iraqi oil revenues might pour some $25-$50 billion into the pockets of the oil companies. In order to bring in this amount of money, Iraqi oil production would have to be increased to 7 million barrels a day. But oil pipelines are being destroyed repeatedly through sabotage. Years will go by before the Iraqi oil infrastructure is sufficiently modernised. Moreover it's not at all clear what proportion of the oil profits from Iraq will indeed flow into the pockets of US companies. One year after the Iraq war the oil price was at around the same level as before the war. The Iraqi oil revenues will neither be sufficient to boost the economy of the country nor will they be sufficient to cover the war funds of the USA.
Furthermore, the situation today is not comparable to the situation after the Second World War, when in the midst of a ruined Europe, with the biggest destruction above all in Germany, the Marshall Plan served as a lever to initiate a 20 year long reconstruction period. In addition, the USA has so much debt today that it has to go and beg for money: without the billions that other countries invest in the USA, the US economy could not survive. Also it is now obvious that US troops - and other troops who are part of the US-led alliance, as well as Iraqi police and other state institutions - have become the preferred targets for terrorist attacks. This is not a favourable environment for US business activities or foreign investment.
If the US has not shied away from the gigantic costs involved, even if no (short-term) economic benefit can be drawn from this, then why did they unleash the war? What key role does the Middle East play?
After September 11th the USA placed its global strategy at a higher level: "The 'war against terrorism' was immediately announced as a permanent and planet-wide military offensive. Faced with an increasing challenge from its principal imperialist rivals...the USA opted for a policy of much more massive and direct military intervention, with the strategic goal of the encirclement of Europe and Russia by gaining control of Central Asia and the Middle East" (International Review 113 'Resolution on the international situation', April 2003, point 6).
Against this background of the global geo-strategic approach of the US bourgeoisie, where it is the only superpower left since the collapse of the Russian bloc, where it has to confront any new possible challenge to its hegemony with the greatest determination, where it must not stop short of using any means, and where the US aims to encircle Europe and Russia in the long-term, it is indispensable to have an additional tool for blackmailing its rivals other than its direct military domination. For the US it is of decisive importance for it to be able to exploit Japanese and European dependency on oil supplies from the Middle East. If they can close the oil tap whenever they like, then on this level the US has scored an important point, because while the US are occupying Iraq the Europeans cannot get access to the Iraqi oil without the permission of the US. Consequently, most of the European states and Russia will have no option but to try to push the US out of Iraq.
But even this strategically important point that the US has scored, which gives it a considerable advantage, has turned out to be a double-edged sword. US intervention has unleashed a spiral of terror and chaos in the region. This can only contribute to the undermining of US influence in the Middle East and thus offer America's rivals more room for manoeuvre.
The explanation that the Iraq conflict was a 'war for oil' cannot offer a sufficient explanation if the US finds itself in an increasingly worsening quagmire. We can see that wars have increasingly detached themselves from a simple cost-benefit calculation and the needs of the military have become prevalent.
War has become the mode of survival of the decadent capitalist system: "Imperialist policy is not the policy of one or of some states, it is the product of a certain level of development in the world development of capital, a profoundly international phenomena, an indivisible totality, which can only be understood in its global context and that no state can escape from." (Rosa Luxemburg, Junius Pamphlet)
For reasons of space we cannot deal with other types of explanation of the war. However, those groups that a year ago said that Europe was acting as a single bloc against the USA should verify their analyses in the light of reality: developments have since confirmed that Europe is not a unit. And those who saw behind the Iraq war the defence of the predominant position of the US currency - and thought that the war was unleashed because the USA wanted the oil-trade to continue to be paid in US dollars - also have to put their analysis into question. The reasons why the value of the dollar has continued to fall need answering, and why the euro for some time now has reached record heights against the dollar. Even if the exchange rates are determined by different factors, we can still see - one year after the war - that the US dollar has not been able to strengthen its position.
Instead of boosting the economy, instead of pouring gigantic sums into the pockets of the oil-companies, the spiral of war has not only worsened in Iraq but in the whole Middle East. To reduce this worsening of barbarism to some simple economic calculation would be to underestimate the impasse of the capitalist system. Therefore, the Iraq war should force us to draw a more profound balance sheet on the prospects of the capitalist system as a whole.
Da, 15/3/04.
On May 1 2003 George Bush said that the war in Iraq was over and won. Since then the likes of Rumsfeld have had to acknowledge a "war that is complicated and difficult". The occupation forces led by the US now talk about "uprisings" across the country. With the Iraqi population caught in the chaos and the crossfire, with many deceived into joining pro- or anti-US militias, this is just what the capitalist left has been hoping for. Against the repression and torture of the occupation they celebrate the car bombs, kidnappings and land mines of the 'resistance'.
Last November Tariq Ali speculated whether guerrilla warfare would turn into "an Iraqi National Liberation Front". According to his leftist co-thinkers that wish has come true. The Weekly Worker (15/4/4) has announced that "the situation has been transformed. The entry of previously uncommitted forces - Shia Islamist forces with real mass support and roots - into open armed opposition has produced a real confrontation of the masses themselves with the coalition. � The real war of national liberation has begun". The World Socialist Web Site cheers a "broad and popular movement" and a "heroic and justified nationwide uprising against colonial repression". And although WW (22/4/4) is concerned about "the influence of clerical and reactionary elements" and WSWS warns of attempts to divide the "resistance", there is no mistaking their enthusiasm for "a movement of Iraq's urban poor and most oppressed" (WSWS) dying in the cause of Iraqi nationalism.
In a previous article (WR 270) we showed that it was entirely appropriate that the leftists should compare the Iraqi 'resistance' to the underground guerrilla forces active in France during the Second World War. The French resistance was a weapon of Allied imperialism that, regardless of allegiance to De Gaulle or Stalin, was against the working class defending its class interests in time of war. Yet at WSWS (7/4/4) you can read that "The Iraqi resistance against US occupation is just as legitimate as the struggles waged by the French resistance against German occupation in the 1940s and the liberation struggles that swept the colonial countries in the 1960s and 1970s."
In this respect the leftists have been consistent. They wanted workers to abandon any concern for their own class interests and enrol for the imperialist Allies who fought under the 'anti-fascist' banner. During the Cold War, when 'national liberation struggles' were part of the conflict between the Russian and American imperialist blocs, the leftists continued to defend the national interests of the bourgeoisie against the class interests of the proletariat. And now the leftists are the foremost advocates of an Iraqi capitalism without the presence of foreign troops. They complain that the 'resistance' has been slandered as former supporters of Saddam, religious fanatics or foreign terrorists. While some of these descriptions are applicable, the fundamental point for the working class to remember is that it is being asked to die in a war between different capitalist factions - whether under the flag of 'freedom', democracy and the 'war on terror', or behind opposing forces proclaiming their loyalty to Islam, 'socialism' or Iraqi integrity.
The language of the 'resistance' and its supporters also echoes that of 1939-45. Many forces are dismissed as pro-US 'puppets' and 'collaborators'. Yet the Shia forces of Moqtada al-Sadr, the Jaish al-Mahdi militia that has so inspired the leftists, have functioned just like the supposed 'traitors'. "An apparent deal is being struck under which many of the gunmen would be absorbed into a legal Iraqi force which will take over security of the two holy cities and allow the US military to withdraw. A similar agreement was reached last month to end the fighting in the Sunni city of Falluja" (Guardian 13/5/4). For real working class internationalism against its leftist distortions
To make sure there can be no misunderstanding of their positions, a number of leftist groups have made it clear that they oppose any hesitations in supporting the 'resistance'. In practice this tends to mean that they don't share the current views of the Worker Communist Party of Iraq on the current conflict, even though they have enormous respect for the WCPI's work in the unions etc.
The WCPI's position is superficially 'radical'. They say they don't support "nationalism and defending the lands and waters of the homeland". They say "Occupation" and "Resistance" are "two poles within the same reactionary camp". Yet their analysis doesn't take them away from the logic of leftism. In a text first published in International Weekly (30/1/4) they say that the "situation in Iraq is an immense human catastrophe, bleak, chaotic with total social disintegration". This "political calamity is a direct result" of the attacks of the US coalition. They claim that there is no state in Iraq and that "The international bourgeoisie is incapable of establishing civil order in Iraq". This means that "The question of power can only be resolved by expelling the US forces from Iraq". They see the fundamental problem facing Iraq as "the filling of the power vacuum and bringing an end to the chaos and disarray." The WCPI does not insist on workers defending their class interests but demands "the establishment of a secular, non-religious, and non-ethnic state in Iraq". Their solution to the problems facing the country is "Immediate withdrawal of the US and British forces and handing over the administration, as well as peace-keeping in Iraq, to the UN forces for a provisional period and providing freedom and equal material resources to all the political organisations to inform the masses about their alternatives and programmes." This is a familiar call on the UN and democracy, and yet the WCPI claims that no one has ever had to face such a situation before.
A war between different capitalist factions is not a new situation. Revolutionaries defend an internationalist position, which means advocating the independent struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie that wants to mobilise workers for all its conflicts. The WCPI, through its advocacy of UN intervention and its participation in the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq, has already shown it is not shy of filling the "power vacuum" in its co-operation with the occupation in distributing food and other aid. Their rhetoric sounds more 'radical', but fundamentally, in time of war, they stand for bourgeois order, not the struggle of the working class.
Another group that uses 'revolutionary' language is the Internationalist Communist Group. Founded by ex-militants of the ICC more than 20 years ago, this parasitic group has subsequently given its support to leftist guerrilla actions in Latin America, and tried to portray desperate acts of social disorder as proletarian struggle. In their French publication (Communisme no 55) they have plumbed new depths. They begin by stating that "the proletariat in Iraq has given an example to its brothers throughout the whole world in refusing to fight for its oppressors", that workers have "refused to die for interests that were not their own". And it's certainly true that Iraqi workers showed little enthusiasm for dying on behalf of Saddam's army when the US Coalition first invaded. But it is criminally false to identify this response with the subsequent active mobilisation of Iraqi proletarians behind the 'resistance' with its reactionary capitalist agenda. This is exactly what the GCI does. They conflate the desertions and demonstrations of the unemployed that have undoubtedly taken place with the bombings, acts of sabotage and armed expressions of the military conflict, and claim that in all this "you can see the contours of the proletariat which is trying to struggle, organising itself against all fractions" while minimising the influence of the "Islamists or pan-Arab nationalists" on this alleged proletarian movement.
The main reality of the conflict in Iraq is that, with some small exceptions, workers are not fighting for their own interests and are caught up in a military campaign that flies the flags of Islam and Iraqi nationalism. Leftism tries to obscure the struggle between classes and advocates that workers die in the conflicts of their class enemies.
Car, 26/5/04.
America and Britain, we are told, went to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in order to defend civilisation and democracy from terrorism and rogue states. The torture and humiliation inflicted on Iraqi prisoners reveals the true nature of democratic civilisation.
The Bush administration claims that the hideous revelations from Abu-Ghraib are exceptions to the democratic rule. The truth is that there is a straight line from the measures routinely used at Guantanamo to the 'abuses' in Saddam's former torture-chamber, and that between prison life in Guantanamo and life in 'ordinary' American jails there is only a difference in degree. The truth is that the rank and file soldiers leering in the photographs from Abu-Ghraib were only carrying out 'softening up' policies decided at the very highest level of the American state.
The British, who claim to go 'softly softly' compared to the Americans, have used equally brutal methods in Iraq (see the article on page 2) and this is nothing new: British occupying forces have perfected numerous varieties of torture, from the subtle to the savage, in Aden, Kenya, Northern Ireland�
And what of the democratic states who have been openly critical of the Iraq war? France has been the most vociferous, but French imperialism has a very well-documented history of torture from Indo-China to Algeria. Belgium's record in the Congo is no less bloody.
Abu-Ghraib merely symbolises the fact that there is nothing to chose between 'democracy' and 'dictatorship', between one set of capitalist jailers and another.
Workers everywhere should keep this in mind whenever we are asked to stand up for democracy - and we are certainly being asked to do this more and more. This month we are being told that we must do our democratic duty and turn out to vote in European or regional elections; if we don't, then we will open the door to 'undemocratic' parties like the BNP.
We're also being encouraged to celebrate the slaughter on the Normandy beaches in 1944, because this, at least, was a 'Good War', a war to defend democracy against the unspeakable evil of Nazism.
In short, we have to defend democracy because it is supposed to protect us from something much worse. But as long as it allows itself to be caught up in this false alternative, the working class will never get to the root of the problem - a world system in profound decay, a moribund society which oozes war, torture and repression from every pore. As long as we are cowed into supporting the bourgeoisie's 'democratic' factions against its more openly 'dictatorial' representatives, we will never develop our identity and our independence as a class, we will never be able to offer a real alternative to this miserable game of 'choose the lesser evil'.
Capitalism in its death-agony threatens to turn the entire planet into a torture chamber. Against this threat the struggle of the working class raises the perspective of the communist revolution - not to make the global prison more democratic, but to demolish it altogether.
WR, 29/5/04.
The question of war is not a recent discovery for the workers' movement. Already, towards the end of the 19th century, faced with sharpening competition between the great nations of Europe, revolutionaries posed the question of the perspective of war. Faced with the evolution of a capitalist system that was more and more a prisoner of its insurmountable contradictions, the workers' movement, with Engels at its head, clearly announced that the perspective would henceforth be "socialism or barbarism". During the Paris Socialist Congress at the beginning of the 20th century, Rosa Luxemburg made an intervention of great clear-sightedness in which she foresaw the possibility that the first great manifestation of the weakness of capitalism wouldn't be the sharpening of the economic crisis, but first of all the explosion of imperialist war. And that's what happened.
The bourgeoisie is not short of explanations for the wars that ravage the planet today. With a few nuances, one can quite easily make an exhaustive inventory of these explanations: oil, of course, and more broadly raw materials; but also religion, the defence of democracy, the need to subdue dangerous madmen, to impose respect for international law, the rights of man, the pursuit of a humanitarian aim, or quite simply, after everything else, human nature. As Victor Hugo says: "For six thousand years, war has pleased quarrelsome people. And God wastes his time making the stars and flowers".
Poetry has its charms, but there is even less chance of it transforming the world than philosophy. Is war inherent to human nature? Does man really like to fight so much? Is humanity condemned to engender evil minds, which always end up setting off explosions, and which can only be restrained by yet more weapons? As marxists, we firmly reject these explanations.
It is true to say that war is a part of the history of civilisations, but that's not a reason for concluding that war is an eternal phenomenon. War is part of the history of civilisations because, since it came out of primitive communism, humanity has only known societies divided into classes, that's to say societies of shortages and competition, including of course, capitalism.
Capitalism has known wars since its birth: for German unification in 1866, the Franco-German war of 1871, the American Civil War of 1861-65 that unified the country, and also the colonial wars.
But this situation took a qualitative turn in the 20th century. With the 20th century came two world wars that had their theatre at the very heart of the great capitalist nations. It saw millions of proletarians in uniform kill each other and above all it saw destruction the like of which had never been seen in the whole history of humanity: the deaths of millions of civilians under conventional or nuclear bombardments, deportations and the genocide of populations, destruction of entire areas of economic infrastructure. Since the Second World War, war on the planet has not stopped for one single second. It has hit every continent, sowing death and destruction. It is thus necessary to state that war threatens humanity more and more. If war in the 20th century takes on such breadth, it is because capitalism has come to the final stage in its evolution. Wars of the preceding century were products of a capitalism that was in full expansion. It allowed capitalism to develop in the framework of more solid national structures, as with the civil war in the United States, or it permitted the conquest of new markets, as in the case of colonial wars.
The First World War marked a break with the wars of the preceding century. Henceforth, the objective was no longer to allow capitalism to pursue its development but to steal markets from competitor nations, to weaken them and grab strategic positions. This confirmed the entry of capitalism into its period of decadence. Capitalism could no longer find new markets to conquer and at the same time was capable of producing much more than the existing solvent markets were capable of absorbing. Thus began a vast cycle of self-destruction.
Capitalist decadence is shown by a desperate flight into war. As Hitler said "Export or die"! Gigantic resources became necessary for these wars. With the decadence of capitalism all economic potential tends towards war and production for war. All technical progress, all scientific research, every discovery is dominated by the aims of war.
There is thus a profound difference between the wars in the period of ascendancy and those of the period of decadence. A difference which is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The concept of decadence is essential if we want to understand the nature of war in capitalism. In particular, we have to understand that wars in the period of decadence are fundamentally irrational from capitalism's own point of view.
When we talk of irrationality, we are not posing the question from a moralistic point of view, but rather as marxists, from a materialist and objective point of view. In the period of the decadence of capitalism, marxists characterise all wars as imperialist wars. All countries are imperialist, from the biggest to the smallest; all dream of conquering or destroying their neighbour, or of having a particular influence in a region, on a continent or over the whole world.
In the period of decadence the economic crisis is permanent and irreversible. The bourgeoisie is perfectly incapable of resolving this crisis, which doesn't depend on a good or bad management but is the expression of the internal contradictions of the mode of production itself.
At the time of the First World War, the bourgeoisie had the hope that the camp which came out victorious from the war would be able to impose on the vanquished a new carve-up of the world, and thus recoup the lost markets. But this war had already demonstrated the futility, even for the victors, of any such economic hopes. Every nation (with the exception of the United States for particular reasons) came out of it economically weakened, including the camp of the victors. This was glaring in the case of Britain, which had begun its fall as a great power. The development of war has shown itself since for what it is: an ineluctable product of the historic crisis of capitalism, pushing each nation, beginning with the biggest, to confront their competitors in a desperate fight for survival. Economic logic more and more gives way to the simple search for strategic positions in order to make war. The logic is war for war. One of the most striking examples of this madness is illustrated by the USSR, which was exhausted by the arms race with the USA to the point that its economy collapsed like a house of cards at the end of the 1980s. Once again, it is only by understanding the evolution of capitalism and its entry into decadence that we can comprehend the irrational nature of war today. And it's no surprise that some internationalist groups, though quite capable of denouncing war from a proletarian point of view, are at the same time incapable of seeing the irrationality of war. In fact these groups, in particular the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party and the different Bordigist groups either totally reject the concept of decadence (the Bordigists) or more and more call it into question (the IBRP). And this means that while these comrades clearly manage to stand up for internationalism, they can't provide a serious explanation for war, since they don't understand the difference that exists between the wars of decadence and those of ascendancy. They are reduced to seeing virtually every war as a 'war for oil'. The reality is much more than that. In the case of Iraq, for example, who today can support the idea that American intervention was mainly motivated by the need to control the production of oil in order to enrich the large American companies? The economic costs of the war far outweigh the profits of the oil companies. For US imperialism, control of Middle Eastern oil is far more a military goal than an economic one (see article on p6).
The same is true for ex-Yugoslavia, for Afghanistan, etc. In these places chaos and insecurity continue to reign - the very worst thing as far as normal capitalist business is concerned. In unleashing war, capitalism in decline destroys the very ground beneath its feet. This mad spiral is the product of the bankruptcy of the system and it means that history cannot move on without the destruction of this system.
On the road of its historic struggle, the working class comes up against imperialist war and is led to question it and rise up against it. Since its birth, the working class has distinguished itself from other classes by its internationalism. The proletariat has no country. Internationalism is a fundamental frontier between the classes.
When we say that all countries are imperialist, we mean that proletarians have nothing to gain and everything to lose by defending 'their' country under the pretext that they would be worse off under the domination of another. Proletarian internationalism is founded on the recognition that, for the working class, the enemy is the bourgeoisie, of its 'own' country or any other country.
What can the working class do today in order to defend internationalism? Today the bourgeoisie no longer mobilises massive numbers of troops from the ranks of the working class: war has become professional, even if the pressure of unemployment makes putting on a uniform a get-out for desperate workers. Today, war is declared under the most cunning reasons: fighting terrorism, unseating 'evil dictators', saving the lives of the hungry. But in the final analysis capitalist war always defends the interests of the dominant class. Terrorism remains a weapon of the capitalist state; even when the ruling classes pretend to fight it here, they use it elsewhere. 'Evil dictators' are used in the same way: damned here, anointed and protected elsewhere. Meanwhile starving populations continue to die of hunger, while more and more economic resources are poured into the coffers of war.
All nations are imperialist; all wars must be denounced. But denunciation is not sufficient; it is necessary to understand the real roots of war. The bourgeoisie knows very well how to 'denounce' wars. It uses a very dangerous weapon for this job: pacifism. Pacifism is not only the utopia of a capitalist world without war; it is also the means to enrol workers into a false anti-war stance, which really means supporting one bourgeois gang against another. In the final analysis, pacifism is the handmaiden of nationalism, the worst poison for the proletariat. It's not by chance that pacifism and 'alternative worldism' specialise in anti-American chauvinism, and that over the war in Iraq German and French imperialism have been able to exploit this ideology for their own sordid ends
The working class must thus denounce not this or that war, but imperialist war as such, the unavoidable product of a dying social order. Whatever specific forms these wars take today, the proletariat, particularly in the central countries, must maintain and develop its own class struggle against the growing attacks on its very conditions of life. This is the only basis for developing a more profound political consciousness of the necessity to overthrow the capitalist system on a world scale.
G, 29/6/04.
Fifteen years ago, in 1989, the 'Soviet' imperialist bloc fell apart. This event, which was basically the fruit of the world economic crisis of capitalism, was to have immediate and extremely important repercussions on the life of this social system. The working class should recall that at that moment the leaders of the world bourgeoisie promised us a new epoch of peace and stability: the collapse of Stalinism would mean the end of barbarism. The bloody evolution of the real world would soon show exactly the opposite. Right from the start of the 1990s, barbarism more and more became a permanent fact of life, generalising itself across the planet, from the weakest parts of the capitalist system to the most advanced industrialised countries. The new epoch we saw was actually one in which capitalism entered into the final phase of its decline - the phase of decomposition. In place of an imperialist conflict which had been contained inside the iron corset of the competition between the US and Russian blocs, a new military logic came to the fore, a logic in which each capitalist country would defend its interests outside of any stable alliance under the rule of a dominant imperialism - the result being an accelerating slide into chaos.
In 1991, the first Gulf war opened the door to the new world disorder, even though this conflict briefly allowed the USA to reaffirm its role as the world's leading power. The US government had pushed for this war. It used its ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, to give Saddam the impression that any conflict between Iraq and Kuwait was an "internal Arab problem" and that the US was not really interested in the question. In fact this was a trap for Saddam that conned him into invading Kuwait, thus giving the US the pretext for a massive military intervention. For US imperialism, this war was the means to brutally reassert its authority over its main rivals, in particular Germany, France and Japan. Since the collapse of the Russian bloc, these powers had been increasingly defending their own interests and challenging US leadership.
There is no doubt that the US achieved an important victory at this point. It even gave itself the luxury of allowing Saddam Hussein to remain the master of Baghdad, in order to avoid Iraq sinking into total chaos (like it has today). But this was also a short-lived victory. There could be no real softening of competition at the economic level, while on the military level the tendency towards 'every man for himself' was even more pronounced, forcing the US again to resort to its military superiority and so counter the challenge coming from the other powers. In 1991 we could already point out that "whether on the political/military level or the economic level, the perspective is not one of peace and order but of war and chaos between nations" (International Review 66, 'Chaos'). The process of the decomposition of capitalism, and with it the weakening of US leadership, was to continue and advance throughout the 90s. Only a few months after the 1991 Gulf war, the same major powers were responsible for a new round of slaughter, this time in the Balkans. Now it was Germany, which by pushing Slovenia and Croatia to proclaim their independence from the Yugoslav federation, played a key role in unleashing the war. In response to this thrust by German imperialism, the four other main powers (USA, Britain, France and Russia) encouraged the Belgrade regime of Milosevic to wage a particularly murderous counter-offensive. But the historic weakening of the USA was already a factor in the situation, and this resulted in successive shifts in alliances: thus the USA supported Serbia in 1991, Bosnia in 1992 and Croatia in 1994. Like Afghanistan soon afterwards, the Balkans became a theatre of almost permanent civil war. To this day in Afghanistan, no authority, whether local or American, can impose itself outside of Kabul.
The slide into anarchy and barbarism has accelerated even more dramatically since the events of September 2001 and the USA's 'war on terrorism'. After the Balkans and Afghanistan, Iraq today has become the most eloquent expression of this. It is hard to convey the reality of life in Iraq today. Thursday 24 June, one week before the 'transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people', is a graphic example. On that day there were no less than seven terrorist bombs in Moussul alone, leaving at least 100 dead. At the same time there were armed confrontations in numerous Iraqi towns, such as Bakuba and Najaf. The country is in such a state of chaos that the political and military authorities can only control limited geographical areas. The new Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, has announced with great aplomb that he will personally take charge of the struggle against violence. Meanwhile the confrontations continue, and there is a rising number of kidnappings, usually ending in brutal murder. The decapitation of hostages, transmitted to computer screens all over the world, has become a common practice, just another instrument of war like the terrorist attacks which aim simply to kill as many people as possible. Torture and terrorism have always been part of armed conflicts in history, but they were secondary phenomena. The fact that they are now so central is yet another expression of the advanced decomposition of the capitalist system.
The perspective in Iraq can only be one of growing instability. The USA's loss of control is obvious. The New York Times has declared that "the Coalition forces have not only failed to ensure the security of the Iraqi population, but even to realise the objective identified as a priority by the provisional administration: the total re-establishment of electricity before the heat of the summer". In Iraq today, everything is lacking, including water, and the population faces a terrible struggle for survival. Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis are more and more pulling in opposing directions. And a new phenomenon is spreading: the appearance of fanatical armed gangs taking action against American interests, operating outside of any control by the official religious or ethnic bodies. Even before it took over, the provisional government has been shown to be impotent and discredited.
The Washington Post writes that "Although the Bush administration has promised over and over again that the Iraqis will recover complete sovereignty, it's clear that American officials will maintain their grip over the key question of security". The USA has no escape route from the Iraq quagmire. It is unable to control the situation, even on the purely military level. The weakening of US power is expressed in particular by the fact that the USA has had to go to the UN with a US-British resolution which envisages the setting up of a multinational force with an American command. This recourse to the UN shows the limits of its ability to ensure its domination through the force of arms, even in a weak country like Iraq. And despite the initial declarations of satisfaction by all the members of the Security Council, this has only whetted the appetite of the other great powers, who aim to take advantage of every set back for the US. On 27 May, China, supported by Russia, France and Germany, distributed a document raising objections to the resolution and proposing major changes. In particular, it was demanded that the new Iraqi government should enjoy "full sovereignty on questions of the economy, security, justice and diplomacy". These powers also insisted that the mandate for the multinational force should end in January 2005 and that the provisional government be consulted on military operations except for measures of self-defence. This document was aimed directly against the US and shows that the objective of the other powers is to weaken the US as much as possible, whatever the consequences for the Iraqi population and the region as a whole.
Today the whole of south west Asia is being destabilised. There have been more and more terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, expressing growing tensions between the Ryad regime and increasingly fanatical Wahabi gangs. The virulent stance of some of the Shiite leaders in Iraq is also having repercussions on the stability of Iran. Conflict is also hotting up in Turkey. On June 1, the Kurdish PKK announced a unilateral end to the ceasefire with the Turkish state. The Neue Zuerische Zeitung reported on 3 June that "Turkish army circles think that hundreds of armed PKK rebels have infiltrated Turkey from the north of Iraq in the last few weeks. The Turkish government has accused the Americans of doing nothing against the presence of the PKK in northern Iraq". The same Zurich daily observes that "a new outbreak of the war would be disastrous for the whole region".
Meanwhile, since the formation of the Sharon government in Israel, there has been a state of permanent war in the Middle East region. Sharon's plan for a 'retreat' from Gaza while maintaining control of most of the West Bank is basically a recipe for endless conflict; the logic of war has left behind any other approach to defending Israel's national interests. This ultimately suicidal policy has resulted in an increase in tensions between Israel and Egypt, which apart from Israel has been one of the USA's few reliable allies in the region. And in fact the US administration has less and less say about what Israel does - yet another expression of the inability of the USA to carry on acting as the world's gendarme. Furthermore, America's loss of control is only one expression of a more general loss of control by all the imperialist powers. The continuing conflict in Chechnya, which is now starting to spread into neighbouring Ingushia, poses a threat to Russia's control of its outlying republics; the resurgence of warfare in the Congo is revealing the incapacity of France to dominate its former dependency in that region of Africa. However much the other powers try to profit from America's weaknesses, they too are unable to stem the mounting tide of chaos.
Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the USA declared that it would hunt down the terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the world. The real results of the 'war against terrorism' are being written today in letters of blood. The dynamic of war and social breakdown displayed in Iraq, Sudan or the Congo is only a dramatic example of what lies in store for humanity as a whole if the working class allows capitalism to have its way. Furthermore the barbarism sweeping through these areas is also rebounding into the heart of Europe and of the European working class: the March 11 bombings in Madrid were deliberately aimed at killing as many Spanish workers as possible.
It is vital that workers understand that this slide into war and chaos is not due to this or that world leader. For example, it is evident that the Democratic candidate for the forthcoming presidential elections in the USA, John Kerry, has no alternative foreign policy to offer. Whoever wins the election, the implacable logic of imperialism will continue to determine US foreign policy. Neither is the current world disorder caused by a religious fanatic like Bin Laden. It is the irreversible bankruptcy of the capitalist mode of production which drags it into war; it is the total irrationality of capitalist war which more and more gives rise to fanatical factions of the bourgeoisie, whether terrorist war-lords like Bin Laden or the neo-Conservative fundamentalists around the current US administration. The only force which can oppose the mad logic of capitalism is the international class struggle. Workers must remember that it was the revolutions in Russia and Germany which put an end to the First World War. Today the communist revolution is more than ever the only alternative to capitalism's flight towards mass destruction.
Tino, 3/7/04.
London, 6/7/04.
Dear Antagonism,
On your website we see that you have some material on Stinas and Castoriadis. Under "Articles by or about Stinas" you mention the Trotskyists of Revolutionary History but not the ICC. In fact, in 1993 in International Review 72 [42] we published some extracts from Stinas' Memoires together with an introduction that showed the evolution of Stinas and the ICU that lead to the final break with Trotskyism in 1947.
In the material on Castoriadis you refer to "a very favourable obituary". A more critical notice appeared in World Revolution 213 (April 1998) under the title "Bourgeoisie pays homage to one of its servants [43]".
Under the heading "Revolutionary Opposition to World War Two" you mention the books on The Italian Communist Left 1926-46 and The Dutch and German Communist Left. These were originally published in French by the ICC when the author was one of our militants. They were conceived, prepared, discussed and published as the collective work of the ICC with the complete agreement of the author. He has not been in the ICC since 1990 and any subsequent editions and 'correction' of the books have been linked to his political evolution.
For communism,
World Revolution, Section in Britain of the ICC.
The bourgeois press, especially in France, has made a certain amount of noise about the death of Cornelius Castoriadis. Le Monde referred to it in two successive issues (28-29 December and 30 December 1997) and devoted a full page to it under a significant title: 'Death of Cornelius Castoriadis, anti-marxist revolutionary'. This title is typical of the ideological methods of the bourgeoisie. It contains two truths wrapped around the lie that they want us to swallow. The truths: Castoriadis is dead, and he was anti-marxist. The lie: he was a revolutionary. To shore up the idea, Le Monde recalls Castoriadis' own words, "repeated until the end of his life ". "Whatever happens, I will remain first and above all a revolutionary".
And indeed, in his youth, he had been a revolutionary. At the end of the 1940s he broke with the Trotskyist "4th International" in company with a number of other comrades and animated the review Socialisme ou Barbarie (1). At this time SouB represented an effort, albeit confused and limited by its Trotskyist origins, to develop a proletarian line of thought in the middle of the triumphant counter-revolution. But in the course of the 1950s, under the impulsion of Castoriadis (who signed his articles Pierre Chaulieu, then Paul Cardan), SouB more and more rejected the weak marxist foundations on which it had been built. In particular, Castoriadis developed the idea that the real antagonism in society was no longer between exploiters and exploited but between "order givers and order takers". SouB finally disappeared at the beginning of 1966, hardly two years before the events of May 68, which marked the historic resurgence of the world-wide class struggle after a counter-revolution of nearly half a century. In fact, Castoriadis had ceased to be a revolutionary long before he died, even if he was able to maintain the illusory appearance of one.
Castoriadis was not the first to betray the revolutionary convictions of his youth. The history of the workers' movement is littered with such examples. What characterised him, however, is that he dressed his treason in the rags of "political radicalism", in the claim that he was opposed to the whole existing social order. We can see this by looking at an article written in Le Monde Diplomatique in response to his final book, 'Done and to be done', 1997.
"Castoriadis gives us the tools to contest, to build the barricades, to envisage the socialism of the future, to think about changing the world, to desire to change life politically... What political heritage can come from the history of the workers 'movement, when it is now obvious that the proletariat cannot play the role of motor force that marxism attributed to it? Castoriadis replies with a superb programme that combines the highest demands of human polity with the best of the socialist ideal.. .Action and thought are in search of a new radicalism, now that the Leninist parenthesis is closed, now that the police-state marxism of history has fallen into dust..."
In reality, this "radicalism" that makes highbrow journalists drool so much was a fig leaf covering the fact that Castoriadis' message was extremely useful to the ideological campaigns of the bourgeoisie. Thus, his declaration that marxism had been pulverised (The rise of insignificance, 1996) gave its "radical" backing to the whole campaign about the death of communism which developed after the collapse of the Stalinist regimes of the eastern bloc in 1989.
But the real test of Castoriadis' radicalism had already taken place in the early 80s, when under Reagan's leadership the western bourgeoisie launched a deafening campaign against the military threat of the "Evil Empire" of the USSR in order to justify an armaments drive unprecedented since the second world war. And it was precisely during this period that
Castoriadis published his book 'Facing war' where he tried to demonstrate that there was a "massive imbalance" in favour of Russia, "a situation that was practically impossible for the Americans to amend". What's more this "analysis" was frequently cited by Marie-France Garaud, an ideologue of the ultra-militarist right and mouthpiece in France for the Reaganite campaigns.
At the end of the 80s, reality demonstrated that Russian military power was actually vastly inferior to that of the US, but this didn't puncture Castoradis' self-importance or silence the journalists' praise for him. Neither was this new. From 1953-4, even before he openly abandoned marxism, Castoriadis developed a whole theory that capitalism had now definitively overcome its economic crisis (see 'The dynamic of capitalism' in SouB 120. We know what happened after this: capitalism's crisis returned with a vengeance in the late 60s. So when a pocket collection (Editions 10/18) of the works of Castoriadis was published in 1973, it missed out certain not very glorious writings, which allowed his friend Edgar Morin to say at the time: "Who today can publish without shame, indeed with pride, the texts that marked his political road from 1948 to 1973, if not a rare spirit like Castoriadis?" (Le Nouvel Observateur).
The same Edgar Morin (who today is a very important person, an adviser to the Minister of National Education in France) went further in the 30 December article published in Le Monde: Castoriadis was not only a "rare spirit" but a "Titan of the spirit" (front page title).
For us, the only thing in common between Castoriadis and the Titans of myth is that they were both Greek. In any case, Castoriadis has had the homage he deserved: the unrestrained praises of the "politically correct" bourgeois press.
F, 2/4/98.
Footnote
(1) In 1960 a British group, Solidarity, inspired by Socialisme ou Barbarie and Castoriadis, was formed. Although claiming to have gone beyond the "traditional left", Solidarity was never able to break definitively with leftism, whether its Trotskyist or anarchist varieties. It was initially active in the extreme left of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; it defended the shop stewards against the leaders of the trade union apparatus; and it took an ambiguous position on the Vietnam war. Nevertheless, at a time when there were no organised forces of the communist left in Britain, Solidarity's proximity to certain class positions did attract elements looking for a revolutionary coherence, as well as providing a retirement home for burnt out Stalinists, Trotskyists, and anarchists. It was those genuinely seeking clarification who, freeing themselves from Solidarity's swamp of confusion, were able to connect with the historical left communist tradition and form Revolutionary Perspectives (now the Communist Workers Organisation) and World Revolution. But the appearance of these groups also marked the end of Solidarity's temporary relevance. The reappearance of the economic crisis of capitalism, the resurgence of the class struggle, and the sharpening of imperialist tensions brutally exposed the theories of Castoriadis, while the groups of the communist left were able to provide a coherent marxist framework for understanding them.
Solidarity's death was, however, long and lingering. In 1976 it was given a certain transfusion of blood by amalgamating with a split from the SPGB to become Solidarity for Social Revolution. By 1980 it had reformed itself to become plain Solidarity once again, but the contents of its journal became increasingly apolitical. But it could not escape politics: it proved unable to survive the exposure of Castoriadis as an adviser to western imperialism, and finally expired in 1988.
The results of the Euro elections have been portrayed as a sign of the importance the 'British people' give to maintaining national independence and sovereignty against a European superstate. The fact that the UK Independence Party (UKIP) rose from obscurity to take 12 seats and 16% of the vote, slightly more than the Liberal Democrats, is presented as evidence. At the same time, both Labour and Tories suffered significant losses. But this would be to ignore the reality of the way these elections were widely used as a protest vote against government parties across Europe. It would also be to ignore the statistics that show almost nowhere was there a turnout of much over 40%, except where voting is compulsory, indicating that the electorate regards these elections as just as irrelevant to government policy as local council elections. In Britain the turnout was raised to almost 38% only by instituting postal ballots in several areas, despite the risk of fraud.
One argument put forward for Britain to remain aloof from Europe is the success of 'UK plc' relative to the rest of Europe. The 'sick man of Europe' in the 1960s and 1970s has become the success story of the 21st Century. But what none of the parties contesting the Euro elections will tell us is that this 'success' has been bought at a very high price paid by the working class in increased exploitation, or that it is largely built on a mountain of debt that can only temporarily disguise the real state of the economy. "In spite of the healthier growth rates and lower unemployment rates of the British economy in comparison with other European powers recently, Britain hasn't permanently arrested the long term decline of the former 'workshop of the world' in relation to its main competitors� In short, the British economy is, for the moment, getting richer overall compared with its major rivals, while its population is relatively poorer than those of these rivals, and purchasing power per head of population is weaker" (WR 275). Yet the consumer sector remains buoyant due to debt, because the bourgeoisie's "own austerity policies make growing indebtedness inevitable."
However many votes it may have taken this time, UKIP does not represent the future for British capitalism. Whatever their rhetoric, governments have remained in the EU for the 30 years since Britain joined. Sensible bourgeois commentators know this: "The European election results have shown how narrow the terrain is in which British politicians have to operate� The real debate is on the nature of our membership" (Peter Riddell, The Times 15.6.04). This has been borne out by Blair's negotiation of the constitution, with his 'red lines' on control of tax, social security and foreign policy. The promised referendum has been delayed and will only be needed if all the other 7 countries that want one accept the Treaty in its present form.
On the economic level, the key sectors of the British economy have a vital interest in preserving their European markets, and the British economy as a whole needs the EU umbrella to defend itself against competition from the USA and Japan.
Nevertheless, Britain really does have a problem with its policy in relation to Europe, above all at the level of imperialist rivalries, which don't always coincide with immediate economic interests. The fact that both Labour and Conservative parties have a significant Euro-sceptic wing, with UKIP largely taking the votes of Tory sceptics, reflects the difficulty Britain has making its way as a declining, second rank power caught between the rock of the USA and the hard place of a resurgent Germany. Britain needs its close relationship with America to counter the threat of a German-dominated Europe. Remember Thatcher's seminar at Chequers after the collapse of the Russian bloc, fearing the danger that reunification would represent. At the time Nicholas Ridley was forced to resign for condemning European integration as "a German racket to take over the whole of Europe" (The Sunday Times 20.6.04) but his crime was one of spilling the beans: opposing German power in Europe still underpins British strategy. This is the real meaning of the policy of remaining 'at the heart of Europe', where it can play the different European states against each other and thus prevent any of them from getting too strong.
At the same time, if Britain gets too close to the USA - as it undoubtedly has over the Iraq war - it risks being seen as no more than America's agent in the EU, not to mention compromising its own independent interests in a 'special relationship' that is heavily weighted in favour of the US. The British bourgeoisie is well aware of this latter danger - witness the unprecedented public rebukes the government has received on the issue of the Iraq war, first from a letter by senior diplomats and more recently in a letter from the Anglican bishops. Its economic weakness in relation to Germany, and its military weakness in relation to the USA, puts British imperialism into the dilemma that is creating difficulties for the Blair government just as it did for John Major and Margaret Thatcher before. This, not some EU constitution or fictitious superstate, limits its policy choices.
Alex, 3.7.04.
Europe was the main military theatre in both world wars; it constitutes the epicentre of the world's imperialist tensions and it has never had any real possibility of overcoming the contradictory interests of each national bourgeoisie. In fact, "because of its historic role as the cradle of capitalism and of its geographic situation (�) Europe in the 20th century has become the key to the imperialist struggle for world domination" (International Review 112, 'Europe: economic alliance and field of manoeuvre of imperialist rivalries'). The EU, an expression of post-World War II tensions
In the Cold War, when the EEC (European Economic Community) was the instrument of the United States and of the western bloc against its Russian rival, Europe could have a certain reality. Following the Second World War, the construction of the European Community was supported by the United States in order to form a bulwark against the USSR's desires to make headway in Europe. It was set up in order to strengthen the western bloc. Although restrained and disciplined by American 'leadership', which was accepted because the European powers needed to form a united front against the common enemy, important divisions had never ceased to pit the main European powers against each other.
The collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989 led to the dissolution of the opposing bloc and the reunification of Germany, which thus acceded to the rank of a superior economic power. Its new aim was to profit from this opportunity and assume the leadership of a new bloc opposed to the United States. The reasons which had obliged the states of Europe to 'march together' broke into pieces; and this phenomenon has been brutally aggravating for fifteen years. Contrary to the whole barrage about the inexorable forward march towards a greater European unity, the real trend is towards sharpening tensions and a growing divergence of interests between the various European powers.
This historic upheaval has re-launched the struggle for world hegemony and the redistribution of the cards on the European continent. The desperate race between all these champions of peace and democracy to grab the spoils of the ex-Russian bloc has led, for the first time since 1945, to the return of war in Europe. At the beginning of the 90s open imperialist conflict broke out in ex-Yugoslavia, culminating with the NATO bombing of a European capital, Belgrade, in 1999. France, Britain and the United States, themselves rivals, used their local allies to oppose German expansion towards the Mediterranean, via Croatia. The war in Iraq has again shown the fundamental absence of unity and the profound disagreements and rivalries between European nations.
Since 1989 Germany has been clearly pursuing its imperialist ambitions in its traditional area of expansion of 'Mitteleuropa', under the cover of building a united Europe. It hopes to use its unrivalled economic power within the principal countries of eastern Europe, as well as the institutional proximity created by EU enlargement, to draw these countries into its sphere of influence. The German bourgeoisie is however faced with major obstacles to its ambitions: on the one hand, the 'everyman for himself' attitude of these different nations, and on the other hand, the determination of the United States to develop its influence in these areas, particularly through NATO. "Five new members - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia - have been welcomed, with great pomp on March 29 in Washington, into the ranks of NATO, one month before their integration into the EU. Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic have been part of the Alliance since 1999. The United States is already campaigning for Bulgaria and Romania, the other two new partners of NATO, to be admitted, in their turn, into the EU" (Le Monde 29.4.04). The United States is counting on the countries of the 'new Europe' to help it paralyse its most dangerous rival. It calculates that "the more the EU extends, the less it deepens, and that complicates the formation of a political counter-weight to American power" (Le Monde, 4.5.04). This view is confirmed by all the wrangling over the adoption of the new European Constitution.
Despite the reign of everyman for himself and the counter-moves of the US, Germany is still strengthening its imperialist influence to the east. To the west, on the other hand, it comes up against both France and Britain, who can only react to this developing potential of German imperialism.
Britain, in line with its diplomatic traditions, uses every means at its disposal to sow discord between the European powers. But as the main supporter of American military action in Iraq, it suffers from the discrediting of US policy and finds itself more and more isolated in Europe. The impact of the mess in Iraq has shattered the 'pro-American' coalition formed by London, Madrid and Warsaw against Franco-German opposition to the United States. The adoption of a pro-European orientation by the new government of Zapatero, which has announced its retreat from Iraq, deprives it of its main ally in Europe. This defection has dragged Poland, shaken and divided on the choice of imperialist orientation, into a political crisis that has led to the resignation of the Prime Minister and the implosion of the party in power. Despite the difficulties that it is encountering, Britain will be obliged to continue its work of sabotaging any durable continental alliance in Europe.
For France, which has longed to emancipate itself from American tutelage since the 1950s, there's no question of allowing Germany to totally dominate Europe. Neither does it relish the subaltern role that Germany has reserved for it in the framework of European enlargement. That is why it hopes to find in the strengthening and enlargement of the EU the means to guarantee a 'collective' control capable of restraining the ambitions of Germany. We can also see with the reactivation of its historic links with Poland and Romania and, more recently, the development of ties with Russia in order to oppose US intervention in Iraq. On this subject, we should underline that the latter is quite interested in this 'alliance' with France, since it is extremely concerned about being dispossessed of its former zone of influence in eastern Europe, and about the EU and NATO advancing up to its frontiers. All this is aimed at creating a counter-weight to Germany as well as to the USA. At the same time, within the EU, France is again attempting to recapture its influence with the countries of southern Europe, notably Spain, against the hegemonic position of Germany. Finally, if it responds to Britain's advances about developing European defence and constructing a common aircraft carrier, it's because it needs to play the trump card of military power, which is Germany's main weak point.
What then is the real meaning of this campaign about a 'united Europe'? It can only be to serve as ideological propaganda and to maintain illusions about a capitalist world which can never overcome its imperialist divisions.
The tendency towards chaos and 'every man for himself' is not limited to the countries of the ex-eastern bloc or of the 'Third World'. The end of the division of the planet into two blocs, by unleashing the war of each against all, has placed Europe itself at the heart of imperialist antagonisms and already shows that any idea of unity among the national capitals which compose it is a complete fantasy. Between the determination of the United States to maintain its supremacy over the world (backed up by Britain, which also seeks to defend its own particular interests), and the growth of the power of Germany, which tends more and more to pose as a rival of the United States, Europe can only become the ultimate stakes in this confrontation.
Scott, 3/7/04.
The electoral circus in the 'biggest democracy in the world' is now over. Over also is the drama about who would be Prime Minister after Congress leader Sonia Ghandi turned down the job. The new parliamentary circus has also completed its first shows with a 'Communist' presiding over the proceedings. A really unique historical situation, likely to be counted among the wonders of the world! All factions of the Indian bourgeoisie are very happy, as its democratic credentials have been satisfactorily substantiated and its stature as a worthy member of the 'international community' has been elevated a lot in comparison to its principal competitors, China and Pakistan.
Almost as soon as the elections results were known, the media took upon itself the holy task of strengthening the mystification about the 'anti-capitalist' leanings of the new Congress-led government. The media focused attention on the negative response in the shares market and on various statements by leaders of the most important left wing parties of India like the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India. Their statements against privatisation, the selling of profit-making public sector enterprises, restructuring, globalisation, IMF, WTO etc. were given maximum publicity.
In reality, the bourgeoisie seems to be unperturbed by the new left government. It has seen the left in power in three states of India for quite a long time. It must now be quite confident about the essentially capitalist credentials of these 'anti-capitalists'! It only has to look to China to see how Stalinist 'Communism' is entirely compatible with competition on the world market. The majority of the bourgeoisie might have preferred the continuation of the old government, but it is not unhappy with the new one also. Mr. Anil Ambani, who has been judged the best businessman in Asia in the last year, has asserted that the Indian left will put the Chinese 'Communists' to shame in the near future and that the CPI(M), the biggest and strongest Stalinist party in India, is a great patriotic party. Can there be any better certificate for the capitalist credentials of the leading party of the left?
Important leaders of the left parties have also started asserting that they are not against reform, restructuring, 'foreign investment', privatisation, globalisation, 'automatic' hire and fire etc, as such. They are insisting only on putting a 'human face' on all these things. They would like to resort to privatisation and even to hire and fire, not with a crude method and a jubilant mood of celebration as in the case of the old government, but with political prudence, sophistication and a soothing ideological balm.
Moreover, the main political party in the new ruling coalition has been the traditional party of Indian national capital ever since the 'independence' of India in 1947. It served the national and international interests, including inevitably the imperialist interests, of Indian national capital in a very satisfactory way for a very long period of time. It has been responsible for the enhanced stature and confidence of the Indian bourgeoisie in the 'international community'. So the Indian bourgeoisie has little to be worried about when the Congress Party is the leader of the new ruling coalition baptised as the United Progressive Alliance. Mr. Chris Patten, the European Union external relations commissioner said in a statement in Brussels on 16th June, 2004, '"I look forward to working with the new Indian government, to deepening our relationship". According to a report in The Statesman of 11th June, 2004, one of the most sophisticated and reliable newspapers of the Indian bourgeoisie, the World Bank's India chief, Michael Carter, has welcomed the common minimum program of the United Progressive Alliance government. So there can be no doubt at all about the capitalist essence of the new government. The fact is that bourgeois democracy, elections and parliament cannot fail to produce a bourgeois government, whatever its ideological whitewash. So there is little possibility of any significant change in the economic sphere, although there may be a little change in the balance between privatisation and statification, in the limits to participation by 'foreign' capital in the enterprises of India. On the international front also the same imperialist policy of the Indian bourgeoisie will continue, with just a few more outbursts about anti-imperialism (anti-American imperialism as a rule). But the existing relations with the USA are most likely to continue, perhaps with a little more assertiveness as regards the 'independent' imperialist stance of the Indian bourgeoisie. The imperialist conflict with China is bound to remain and intensify despite the dependence of the new ruling coalition on the 'Communist' parties. The imperialist conflict with Pakistan is also bound to be unresolved, in spite of the pledge of continuing and deepening the 'peace process' made by the new government. The new government: better for the bourgeoisie, not the workers
It is now crystal clear that the support of the left parties does not in any way change the class character of the new government, which is capitalist from head to foot like the old one it has replaced. On the contrary: with all their propaganda about putting an end to indiscriminate privatisation, uncontrolled reforms and restructuring, unbridled 'foreign' investment in the country, kowtowing before the dictates of the IMF, WTO, American imperialism etc., the left parties are best placed to have a strong ideological impact on the working class and exploited masses. This will be a very big obstacle in the way of coming to consciousness. Moreover the decision of the left parties to support the government from the outside and not to have ministerial posts in the government will increase their mystifying power at a time when the scramble for ministerial berths among all the other political parties of capital is being looked upon with extreme abhorrence by the mass of the working class. This is likely to add to the credibility and acceptability of the left parties. Thus while there will be little change in the economic and foreign policies of the new governing team, the accession to power of Congress, supported by the left parties, could, in the short term at least, have definite political advantages for the ruling class, given that the more openly brutal approach of the previous right wing government has become increasingly unpopular.
In the period ahead, we will probably see a strengthening of the illusion that the new government is at least not so harshly capitalist as the old one and that there may be a little improvement in living and working conditions. The overwhelming majority of the working class has been trapped in the politics of false alternatives which the world bourgeoisie has been very consciously, deliberately and consistently pursuing in every part of the globe. But the determining factor at this level is not the good will or the populist statements of political leaders. It is the material condition of capitalism. Faced with a historic crisis of the system, every capitalist country and its government is bound to increase the attacks on the living and working conditions of the working class.
If it is to defend itself from these attacks, the working class will have to rid itself of all illusions. It will have to recognise that all the political parties participating in the elections and involved in the government are political parties of capital. The same also applies to certain extreme leftist parties like the Maoists who are boycotting the elections and claiming to be the true revolutionaries. The present political scenario in this part of the world has increased, to a significant extent, the mystifying power of those Maoists who are carrying on an 'armed struggle' against the state. Of course their sole aim is to capture and erect a new bureaucratic military machinery which resembles the old ready made state machinery in all fundamental aspects, and to clear the way for the further development of capitalism in the backward countries.
Political parties like the BJP, Janata, etc. are the right hand of capital, and parties like the Stalinists, Trotskyists, Socialists and Maoists are the left hand of capital. Both are serving capital in different ways as the right hand and left hand of any human being serve the same body in different ways. The working class has to be clear that in any conflict for power among the political parties of the right and left of capital, it cannot take sides. Its only task is to launch, intensify, extend and unify its class struggle against all attacks on its living and working conditions and against all the factions and political parties of capital.
Communist Internationalist.
30,000 killed, 1,200,000 driven from their homes, "Water systems, food stocks and agricultural tools have been destroyed, cattle looted, thousands of villages burned, men executed, women and girls gang-raped" ('Sudan: Without help, a million could die in Darfur', International Herald Tribune. 11.6.2004). This policy of terror is being carried out by the Sudanese state in its Darfur region. The state has used the army and the feared Janjaweed militias to 'pacify' the offensive by the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equity Movement (JEM). The SLA and JEM for their part have used the population as cannon fodder in order to further their own sordid nationalist aims. These massacres are only the latest in 30 years of civil wars that have left up to three million dead and millions displaced. Wars in which all sides depopulated their rivals' areas: "Population displacement on a large scale has become a major feature of the war. It is not an incidental outcome of the fighting but is one of its objectives; it involves not just the removal of whole groups and individuals from their home areas, the incorporation of those populations either into competing armies, or into a captive labour force" (The root causes of Sudan's civil wars, D H Johnson, The International African Institute, 2003, p.155). This barbarism has been conducted in the name of Allah, Christ, ethnic and regional freedom and democracy, but its cause is imperialism.
Sudan was the creation of the scramble for Africa in the 19th century. British imperialism brought it into being in order to stop the advance of its French, German and Italian rivals and to increase its domination of North, central and Eastern Africa. Sudan has borders with Egypt, Libya, Kenya and Uganda, all of which were British colonies. It also had frontiers with its rivals' colonies: the Belgian Congo, French-controlled Chad and Italian-ruled Abyssinia (Ethiopia). In order to establish its rule British imperialism ruthlessly crushed the population when it rose up in rebellion, such as at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898 when primitively armed rebels were massacred by the latest hi-tech weapons of British imperialism. This 'democratic' and 'civilising' imperialism maintained its position by its classic strategy of divide and rule. In this case, that meant maintaining the economic and political domination of the predominantly Arab and Muslim North over the mainly African South. Britain allowed the northern dominated army to continue the northern merchants' traditional domination of the South through slave raids, cattle rustling etc. "In response to local defiance, or even local indifference, the troops of the new government burnt villages, seized cattle as 'fines', and carried off war captives and hostages to distant prisons or for conscription in the army, all in the name of establishing government authority" (Johnson, p.10). Today's government and the rebel gangsters in the North and South have clearly learnt a lot from the 'civilising mission' of British imperialism.
In the imperialist redivision which followed the Second World War, British imperialism was forced to abandon its African empire by US imperialism, which demanded that the former colonies 'independently' come under its economic and military domination. In this way Africa became one of the main battlefields of the Cold War. Sudan was fully part of this, especially from the 1960's. The Russian bloc made full use of the discontent of the southern nationalist factions to try and destabilise the pro-US ruling faction. This support became more substantial when the Russian-backed wing of the Ethiopian ruling class overthrow Haile Selassie in the early 1970's. The main Southern fraction, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) was armed and trained in Ethiopia. In response the US and the Western Bloc armed and trained the Sudanese state in order not only to repress the SPLA but also to support rebel forces in Ethiopia. This proxy war cost over a million lives and displaced whole populations.
With the collapse of the Ethiopian government in 1991, which itself was linked to the collapse of the Russian bloc as a whole, the SPLA was left without a local backer. However, it soon found new backers in British and US imperialism. In the 1990's the Sudanese government tried to break from the US tutelage and pursued its own imperialist policy, which included supporting terrorist war lords such as Bin Laden against their regional rivals. In response the US placed sanctions on the government and supported the SPLA. After 9/11, the Sudanese government, in order to avoid being placed within the axis of evil, began to make up with the US. It has supplied intelligence and allowed the US military to train in Sudan.
This renewed relationship with the US led to a push for the signing of a peace agreement with the SPLA and other southern groups at the beginning of 2004. The US wants to stop the civil war and the growing chaos that has gone with it - the SPLA has split into numerous factions that have turned on each other and almost every region now has its own 'liberation' movement. This profound instability is undermining the USA's effort to establish its military domination over northern and eastern Africa. The White House also desperately needs a foreign policy success at a time when its international leadership is weakening.
In this situation "Khartoum believes that it can continue to act with virtual impunity in Darfur because upcoming elections and Iraq will not permit the US and others to apply meaningful new pressure" ('Sudan: Now or never in Darfur', the International Crisis Group, www.icg.org [47], 23 May 2004). The Sudanese state has also taken full advantage of the tensions between the main imperialist powers. Faced with the US's efforts to dominate the region, both French and British imperialism fear losing their influence. Even before the rapprochement between the US and Sudan, the European powers were seeking to gain influence in Khartoum by establishing diplomatic and business relations - for example, European oil companies have offered their 'help' to develop the oil fields in Sudan. These tensions have allowed Khartoum to pursue its massacres in Darfur "the Western states mainly had themselves to thank for their relative lack of influence. 'The process had too many players', an observer said. 'It was too hard to keep the international actors united. They were a fractured, agenda-ridden group. It was a political catfight. The observers never settled their own differences'". The Sudanese regime knew that none of the main powers would criticise its actions at a time when they were all courting it for their own imperialist ends.
The SLA and JEM have also gained in their bloody campaigns through the discrete support of Chad and its French ally, which have armed them in order to put pressure on Khartoum and Washington. However, France and Chad have also supported the Sudanese state's military actions in Darfur because the war there threatens to spill over into Chad: the Janjaweed and the Sudanese army have made raids into Chad to pursue the SLA.
If the main powers are now pouring forth humanitarian crocodile tears over the suffering of the population of Darfur, it is because it serves their own ends. By condemning Khartoum and supporting the peace deal with the SLA and JEM, they can appear to having nothing to do with the barbarism that is taking place. But as we have shown these 'civilised' gentlemen and their imperialist ambitions have supported and encouraged the lesser gangsters on the ground. And if today there is talk of humanitarian intervention in the wake of the visit by Colin Powell and Kofi Annan in June, with parts of the left beginning to support this call, we should recall who it is they are asking to intervene for good and honourable reasons: the very same powers which today are revealing their profoundly dishonourable intentions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any intervention, any eventual 'peace' deal, will only pave the way for new wars that will explode tomorrow in another part of Sudan where local war lords and their regional and international backers think they can gain advantage or destabilise their rivals.
Imperialist powers aren't brutal bullies in one situation and heroic good guys in another. They have no choice but to be vicious and ruthless because any other approach will leave them at the mercy of their equally ruthless rivals.
Phil, 3/7/04.
When a Parliamentary select committee and the tabloid press joined forces to condemn childhood obesity, using the example of a 3 year old who 'choked on her own fat', they did not care one jot for either the truth that she was suffering from a genetic condition, nor for the feelings of her parents. When other journalists scooped the fact that the campaign had been whipped up using the case of a victim of genetic disease and not bad parenting, this only served to keep the issue in the public eye for longer, and with it the condemnation of poor families.
A brief investigation of the facts of the question shows that obesity is a product of poverty, hunger and stunted growth; that it is associated with low birth weight and chronic disease as well as behavioural dysfunction. "The underlying issue is the malnutrition of vulnerable families in both senses, not enough and the wrong sorts of food. The malnourished conception, pregnancy and low birthweight of the babies of poor mothers are scandalous examples" (Prof Michael A Crawford, Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition, letter to The Times 7.6.04). "Obesity is usually now associated with poverty, even in developing countries. Relatively new data suggest that abdominal obesity in adults, with its associated enhanced morbidity, occurs particularly in those who had lower birth weights and early childhood stunting " (James et al, Obesity Research November 2001).
The reason for obesity lies in economic necessity: "poverty and food insecurity [hunger] are associated with lower food expenditures. A reduction in diet costs in linear programming models leads to high-fat, energy-dense diets that are similar in composition to those consumed by low income groups" (Drewnowski and Specter, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, January 2004).
These professionals have collated the statistics that show the relationship between poverty, obesity and ill-health; they may even rail against the inadequacy of 'minimum incomes'. However, it is necessary to understand that the causal chain between poverty, poor diet, inadequate clothing and disease is a product of capitalism, as Marx had already shown in the middle of the 19th century. "The use of products is determined by the social conditions in which the consumers find themselves placed, and these conditions themselves are based on class antagonism.
Cotton, potatoes and sprits are objects of the most common use. Potatoes have engendered scrofula(1)� finally, spirits have got the upper hand of beer and wine, although spirits used as an alimentary substance are everywhere recognised to be poison. For a whole century, governments struggled in vain against the European opium; economics prevailed, and dictated its orders to consumption.
Why are cotton, potatoes and spirits the pivots of bourgeois society? Because the least amount of labour is needed to produce them, and, consequently, they have the lowest price� in a society founded on poverty the poorest products have the fatal prerogative of being used by the greatest number" (The Poverty of Philosophy).
Technological development may have led to potatoes, cotton and spirits being replaced by crisps, nylon and fizzy drinks, scrofula with obesity and heart disease, but the capitalist relation remains. The answer lies not in a campaign to educate the poor, nor even an appeal for higher 'minimum incomes' but, as Marx showed, the struggle for a new society: "In a future society, in which class antagonism will have ceased, in which there will no longer be any classes, use will no longer be determined by minimum time of production; but the time of production devoted to different articles will be determined by the degree of their social utility."
Footnote
(1) We now know that scrofula is a form of TB, but it is still associated with poverty, overcrowding and poor diet. Since the re-emergence of the open crisis at the end of the 1960s, TB has again been on the increase in Britain's inner cities, but also across the world. It is just one example of the return of 19th century diseases today, along with new ones such as AIDS.
Alex
"Iraq is sovereign" declared Condoleza Rice on 29 June in a note to President Bush when the US coalition officially handed over to the new provisional government of Iraq. "Let freedom reign" was Bush's triumphant note in the margin.
So few words, so many lies!
Iraq's sovereignty is a lie because a central aim of the US invasion was to turn Iraq into a reliable American outpost and thus enable the US to control the strategically vital Gulf region. Whatever happens in the months ahead, America will not relinquish direct military control over all the key decisions of the Iraqi state, and it has plans to maintain a major US force on the ground there for the foreseeable future.
But the direct interference of the US in Iraq's governing apparatus is not the only reason why Iraq's sovereignty is a lie.
National sovereignty is a lie for Iraq because it is a universal lie. In a world dominated by a handful of great imperialist powers, the weaker countries have no choice but to subordinate themselves to the global designs of the stronger. In the end it makes little difference whether this subordination is maintained through economic, political or directly military means. Even second order imperialisms, like France, Britain or Russia, have the greatest difficulty in maintaining an independent course for themselves. During the 'Cold War', there was only room for two superpowers. Today there is only one, the USA; and only Germany can entertain the ambition of becoming a second.
It is also a lie that national sovereignty is a noble aim which serves the cause of human freedom. In a world where all countries are compelled to be imperialist, the struggle for national sovereignty can only be a struggle by each country to defend its interests by gaining the upper hand over its neighbours or rivals. This struggle was the basis for all the wars and genocides of the 20th century. Today this 'war of each against all' is taking the form of an unprecedented number of open military conflicts in South America, the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa, Kashmir, Indonesia... It is threatening to overwhelm humanity in a tide of bloody chaos.
It is also a lie to pretend that national sovereignty means the freedom of the 'people' to control their own destiny. We live in a class-divided society where the decisions that govern the lives of the vast majority of the world's population are taken by a tiny, exploiting minority. This is true in all countries, regardless of whether the political structures in place are 'democratic' or 'dictatorial'.
'Freedom for the people' is a lie because there is no such thing as the people. There are social classes with antagonistic interests. Above all, there is the ruling capitalist class and the exploited working class. The ideology of national independence, national pride, national solidarity is used by the ruling class to prevent workers from seeing that they have the same interests in all countries. It is used to dragoon the exploited into the wars of the exploiters. It is used to prevent the proletariat from recognising that class solidarity, not national solidarity, is the only starting point for building a truly free society.
Those who fight for a free society - revolutionaries, internationalists, communists - denounce the patronising and hypocritical 'sovereignty' offered by the US empire in Iraq. But we do not therefore call on the Iraqi workers to fight for a 'real' independence, to join with the nationalist 'Resistance' against the US and its local gendarmes. The armed conflict going on in Iraq today is not heading in the direction of a new society; it is a product of the extreme decay of this present order; it does nothing to help Iraqi proletarians discover their authentic class identity, but dissolves them in a false national or religious identity and leads them into a fruitless slaughter.
By the same token, we do not ask workers in Britain to demonstrate or vote for independence from the USA or from a German-dominated Europe. We call on them to develop their independence as a class by resisting the attacks of their exploiters, by raising their own demands in the struggle to defend their living standards. Such a movement of resistance begins with the struggle against our own 'national' ruling class and its state; but in the end, if it is to avoid defeat, it will have no choice but to spread across all borders and unite with the struggles of workers in other countries. And if it is to achieve final victory, if it is to save the human race from the madness of capitalism in its death throes, it will have to dismantle the global structure of competing nation states and create a unified human community on the scale of the entire planet.
The day of the nation state is done. Either humanity will live as one, or it will not live at all.
WR, 3/7/04.
In early June the Office for National Statistics issued the official government figures for 'industrial action' in 2003, highlighting a record low in the number of strikes. Some commentators pointed out that the early 2004 figures for 'working days lost' were more in tune with the rest of the decade, and that, so far, this is up on the 1990s. The ONS, however, made sure that all media outlets could compare the 1990s' yearly average figure of 600,000 with 7.2 million for the 1980s and 12.9 million for the 1970s. Drawing attention to such statistics is intended to feed the idea that the struggle between classes is dead. We are being asked to believe that Margaret Thatcher's dream has come true and finally "there is no such thing as society", no class conflict, just individuals and their families.
Ever since the beginning of workers' struggles the capitalists who exploit them have tried to obscure the reality of class society, the struggles between classes with opposing interests. Marx once quoted a letter from Disraeli in which the new Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer said "We shall endeavour to terminate the strife of classes which, of late years, has exercised so pernicious an influence over the welfare of the kingdom" (Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer, 3/5/1852). Yet the 'strife of classes' has stubbornly remained at the centre of capitalist society, resistant to all the bourgeoisie's words and deeds.
In the 1950s sociologists said that the working class had been 'bought off' with cars, washing machines and TVs; in the 60s they said that workers had become 'bourgeoisified' because of the advent of package holidays, consumerism and the general fear of nuclear war. Despite the extent of struggles in the 70s and 80s the propagandists of the ruling class still found reasons to show that the working class somehow had a stake in its own exploitation, with such things as the sale of council houses (now often with central heating) putting ex-tenants into the property market. In the 1990s the continuing decline in manufacturing industries along with the rise of the 'cyber economy' was offered as further proof that the working class was a thing of the past.
Yet the fundamental reality of capitalist society has not changed. More than 150 years after the Communist Manifesto capitalism now covers the face of the world; the role of the state has become utterly central to the bourgeoisie's attempt to manage the economy; imperialist war has given rise to a continuing series of catastrophes unimaginable to any previous society: yet the basic capitalist relationship remains the same. The working class sells its labour power to the capitalist class, and the capitalist class does everything it can to maximise the surplus value that comes to it, that is, the value created by labour which is over and above what is required for the workers' wages. In the process of capitalist production the interests of worker and capitalist are in opposition - the latter wants to intensify the rate of exploitation, while the former needs the material means to survive in a crisis-ridden economy.
There are many obvious examples of the clash of class interests. It is commonplace to hear of the high-paid executives who are munificently rewarded for laying off thousands of workers. Or take the international phenomenon of pensions: the funds that workers have expected to draw on are disappearing while their bosses generously prepare for comfortable retirements. These inequalities, and more importantly the fact that capitalism increasingly can't afford to fund pensions at all, is not only a demonstration of the bankruptcy of the system, but shows once again that it's the exploited class which has to pay for the crisis of the exploiters' system. Attempts in Britain to minimise the pension crisis only show the scale of the problem. A recent survey of 200 major companies revealed that the average deficit in each pension fund was "only" �280 million. Many companies could supposedly eliminate shortfalls with less than 10 months profit, but there's no evidence that this will ever happen.
Tony Blair constantly trumpets the strength of the British economy, in particular low inflation rates and declining unemployment, and these claims are also made in order to obscure the reality of class contrasts. As far as the unemployment figures are concerned, most of the Tories' administrative measures to keep the numbers down are still in place and the real figure could well be more than two million higher than the official one ; no one has any real job security; and also, today, families often need two or more incomes coming in, where one was adequate 25 years ago. But most significantly any 'success' in the economy has been financed by debt. The attempt to keep the inflation rate low partly stems from its importance as a factor that stimulated the struggles of the 1970s. Similarly, the reason that they want the unemployment figures to look healthier is because the threat of job losses lay behind many of the struggles of the 1980s.
Because of the depth of capitalism's economic crisis it can only temporarily postpone the effects it will have on the working class. Revolutionaries would be the first to admit that changes in economic indices can't automatically be translated into expressions of class struggle, but workers do respond to attacks on their material conditions of existence. As Engels put it in The condition of the working class in England, workers are driven to struggle "because they feel bound to proclaim that they, as human beings, shall not be made to bow to social circumstances, but social conditions ought to yield to them as human beings"; workers "must rebel so long as they have not lost all human feeling". The question is not whether the working class struggles, but understanding what are the circumstances in which its struggles are restrained.
One of the most important obstacles to the development of workers' struggles is the overwhelming individualism of capitalist culture. Problems are experienced as individual misfortunes, with, possibly, individual solutions. Despite two hundred years of workers' class struggles, militant solidarity with those who share real common interests is undermined by social atomisation. This aspect of capitalist society is further exacerbated by the period of social decomposition into which the bourgeois order has plunged. As we say in the 'Report on the class struggle' in International Review 107: "the effects of decomposition�have a profoundly negative effect on the proletariat's consciousness, on its sense of itself as a class, since in all their different aspects - the gang mentality, racism, criminality, drug addiction, etc - they serve to atomise the class, increase the divisions within its ranks, and dissolve it into the general social rat race".
Also the factor of unemployment has had some negative effects on the working class because "The process of disintegration created by massive and prolonged unemployment, particularly among the young, by the break up of the traditional combative concentrations of the working class in the industrial heartlands, reinforces the atomisation and the competition among the workers (...) The fragmentation of the identity of the class during the last decade in particular is in no way an advance but a clear manifestation of the decomposition which carries profound dangers for the working class" (ibid).
The threat of unemployment can also hold back the development of the class struggle when workers only see it as an individual problem and are weighed down with worry about how they're going to pay the bills or deal with their debts if they haven't got a job. This concern should not be underestimated when trying to understand why the official strike figures are even lower than those for either of the two world wars.
But if the lack of a sense of class identity undermines the ability of workers to act as a class, for those who do see the need for a collective struggle there is the ever-present danger of the unions.
In Britain in particular many unions have made a point of distancing themselves from the Blair government. Some have cut off funding to the Labour Party, others are questioning its usefulness and there is widespread unhappiness expressed with government policy - at home and abroad. For those who want to struggle the unions appear to be a possible vehicle for expressing discontent; and the unions put forward initiatives that can draw in militant workers, even though they don't really advance the development of confidence or solidarity in the ranks of the working class.
For example, over the last fifteen years the rail unions have staged a sporadic series of one-day strikes and other limited actions. Recently they took up the question of pensions, divisively deciding to settle for some workers while going ahead with a tube strike. On the other hand, in May there were a series of unofficial actions by firefighters across the country in solidarity with workers suspended in Salford. Also, where last year there was a lighting strike by staff at Heathrow, action is threatened at airports this summer firmly under the control of the GMB union which has made a point of going through all the official pre-strike procedures of balloting etc.
But despite the lack of a sense of class identity, and the union traps lying in wait for workers who want to struggle, the working class has certain factors on its side.
Most importantly the imposition of massive economic attacks, in particular the dismantling of the 'welfare state', contributes to a sense in the working class that it has interests in common with others who work for wages and have no control over any of the decisions that affect their conditions of life. Also, the proliferation of wars across the globe is a stark demonstration of the only direction in which capitalism can go. If a basic class solidarity is needed in the development of the class struggle, the expression of solidarity with those caught in imperialist conflicts is a sign of the development of class consciousness.
Barrow 30/6/04.
This series of articles has argued that, as a result of its failure to respond adequately to the First World War and the revolutionary wave that followed, the SPGB moved into the political no-man's land between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The third part of this article in WR 274 developed this analysis, showing that the SPGB's inability to make a critique of democracy pushed it into confusion faced with the war in Spain and into a virtual accommodation with the bourgeois state during the Second World War, when it was used by the ruling class as a safe channel for the questioning and anger provoked by the war. This final part takes this analysis up to the present.
Post war decline
Immediately following the war the membership of the SPGB continued to rise, reaching 1,000 in 1948(1) and 1,100 the year afterwards, and it maintained a large number of outdoor speaking pitches. However, in the 1950s the membership began to fall and attendance at its outdoor meetings declined. A resolution adopted at the 1961 Conference deplored "the low level of propaganda in 1960" while subsequent conferences called repeatedly for greater efforts to be made (see Conference Decisions and Party Poll Results 1959-1972 on the Socialist Standard SPGB website: www.worldsocialism.org [52]). Internally, a number of controversies developed in the party, as certain elements questioned the need for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and argued for a gradualist amelioration of the conditions of humanity as a whole, while speculating on various aspects of the socialist society of tomorrow (see Barltrop, The Monument, chapter 15 and 'Getting Splinters' in the June 2004 centenary issue of the Socialist Standard). Amongst those questioning the SPGB's very foundations was Tony Turner, one of the leading figures of the party, who called for a return to pre-industrial methods of production and rejected the role of the working class, arguing that a socialist party "appeals to mankind, not to capitalists, nor to wage-workers" (quoted in Barltrop, p. 147). These developments were fundamentally an expression of the weight of the defeat suffered by the working class. Physically, millions of workers had been slaughtered while ideologically the proletariat was crushed by the victory of democracy and Stalinism. The lie that the working class had in some way gained from the experience of the war, typified in the propaganda of the post-war Labour government, seemed to erase the true perspective of communism.
The internal crises of the SPGB were an expression of this general loss of perspective; but they were also the price of its wartime accommodation with the bourgeoisie, when it effectively contributed to the ideological victory of the ruling class by suspending its activity. One consequence seems to have been an erosion of the militant and personal conduct of some members. Barltrop recounts how one of the factions, after it had left the SPGB, infiltrated members back into the party to cause disruption. Even worse, he suggests that some developed antipathy towards the working class and engaged in petty crime and fraud while one couple ran a call-girl agency. Although many in the party strongly opposed such conduct a proposal that members' 'private' lives could be investigated was heavily defeated.
The end of the counter-revolution, marked by the mass strike in France in 1968, saw the emergence of a new generation questioning capitalism and looking for a revolutionary analysis. "During the 1960s the Party was enthused by a healthy influx of new recruits initially politicised by the CND marches, Vietnam and the May Events of 1968" ('Getting Splinters', Socialist Standard, June 2004, p.40). An analysis of the strikes in France argued that there were "vital lessons" to be learnt from the strike, such as "the complete bankruptcy of the 'Communist' parties" and "the way in which the universities and factories were organised", but rejected the notion that there was any kind of near-revolutionary situation because none of the workers' demands really went beyond the capitalist system. While formally correct, this fails to grasp the historical significance of the strikes: the emergence of a new undefeated generation of workers and the end of the counter-revolution. In short, the SPGB missed the bigger picture, focussing, as it did with regard to Russia in 1917, on immediate aspects of the situation in isolation. Thus it concluded: "If there was a working class committed to Socialism in France the correct method of achieving political power would be to fight a general election on a revolutionary programme without any reforms to attract support from non-socialists" ('How close was France to a Socialist Revolution?' Socialist Standard, July 1968, reprinted in Socialism or your money back, 2004).
Faced with the resurgence of the working class, the SPGB's fixation on democracy and its mechanistic conception of the development of consciousness rendered it blind to the developments taking place and resulted in it increasingly being a radical echo of the ideological campaigns of the bourgeoisie
The SPGB was unable to avoid being affected by the intensification of the class struggle that took place in the decades after 1968. The annual conferences in this period repeatedly adopted resolutions that reiterated the SPGB's basic positions on the use of parliament, and the necessity for a majority of the working class to be socialists before the introduction of socialism. Some elements within the SPGB began to question its positions, leading to a number of expulsions, including in the mid-1970s members of the group that produced Libertarian Communism: "This supported the idea of workers' councils. It openly attacked as 'Kautskyite' the Party's traditional conception of the socialist revolution being facilitated through 'bourgeois' democracy and parliament" ('Getting Splinters', Socialist Standard, June 2004, p.40). Elements from this group were subsequently involved in Wildcat and Subversion.
At the same time it also felt the pressure of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces. In 1974 it declared that "membership of Women's Liberation Organisations is incompatible with membership of the party" (Conference Resolutions 1973-1988, SPGB, Socialist Standard, website).
While it was able to resist these more obvious challenges, it seems that there were other developments taking place that led to increasing conflict within the party. For example, the 1980 Conference adopted a resolution that stated "this conference views with displeasure the abusing of members by other members that has been a feature of the Party in the last three years. It considers that letters, circulars and other statements naming members as liars and rogues, denying their right to be members, disparaging and interfering with Party activity, have caused and still cause grave harm to the Party" (ibid). In 1991 a substantial minority of members were expelled for 'undemocratic behaviour'. The expelled members promptly 'reconstituted' the SPGB, resulting in a legal battle over the name and accusations from the expelled minority of attempts at sabotage.
The reconstituted SPGB, which publishes the journal Socialist Studies, accuses the Socialist Standard SPGB, or what it calls the "Clapham-based Socialist Party", of reformism and anarchism. They trace the dispute back to the difficulties faced by the SPGB in the 1950s and argue that there were "20 or more years of endless disputes against factions determined to take over the Party" (SPGB - Socialist Studies, 2002, Preface to Socialist Policies and Principles - Setting the Record Straight). The struggle became more acute in the early 1970s with the appearance of critical factions as described above. One of these factions produced a manifesto, Where We Stand, in 1973, amongst whose signatories was A. Buick, one of the current leading figures in the Socialist Standard SPGB (ibid, p3). The Socialist Standard centenary issue only seems to hint at this when it notes "Members whose disagreements with the Party were less serious and fundamental stayed in, working for the creation of what they hoped would be a more tolerant, and in their view, less 'sectarian' organisation" (Socialist Standard, June 2004, p.40). Around the time of the split in the early 90s a member of the SPGB was reported as saying "most of the break-away group were 'in their eighties and nineties' and tended to be dismissive of feminist, gay and black issues the party had increasingly taken up in recent years" (The Socialist of March 1992, quoted in Socialist Studies, no.5, p.14). This suggestion of a change in the SPGB gains some support from a Conference Resolution of 1994, rescinding the resolution taken 20 years ago opposing membership of women's liberation organisations (Conference resolutions 1989-1994 and Party Poll results 1986-1991, SPGB website); from the willingness of figures like Buick and Coleman to participate in joint publications (2); and, most recently and clearly from Perrin's The Socialist Party of Great Britain, which contains direct criticism of the traditional positions of the SPGB (3).
There is thus some truth in the Socialist Studies group's accusation that the Socialist Standard group has moved away from the SPGB's original positions. But the problem goes deeper than this. What lies behind this evolution is the contradictory position that the SPGB has occupied since the First World War and, in particular, its accommodation to bourgeois ideology. While the Socialist Studies group remains a stalwart of democracy in its most obvious parliamentary form, the Socialist Standard group has adapted to the weight of a more pervasive and 'flexible' democratism that has developed since 1968.
One expression of this was the declaration of support by the SPGB for the growth of Solidarity in Poland in 1980. For Socialist Studies this amounted to a betrayal of principles because they classified Solidarity as a reformist movement rather than simply a union. In fact, the expression of support was a logical consequence of the SPGB's position that democratic rights, including the right to organise in trade unions, are a precondition for socialism.
This became much clearer and of greater significance after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989. The SPGB saw the collapse as wholly positive: "The Socialist Party welcomes the collapse of Russian-style 'communism' as a significant step in clearing the way for genuine communism to which it has been a serious obstacle for over 70 years" ('The end of utopia?', Socialist Standard, December 1991). It echoed the bourgeoisie's talk of popular 'revolution': "In Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania despite the intimidation, the workers took courage into their hands, came into the streets and openly defied their oppressors. When we see these oppressive structures collapsing what is being demonstrated is the power and force of popular consciousness" ('The Lessons of East Europe', Socialist Standard, February 1990). It agreed with the superiority of western bourgeois democracy: "Unquestionably it is better to live in a society where there is some degree of democracy than in one where opposition to the regime is not tolerated" ('What price democracy', Socialist Standard, September 1992). Even if imperfect the democratic freedoms granted by the bourgeoisie make socialism possible and should be supported: "to establish the majority socialist consciousness that must necessarily underpin Socialism, it is important to struggle for our voice to be heard; for the limping democracy of capitalism to become more than a mere numbers game for pollsters and politicians" (ibid). And it contributed to the bourgeoisie's campaign against communism, which always insists that the October 1917 revolution led directly to Stalinism: "A state-managed economy, one-man management at work, and the political dictatorship of a single party which imprisons its members who oppose its leadership, what is that if not Stalinism? Yes, Lenin did lead to Stalin. Both were opponents of the self-emancipation of the working class" (SPGB leaflet). For the SPGB, it was a chance to grow and gain influence: "the fact that ours is a movement with a clean and honest record where Leninism and dictatorship are concerned - our critical stance maintained over many decades has been shown to be right - will surely open many doors for us in Eastern Europe and Russia at this time of change" ('From privilege to profits', Socialist Standard, March 1990).
The changes made by the Socialist Standard group can also be seen by comparing different issues of one of its key documents, Socialist Principles Explained, which aims to clarify the Object and Declaration of Principles:
In 1981, the ICC criticised the SPGB's inability to see the significance of the mass strike of the Polish workers: "The significance of their fight is, for the SPGB, not that they have placed themselves in the advance guard of the international workers' struggle with self-organisation and generalised strikes outside of the unions. Rather they have shown that they are a rearguard - having just obtained trade union rights" 'SPGB salutes trade unionism', WR 37, April 1981). This has been the case in 1917, 1968 and 1980. Always the working class is seen statically, as not containing the right quantity of consciousness because it has not mustered under the SPGB's banner. The result is to push the revolution ever further over the horizon.
The SPGB's position places consciousness outside the working class. It is not a process but an accomplished fact embodied in the SPGB. The SPGB has been right for 100 years - it's just that the working class can't or won't see it. The SPGB rejects 'vanguardism' but its position places it outside and above the working class as its self-appointed educator.
This attitude will certainly prevent the SPGB as a body from participating in any future massive struggles of the working class. But its palpable concessions to bourgeois ideology - above all, to the central capitalist myth of democracy - could lead it to side directly with the bourgeoisie when the working class is concretely faced with the necessity to destroy the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, not least its parliamentary façade.
North
Footnotes
In April the ICC's section in France held its 16th Congress. This Congress was a very important one for our whole international organisation. Two years ago, the 15th Congress of RI was transformed into an Extraordinary Conference of the ICC owing to the fact that our organisation had gone through the most serious crisis in its history, with the constitution of a parasitic group in its own ranks. This group, which called itself the 'Internal Fraction of the ICC', was formed on the basis of secret meetings held behind the organisation's back and was devoted to destroying the ICC's unitary and centralised principles of functioning.
This Extraordinary Conference allowed all the militants to measure the gravity of the destructive activities carried out by this 'Internal Fraction', in particular the circulation of rumours that the central organs of the ICC were being manipulated by a cop; the theft of money belonging to the ICC and of internal documents susceptible to falling into the hands of the police (especially the addresses of our militants and subscribers). But what really convinced comrades who had doubts about the disturbing and destructive character of the 'IFICC' was its act of kidnapping two delegates of our Mexican section at Roissy airport. Although these delegates had joined the 'Fraction', they had agreed to participate in the Extraordinary Conference in order to defend their disagreements. Even though their trip had been paid for by the ICC, these two delegates were picked up at the airport by two members of the IFICC who prevented them from taking part in our Conference. The IFICC refused to reimburse the ICC for the cost of the two plane tickets. This behaviour, worthy of petty gangsters, as well as the circulation of slanders throughout the ICC with the aim of sowing mistrust and confusion, fully justified the RI Congress being transformed into an Extraordinary Conference whose principal objective was to save the ICC and its organisational principles.
Two years later, the first job of the section in France, on the occasion of its 16th Congress, was to draw up a balance sheet of this organisational struggle. The re-establishment of confidence and solidarity within the organisation
Like all RI Congresses, this one had an international character because all the sections of the ICC were represented there. The section in France, supported by all the international delegations, drew up a very positive balance sheet of its activity over the past two years.
Despite the attacks it has been subjected to by the IFICC, which have obliged the ICC as a whole to mobilise itself for the defence of its main section, RI has been able to carry on its activity within the working class. It has succeeded in closing ranks in the battle against the parasitic manoeuvres of the IFICC, publicly denouncing it for behaving like a bunch of informers (see the article 'The police-like methods of the IFICC' in WR 262). This battle could only be waged thanks to the re-establishment of confidence and solidarity within the organisation, based on a collective re-appropriation of the principles of the workers' movement.
The Congress highlighted the fact that the section in France is today more united and solid than ever. In the last two years it has been tested in its ability to defend the organisational principles of the ICC, especially the principle of centralisation, and it has passed this test.
The RI Congress also drew a positive balance sheet of the work of its new central organ; the preparatory texts for the Congress were proof that it has lived up to its responsibilities.
Today the ICC's largest section has totally rid itself of clans and of divisions based on a purely sentimental loyalty to this or that individual.
Thus the activities resolution adopted by the Congress affirmed that:
"The section in France has emerged strengthened by this crisis, which has enabled it to rediscover the spirit of fraternity and to understand in depth how denigration and slander can poison the organisation's tissue. Divergences and disagreements can be expressed in a climate of mutual confidence without leading to personal attacks and conflicts (point 3). Centralisation is the organised expression of the unity of the organisation. In this sense, it is tightly bound up with solidarity and confidence, which are the two basic principles of the class which is the bearer of communism. It is equally thanks to the strengthening of centralisation at all levels (international, territorial, local) that the section has been able to mobilise itself to support and defend the Northern Section of RI against the IFICC's attempted encirclement; this has been a definite factor in making confidence and solidarity between comrades a living reality.This ability of the section to strengthen its centralisation in order to develop solidarity in its own ranks and to respond as a unit to the IFICC (especially by banning informers from coming to our public meetings) has also helped to strengthen our contacts' confidence in the ICC. Far from sowing distrust, doubt and suspicion, this centralised policy of defence of the organisation and of the proletarian political milieu has on the contrary strengthened the credibility of the ICC. Our ability to show clearly what confidence and solidarity in our own ranks really mean has allowed our contacts to assimilate more deeply the elementary principles of the revolutionary class. This is proved today by the fact that a number of sympathisers have become closer and more loyal to the organisation, some of them expressing a desire to join it".
In this context of reinforcing the unity of the organisation, of re-establishing the confidence and solidarity which have to link the militants of a communist organisation, the section in France has been able to integrate new comrades into the organisation and live up to its responsibilities towards new elements coming towards the ICC or asking to join it.
While the Extraordinary Conference held two years ago was entirely polarised around the question of the defence of the organisation against the threat posed by the activities of the IFICC, the 16th Congress of RI was able to return to analysing the evolution of the international situation, with the aim of drawing out perspectives for the activities not only of the section in France but of the whole ICC.
Reports had been prepared and discussed in all the sections on the three basic aspects of the international situation: the economic crisis of capitalism, imperialist conflicts and the class struggle. However, the Congress made the decision to concentrate on the latter point, given that the two other aspects had been amply discussed at the last International Congress, and that the preparatory discussions for the Congress had not raised any major new issues. This was not however the case with the evolution of the class struggle. In particular, the Congress ratified the view, adopted by the ICC's central organ last autumn (see the report in International Review 117), that over the past year we have seen a turning point in the class struggle, the most obvious expression of which were the strikes in the spring of 2003 in France against the attack on pensions. The debates at the Congress were particularly rich and animated. They enabled the organisation to go more deeply into the connection between militancy and class consciousness. In particular, the section in France and all the international delegations took a clear position on the need to throw off the schemas of the past in order to understand the real dynamic of the balance of forces between the classes. The Congress thus arrived at a homogeneous recognition that while the current struggles have not in themselves been at the same level as the massive attacks launched by the bourgeoisie through the dismantling of the welfare state, they contain a very significant potential at the level of in-depth reflection about the historic bankruptcy of capitalism and the necessity to build another kind of society. It is precisely this potential, the result of the objective impasse reached by the capitalist system (simultaneous aggravation of the crisis and of military barbarism), which explains why the bourgeoisie, in order to undermine the stirrings of consciousness within the proletariat, is today obliged to get ahead of the game by putting forward a false alternative: the mystification of 'alternative worldism' (not only in France but internationally).
In this sense, the debates which animated the 16th Congress allowed our organisation to grasp what's at stake in this turning point in the class struggle. Although the revival of class militancy has not yet led to the proletariat rediscovering its class identity and regaining its self-confidence, the fundamental questions being raised today (where is society going? What future can this system offer our children? Is another world possible? etc) are harbingers of a much deeper development of class consciousness than was posed in the waves of struggles in the 70s and 80s.
In particular, the Congress clearly showed that the emergence of minorities (often breaking from leftism and anarchism) who are searching for class positions in all countries, and who are making contact with the ICC in order to participate actively in the struggle of the revolutionary organisations, is an especially eloquent illustration of this maturation of consciousness within the working class.
The Congress agreed that one of the organisation's main priorities is to adapt its intervention in line with this analysis of a turning point in the class struggle. In fact it has already begun to do so, for example through the determined intervention against 'alternative worldist' ideology at the most recent carnivals of the bourgeoisie (the European Social forum in France and the World Social Forum in Mumbai, etc). Within the struggles themselves, the task that the ICC has to carry out can't be limited to an immediatist intervention, which brings the risk of falling into workerism and playing the game of the leftists; its major aim is to help develop the reflection taking place within the class, pushing workers to become aware that the present system has nothing to offer humanity expect growing barbarism.
It is with this historical, long-term vision that revolutionaries must examine the changes in the balance of class forces. This requires patience because it is evident that the struggles which the working class has been engaged in since the spring of 2003 (in France, Britain, Austria, etc) are mere skirmishes when you consider the scale of the attacks being launched - and yet they are still important signs of this shift in the general dynamic of the class struggle.
The work of the 16th Congress, the richness of the debates which took place, and in particular the fact that all the militants were able to express themselves in a climate of confidence, including comrades who have only recently joined the ICC, all testify to the vitality of our organisation and the redressing of our section in France. The discussions on the international situation showed a will to go deeply into the historical method which revolutionaries have to use when they examine the class struggle. The Congress was thus able to draw out clear orientations for activity in the current period. The turning point in the class struggle "demands that revolutionaries are at their posts in order to be an active factor in the development of workers' struggles and in stimulating the reflection and evolution of young elements looking for a class perspective. This is a heavy responsibility, but being aware of this is no reason for folding our arms. On the contrary it must be a permanent stimulus for our activity. It must strengthen the conviction and determination of the militants to continue the combat (including the struggle against the slanders of parasitism). Today what Marx wrote 150 years is as valid as ever: 'I have always noted that well-tempered natures, once they have embarked upon the revolutionary path, constantly draw new strength from defeat and become more and more resolute as the flow of history takes them further forward' (Letter to Philip Becker)", Activities Resolution point 14.
RI.
In the days following the massacre, world leaders have been rushing to express their 'solidarity with the Russian people' and with their 'strong leader' Mr Putin. At the Republican Convention in New York, Bush did not hesitate to include the Russian state's war against Chechen separatism in the global 'war on terrorism' spearheaded by the USA. In Moscow tens of thousands took part in an official anti-terrorist march under banners declaring 'Putin, we are with you'.
But solidarity with the victims of Beslan is one thing. Support for the Russian state is another. Because the Russian state is just as much to blame for this nightmare as the terrorists who seized the school.
For a start, because a large number of the deaths and injuries were almost certainly caused by the actions of the Russian troops surrounding the school, using automatic fire, flamethrowers and grenade launchers in a completely chaotic manner. These brutal methods cannot fail to raise memories of the way the Moscow theatre siege was ended in October 2002, and yet Putin has refused to sanction the slightest questioning of the army's role in the affair. But more important than this is the fact that, just as the US 'war on terrorism' has plunged Afghanistan and Iraq into ideal hunting grounds for home-grown and international terrorist gangs, so Chechen terrorism is the by-product of Russian imperialism's devastating war in the Caucasus.
Faced with demands for an independent Chechnya after the collapse of the USSR, Russia reacted with a murderous offensive in which at least 100,000 people died. In 1999, following a lull in the conflict, Putin stepped it up to even more barbaric levels, virtually flattening the Chechen capital of Grozny. The pretext given for this renewed offensive was the blowing up of apartment blocks in Moscow and Volgodonsk, in which 300 people were killed. Although Chechen terrorists were accused, there are strong grounds for thinking that this was the work of the Russian secret service. Since then, Russia has remained absolutely intransigent in its refusal of any demands for Chechen independence. This is because the loss of Chechnya would be a huge blow to Russia's imperialist interests. For one thing because of Chechnya's strategic position with regard to the Caucasian oil fields and pipelines; but, more importantly, because of the danger that if Chechnya secedes from the Russian Federation, it would give the signal for the break-up of the Federation and Russia would lose its last pretences to be a player on the world arena.
There have been no limits to the crimes committed by the Russian army in the Caucasus. They are well-documented by any number of 'human rights' organisations. Human Rights Watch, for example, talks about Putin's "failure to establish a meaningful accountability process for crimes committed by Russian soldiers and police forces�enforced disappearances, summary executions and torture have grossly undermined trust in Russian state institutions among ordinary Chechens" (cited in The Guardian, September 2 2004).
These ravages are equal to anything perpetrated by 'official' tyrants like Saddam or Milosevic. And yet throughout these years of misery in the Caucasus, the leaders of 'western democracy', the advocates of 'humanitarian intervention' in Kosovo or Iraq, have supported Putin to the hilt. Blair even invited him to tea with the Queen. This is because behind all their 'moral' rhetoric, Bush, Blair and the rest are interested only in the imperialist needs of the capitalist states they represent. Today these needs demand that Russia � though a rival in many respects, as it showed with its opposition to the Iraq war � must be preserved as a national unit and not allowed to collapse into chaos. Russia is a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and a global energy giant. The consequences of the Russian Federation shattering like the old USSR are too dangerous for the bourgeoisies of the west. This doesn't mean that, tomorrow (or in some cases, already) the great powers won't try to take advantage of Russia's internal difficulties in order to advance their own pawns in the region. But for now, all of them, including the USA's main rivals, France and Germany, have approached the Russian question with extreme caution. President Chirac of France and Chancellor Schröder of Germany visited Putin recently, expressed their entire support for his Chechen policy, and endorsed the utterly fraudulent election of the new pro-Russian Chechen president Alu Alkharov, who succeeds his assassinated predecessor Kadryov.
It also suits the US and Russia to proclaim that they are both fighting a 'war on terrorism'. In exchange for turning a blind eye to Russia's barbaric military occupation of Chechnya and its support for petty warlords elsewhere in the Caucasus, Washington gets a certain degree of Russian acquiescence for its policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Because Russian state barbarism in Chechnya has spawned the barbarism of the terrorist gangs, there are those critics of the excesses of the Russian state who ask us to 'understand' the actions of the terrorists, just as they ask us to 'understand' the suicide bombers organised by Hamas and similar groups in Palestine, or even to 'understand' the al-Qaida attacks of 9/11. And, yes, we 'understand' that those whose families have been slaughtered and raped by Russian troops, or bombed by Israeli or American planes and tanks, should be driven towards violent revenge and suicidal acts of despair. But we also 'understand' why terrified Russian conscripts in Chechnya should be goaded into acts of insane brutality against the civilian population. This understanding does not lead us to support the Russian army, and neither does it lead us to support the nationalist and fundamentalist bosses-in-waiting who exploit the despair of the poor and the oppressed to push them into carrying out terrorist attacks on the poor and oppressed of other nations. Faced with the choice between Russian state terror and Chechen terrorism, between the Israeli army of occupation and Hamas, or between US imperialism and al-Qaida, we say: enough false choices! We will not be tricked into supporting one faction of capitalism against another, into looking for the 'lesser evil' in any of the imperialist wars ravaging the planet today.
We understand the roots of national and racial hatred, and this is precisely why we oppose all its possible expressions. The fanatical nationalism of the Beslan hostage-takers led them to consider their victims as less than human; and now a powerful sentiment of revenge for their inhuman acts is swelling up not only in Ossetia but in Russia as a whole. The Russian state will use these sentiments to justify new acts of aggression in Chechnya and elsewhere: already its military leaders have threatened 'pre-emptive strikes' anywhere in the world. This will give rise to further terrorist reprisals and so the endless spiral of death will continue, just as it does in Israel and Iraq.
Against national and religious divisions of all kinds, we stand for the solidarity of the exploited regardless of race, nationality or religion. Against all appeals for solidarity with 'our' state or 'our' national leaders, we stand for the class solidarity of the proletariat in all countries.
This solidarity, this unity of all the exploited, can only be forged in the struggle against exploitation. It has nothing in common with appeals for charity, with the illusion that solidarity can be reduced to sending money or blankets to the victims of war and terror. The wars and massacres spreading around the world are products of the terminal decay of capitalist society; they can only be opposed and ended through the common fight for a new society, where human solidarity is the only law.
One of the grieving parents of Beslan was quoted as saying that the inhumanity of the siege made her think that this was "the beginning of the end of the world". The collapse of all human decency, of the most basic social ties, exemplified by the slaughter of children, does indeed show us that the capitalist world is coming to an end, one way or another. One way is the capitalist way, leading to the extermination of humanity; the other is the proletarian way, leading to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a communist society without classes or exploitation, states, national frontiers or wars.
ICC, 10th September 2004
In mid-July Daimler-Chrysler in Germany posed an ultimatum to 41,000 workers in Sindelfingen (Stuttgart) to agree to wage cuts and changes in working conditions or have production of a new Mercedes transferred to South Africa. This lead to strikes and demonstrations by 60,000 (out of 160,00) Daimler workers across Germany, with great expressions of anger and solidarity from other workers. The IG Metall union and Daimler soon stitched up a deal which provoked further anger from workers shouting that the union had no right to sign such a deal in their name. This was a defeat for the workers, but they do know that the union was involved. This article is from Welt Revolution 125, the ICC's publication in Germany, and was distributed as a leaflet when company/union negotiations were still going on. The ICC in Germany has never had such an enthusiastic reception to a leaflet, which confirmed that the question of militant solidarity is really being posed in the working class.
The employers seem to have got what they were aiming for. Millions of wage labourers have been sent off on holidays with the news that Europe's biggest industrial company, at the main Mercedes plant at Stuttgart-Sindelfingen, is soon going to be 'saving' production costs of half a billion Euro yearly at the expense of its employees. They want to let us all know that even where companies are still making a profit, workers have become extremely liable to being blackmailed through the threat of transferring production elsewhere, and of massive lay-offs. During the holiday period we are supposed to resign ourselves to the fact that we will soon all have to work longer for less money. Precisely at the moment when the workforce disperses for the major summer break when, in isolation, the feeling of powerlessness is particularly strongly felt, they want to force down our throats the recognition that a breach has been made. A breach at the expense of the workers which effects not only the work force at Daimler-Chrysler but all wage slaves. The market economy offers nothing but pauperisation, insecurity and endless drudgery
Only a few weeks after the staff of the Siemens plants in Bocholt and Kamp-Lintfort were blackmailed into accepting a return to the 40 hour week without any wage compensation; after Bavaria had taken the lead in extending the working day, also in the public sector, again without any pay compensation, the employers have now begun to clamour - depending on their situation - for a 40, a 42, or even for a 50 hour week. At Karstadt for instance (a department store chain) the workers were told: either you work a 42 hour week or 4000 jobs will be eliminated. Whether in the construction sector, at MAN or at Bosch - everywhere similar demands are being raised.
The experience of the past weeks thus confirms what more and more wage labourers are beginning to feel: that the much praised 'market economy' (with or without the predicate 'social') has nothing else in store for us but pauperisation, insecurity and endless drudgery.
But in addition to this bitter but necessary recognition there are other lessons of the conflicts of the past weeks which have to be drawn and assimilated. The ruling class wants us to draw from the struggle at Daimler-Chrysler the conclusion that there is no point in putting up resistance; that the logic of capitalist competition will impose itself one way or the other, so that it would be better to submit from the onset; that after all the exploiters and the exploited all sit in the same boat in "maintaining employment in Germany".
But from the point of view of the working population there are quite different conclusions to be drawn. More than 60,000 employees of Daimler-Chrysler throughout Germany have participated in the past few days in strikes and protest actions. Workers from Siemens, Porsche, Bosch and Alcatel have participated in demonstrations in Sindelfingen. This struggle has shown that the workers have begun to return to the path of struggle. Taking into consideration the suffering and misery held in store for the workers of the whole world in the coming years, we can understand that the most important thing now is not the fact that, once again, the capitalists have managed to impose their will. More importantly, this time, the attacks were not passively accepted.
The most important thing of all is the following: when Daimler-Chrysler threatened the employees at Sindelfingen, Untert�rkheim and Mannheim with the transfer of the production of the new S-class model to Bremen from 2007 on, it consciously aimed at playing off the workers of the different plants against each other. The fact that the employees in Bremen participated in the protest actions against wage cuts, longer working hours and the elimination of breaks in Baden-W�rttemberg, thwarted this strategy of the employers. This at least began to make clear that our answer to the crisis of capitalism can only lie in workers' solidarity. This solidarity is the force which makes our struggle possible, and which gives it its meaning.
The ruling class wants to give us the impression that the struggle at Mercedes was a pointless exercise which did not impress it in the least. But if you examine the events more closely, all the indications suggest that the ruling class is indeed worried about the commencement of working class resistance. It fears above all that the dispossessed will recognise that solidarity is not only the most effective weapon in the defence of their own interests, but in addition contains the fundamental principle of an alternative, higher form of social order.
It was anything but a coincidence that the return to a 40 hour week at Siemens in the Ruhr area was immediately followed by the massive public challenge to the work force of Daimler-Chrysler. The case of Siemens was meant to serve as a demonstration that, whenever there is the threat of the closure of a plant, the workers will not only have to put up with worsened working and pay conditions, but also with longer working hours. At Mercedes in Stuttgart, on the contrary, there is - for the moment - no question of closing down the plant. This plant is still considered to be particularly efficient and profitable. Mercedes was chosen to put over a second message: that the boundless extension of the regime of exploitation applies not only where the company or the plant has its back up against the wall. It must apply everywhere. That was why Daimler was deliberately chosen, precisely because it is the flagship of German industry, the biggest concentration of the industrial working class in Germany, in the heart of Baden-W�rttemberg, with its many hundreds of thousands of engineering workers. In this way, the message of the capitalists was to come over loud and clear. This message is that if even such a strong group of workers, well known for their experience of struggle and their combativity, are not able to avert such attacks, than the other wage earners will certainly have to submit to them.
It's not for nothing that the employers combine their forces in so-called employers' confederations. They do so in order to co-ordinate their efforts against the working class. In addition, these confederations are fused with the whole of the state apparatus. This means that the strategy of the employers is embedded in a global strategy directed by the government at the national and provincial levels, and thus also by Social Democracy. In this process a kind of division of labour between the government and industry arises. Most of the 'reforms' decided on by the federal government and directly enforced by the state are scheduled during the first half of a term of office. These have, in the past two years, included the most incredible attacks against the living standards of the working population: the 'health reform', the 'Hartz' legislation against the unemployed, the 'relaxation' of employment protection laws etc. Now, on the other hand, the SPD is happy, in the period leading up to the next general elections, to let the employers take centre stage - in the hope that people will thus continue to identify with the state, go and vote, and not completely lose confidence in the SPD.
We should therefore not allow ourselves to be misled by the SPD when it now declares that its sympathies lie with the workers of Daimler-Chrysler. In reality, the present attacks in the enterprises are directly linked to the 'reforms' by the federal government. It was probably no coincidence that the much publicised sending of the new questionnaire to the unemployed (aimed at finding out about and mobilising all the financial resources of the unemployed and their families as a means of cutting benefits) took place at the same moment as the imposition of the attacks at Daimler. The lowering of unemployment benefits to the level of the social aid minimum and the enforced surveillance and control of the unemployed serves not only to "unburden" the state budget at the expense of the poorest of the poor. It also serves to intensify the effectiveness of all the available means of blackmail against the still employed. To them it is to be made clear that if they do not shut up and accept everything, they will themselves be plunged into a bottomless poverty.
But the fact that the attacks of capital are not going to be accepted without a fight is proven not only by the protests at Daimler, but also by the way the ruling class reacted to them. It soon became clear that the politicians, the trade unions, the factory union councils and also the employers had realised that the conflict at Daimler ought to be resolved as quickly as possible. The capitalist strategy was originally orientated towards playing off Stuttgart and Bremen against each other. The resistance of the workers most immediately under attack in the south-east of Germany was to be expected. But what apparently came as a surprise was the enthusiasm with which other workers above all in Bremen, participated in the movement. The spectre of workers' solidarity, long considered dead and buried, threatened a comeback. In the face of this, the representatives of the capitalists began to get visibly nervous.
Thus, spokesmen of all the political parties represented in parliament - including the Liberals of the FDP, the self-declared party of the rich - began to call on the management of Daimler-Chrysler to offer to renounce part of its earnings. Of course, such a measure is nothing but a hoax. Since the board of directors itself decides its salary, it always has the power to compensate for this 'renunciation'. Moreover, it does not help workers who can no longer afford education for their children, or the mortgage on their flat, to know that someone like J�rgen Schrempp (Daimler's CEO) may eventually be pocketing a million more or less.
It is more interesting to consider the question as to why the political leadership is presently calling for this gesture from the board of directors. They are calling for it in order to prop up the ideology of social partnership, which threatens to suffer when a bitter labour conflict is underway.
That is also why the politicians lashed the arrogance of the Daimler bosses. The problem of the present situation, where the employers have taken the initiative as the attackers, whereas the state has tried to stay in the background, disguising itself as a neutral force, becomes visible. A manager like Schrempp or Hubbert does not have the sensibility of an experienced Social Democrat when it is a matter of demonstratively inflicting a defeat on the workers, while on the other hand avoiding provoking them too much. Above all, the ruling class is afraid that the workers might start thinking too much about their own struggle and about the perspective of their lives under capitalism. In this context, the criticism made by Chancellor Schr�der is significant: "My advice is to settle these matters in the enterprises, and talk about them as little as possible" (our emphasis).
Since the collapse of Stalinism - a particularly inefficient, rigid, over- regimented form of state capitalism - in 1989, it has been repeated ad nauseam that there is no longer any perspective of socialism, and that class struggle and the working class no longer exist. But nothing is more likely than widespread workers' struggles to prove to the world that neither the working class itself nor the class struggle are things of the past.
We do not want to overestimate the struggles at Daimler. These struggles were not at all sufficient to prevent the capitalist "breach". One reason for this is because the conflict essentially remained limited to the Daimler workers. The whole of history proves that only the extension of the struggle to other parts of the working class is able to even temporarily make the ruling class back down. Another problem was that at no time did the workers even begin to contest or put in doubt trade union control. The IG Metall and the local factory council once again proved themselves adept masters at placing at the centre of attention everything which distinguishes the situation at Mercedes from that of other wage labourers: the profitability of one's 'own' concern, the full order books of one's 'own' plant, the much praised efficiency of the Baden-W�rttemberg metal workers. In this way, a far-reaching, more active solidarity with the rest of the working class was blocked off. The media, for their part, also took up the same theme from the other end, tying to spread envy against the Daimler workers who were presented as being particularly priveleged. It was striking that, for instance, the media reported daily from Sindelfingen (where the zebra crossings made of carrara marble rarely failed to be mentioned) whereas the situation in Bremen (where the element of solidarity had most strongly come to the fore) was blacked out.
Even before management had gone public with its demand for yearly savings of half a billion, the general works council of Daimler had already itself proposed an austerity package to the tune of 180 million Euro per annum. And as soon as management had agreed to the hoax of also making sacrifices, IG Metall and the factory council presented their agreement to a "global package" which in all points fulfilled the original demands of the company, and then presented this as a victory for the workers, which allegedly achieved a "job guarantee" for all.
It is not because they are evil that the unions divide up the workers and defend the interests of the employers at the expense of the employees, but because they themselves have long since become part and parcel of capitalism and its logic. This means that workers' solidarity and the extension of struggles can only be achieved by the workers themselves. This in turn requires sovereign mass assemblies and a method of struggle directed towards different sectors of the employed and the unemployed coming together. This can only be achieved independently and against the resistance of the unions.
We are still very far removed from such an autonomous mode of struggle based on active solidarity. Nevertheless, today we can already find the seeds of such future struggles. The Daimler workers themselves were quite conscious that they were fighting not only for themselves, but for the interests of all workers. It is also incontestable that their struggle - despite all the hate campaigns about the alleged privileges in Sindelfingen - has met with the sympathy of the working population as a whole, such as has not been witnessed in Germany since the struggles of Krupp Rheinhausen in 1987.
At that time, the "Kruppianer" at least began to pose the question of the active extension of the struggle to other sectors, as well as beginning to think about contesting the trade union control of the struggle. The fact that today these questions are not yet really posed shows how much ground the working class has lost in the past 15 years, not only in Germany, but world-wide. But on the other hand struggles such as at Krupp, or that of the British miners, represented the end of a series of workers' struggles which lasted from 1968 to 1989, but were then followed by a long period of reflux. The present struggles, on the contrary - whether in the public sector in France and Austria last year, or now at Daimler - are merely the beginning of a new series of important social struggles. These struggles will develop in a much slower and more difficult manner than in the past. Today, the crisis of capitalism is much more advanced, the general barbarism of the system much more visible, the threatening calamity of unemployment much more omnipresent.
But today, much more than was the case with Krupp-Rheinhausen, the great sympathy of the wage-earning population with the workers in struggle is more directly linked to the slowly dawning recognition of the seriousness of the situation. The ruling class - and its unions - are busy presenting the presently imposed lengthening of the working day as a temporary measure in order to hold onto jobs until the economy has "regained competivity". But the workers are beginning to guess that what is happening is more and more fundamental than that. Indeed! What is happening is that the acquisitions, not only of decades, but of two centuries of workers' struggles, are threatened with being thrown overboard. What is happening is that the working day, like in the early days of capitalism, is being lengthened more and more - but in the context of the working conditions of modern capitalism with its hellish intensity of labour. What is happening is that, more and more, human labour power, as a source of the wealth of society, is being exhausted and in the long term worked to death. In contrast to early capitalism this is not the birth pangs of a new system, but is the expression of a moribund capitalism which today has become the obstacle to the progress of humanity. In the long term, today's uncertain efforts towards workers' resistance, towards the revival of solidarity, go hand in hand with a deeper reflection. This can and must lead to putting this barbaric system into question and to the perspective of a higher, socialist world system.
Welt Revolution, 22/7/04.
Under the direction of US imperialism, the political and religious leaders of Iraq met on August 15 in Baghdad in order to hold the first session of a national conference whose official aim was to organise national elections for 2005. According to the New York Times, "the Americans and the present Iraqi government sought to show, through this conference, that the electoral process is on course despite the violence sweeping the country". This electoral perspective is doomed to total failure. The same New York Times article provided the proof: "the opening day of the conference was more marked by appeals to end the fighting in Najaf than by the future elections". Hardly had the conference begun when two shells fell nearby and forced the proceedings to be suspended. From August 5 on, there has been a clear acceleration of violence all across the country. This was the day that the radical Shia cleric Moqtada-al-Sadr declared holy war against the Americans and British after the latter had arrested four of his followers. Subsequently the US army lay siege to Najaf with the approval of its governor al Zorfi. For several weeks Moqtada's gunmen held out in the mausoleum of Imam Ali, the holiest site for Shiite Muslims the world over. This prompted Sheikh Jawad al-Khalessi, imam of the grand mosque of Kadimiya to announce that "neither this pseudo-governor, a former interpreter to the US army chosen for his ability to obey the maddest of orders, nor the highest religious authorities, have the right to authorise infidels to enter Ali's mausoleum". Fighting then spread to Kut, Amara, Dwaniyah, Nassariyah and Bassorah, as well as Sadr City in Baghdad, with hundreds of casualties, mainly among the Shia militia. Eventually the supreme Shia religious leader al-Sistani negotiated a ceasefire, but it can only be provisional. Iraq is a state in chaos and has no prospect of overcoming it.
Whether it likes it or not, the USA has blundered into a military impasse. Aware that resistance against US authority can only increase, Colin Powell has proposed that other Muslim states get involved in the situation; there is no chance of this happening. The Egyptian minister of foreign affairs didn't take long to insist that Egypt would not be sending any troops. What's more the siege of Najaf can only make things worse for the US throughout the Muslim world, especially in countries which have a large Shia population.
In a world where everyone is out to defend their own imperialist interests, there's no doubt that Iran is implicated both politically and militarily in the Shia revolt in Iraq. This is why we have seen a series of threats from Washington against the Tehran regime. On 1 August Colin Powell himself accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs. The war in Iraq is also having an impact in Turkey; in fact the whole region is caught up in a process of destabilisation. The situation in Iraq is demonstrating to the whole world that the USA's worldwide authority is weakening. The anti-Iran campaign waged by the US also involves the nuclear question and it has been taken up by Israel. At a press conference in August, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that "Iran was on the list of terrorist states for years and one of the world's great anxieties concerns the links between a terrorist state which possesses weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist networks. It is understandable that the nations not only of the region but of the whole world feel deeply troubled by this". We cannot exclude the possibility that America's next step in its headlong flight into war will be towards Iran. It could even be dragged in behind the increasingly barbaric and suicidal policies of Israel. On 15 July the Sunday Times cited "Israeli sources" who said that "Israel has carried out rehearsals for a strike against Iran" and "would in no case allow Iranian reactors, notably the one at Bushehr, under construction with the aid of the Russians, to reach the critical point�in the worst case, if international efforts fail, we are quite confident that with a single blow we could demolish the nuclear ambitions of the Ayatollahs".
The course towards military chaos in the Middle East is also bringing about the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. This body was set up in the wake of the Oslo accords of 1993, and was supposed to be the embryo of a Palestinian state, to be formed after five years. This was part of the illusory perspective of stabilisation in the Middle East. We have seen the exact opposite: a proliferation of massacres, murders and bombings. The decomposition of this part of the world, pushed forward by the expansionist policies of Israel, has deprived the Palestinian Authority of its last vestiges of power. Even if Arafat is still fighting to keep his position as president of the PA, his acolytes have been squabbling with increasing violence over the attributes of power. The PA is rife with corruption and these disputes are a clear expression of the total impotence of the Palestinian bourgeoisie. And even if the clash between Arafat and his current prime minister Ahmed Qureia has been resolved for now, none of this will halt the course towards the breakdown of the PA and the growing influence of all kinds of armed gangs taking advantage of the despair of the Palestinian population to launch more and more blind and suicidal terrorist attacks, the latest to date being the bombing of two buses in Beersheba which left 16 dead and hundreds wounded. The Israeli state, for its part, has every intention of continuing its policy of crushing all Palestinian resistance and colonising the West Bank of the Jordan. To this end it is going ahead with the construction of the 'anti-terrorist wall' which is turning the entire area into a vast concentration camp. And neither the fact that Sharon is encountering opposition from his own Likud party over his plan to evacuate the Gaza strip, nor his efforts to get the Israeli left around Peres on board - even if they express the weakening of the Israeli political structure - imply any lessening of Israel's war-like policies. At the same time, the altercations between president Chirac and Sharon over the dangers facing the Jewish community in France shows that the rise in imperialist tensions is having a serious impact on relations between Israel and France. This in turn corresponds to growing tensions between France and the US.
All the ingredients for further instability in the Middle East are coming together. The increasing number of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia is only one of them; similar tensions can be felt in Egypt, Lebanon, and the other Gulf states.
The accelerating weakness of the USA as the world's leading power can only encourage the other powers, in particular France and Germany, but also secondary powers like Russia and China, to take full advantage and strengthen their own hand on the world arena. The sharpening of conflicts between the great powers can only aggravate the general slide towards chaos and war, and none of it can be prevented by changing the governing teams in Israel, the USA, or anywhere else. It will certainly make little difference if Bush is replaced by Kerry. As we argued in our article on the Middle East in International Review 118, capitalism's flight into war is not the choice of individual politicians: "To lay the responsibility for war at the door of this or that head of state's incompetence, allows the ruling class to hide the reality, to hide the appalling responsibility of capitalism and with it the whole ruling class world wide".
Tino, 22/8/04.
The following is part of correspondence that has been continuing for some years.
Dear ICC,
I am perplexed by what seems to be a contradiction in your politics. On the one hand Marxists argue that only communism can release the full potentials of production to meet the needs of the working class of the world, yet argue that there is a glut of markets following capitalist over-production. Of course there is overproduction of some things and under-production of others, but even so, has capitalism already reached its giddy limit of possible production or not? If greater production is still possible within all the evils of capitalism, would it be more persuasive to argue for equitable distribution of the current over-production, to get back by and to the working class what is being withheld from it?
I have been reading from your website the 'Debate with Red and Black Notes: The irrationality of capitalist war', from Internationalism 130, where it is said that in its period of decadence "capitalist relations of production come to serve as a brake on the development of the productive forces, in which capitalism has become a fully regressive mode of production", whereas the article goes on to tell of "decadence - marked by a permanent global crisis of overproduction".
This apparent contradiction between restrained productive capacity and current overproduction under capitalism persists in puzzling me, and maybe others too. I am not saying that what you say is mistaken, but would appreciate an explanation on this for the working class.
Regards, D
Our Reply
Dear D,
Thank you for your question, which we will try to answer succinctly. We would like, with your permission, to publish your letter and our reply in World Revolution.
The tendency toward overproduction in capitalism does indeed lead to the squandering and destruction of the productive forces.
Why? In the capitalist system, contrary to previous modes of production, supply precedes demand. Its productive capacities and output are driven forward by the competitive drive for profit inherent in generalised commodity production, rather than by the growth of, and capacity for, consumption. As a result modern capitalism has led to 'plethoric' crises since its inception, regularly overflowing the limits of the market for its products, and leading to bankruptcies, unemployment, unsold goods, stagnation and decline in production. "Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce". Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto.
Up to a certain point in capitalism's historical trajectory the periodic destruction of the productive forces was nevertheless a stimulus to revolutionising technology, the better exploitation of existing markets and the search for new ones, in other words to the long term advancement of the productive forces of mankind. However the periodic wastage of production could only intensify over time and eventually become a chronic problem during capitalism's decadent period when the growth of world production has become burdened by colossal debt, massive military expenditure, and the enormous costs of bloated state machines, which over the past 80 years has lead to repeated devastation on a catastrophic scale. Capitalism continues to augment production but the latter is more and more oriented toward waste and destruction, thus posing the alternative: socialism or barbarism.
But you ask why it is not possible for capitalism to be forced (or persuaded) to redistribute its surplus to the working class, presumably for nothing or for next to nothing. If that were to happen capitalism would be finished, since such philanthropy would lead to a collapse in prices and then profits. That's why capitalism prefers to throw unsold products away rather than give them away. It would rather destroy food than feed the starving millions, even though it has more than enough means to assuage human hunger on a world scale.
Capitalism is only interested in hungry mouths if they are connected to deep pockets - and most of them aren't. It lacks solvent buyers to realise the profit contained in its products. Giving them away free or selling them at prices below their value would not in any away resolve its crises of realisation or overproduction.
This brings us to an aspect of the original problem of overproduction: the working class can't buy back all that it produces because it is only paid the price of its labour power: capitalism 'withholds' - as you put it - the surplus value that workers create.
Capitalism therefore can't redistribute the fruits of workers' labour - as the left and leftists would have us believe. It is increasingly forced to waste them. The liberation of the productive forces demands capitalism be overthrown.
Hope this helps your understanding; we would also suggest studying our pamphlet The Decadence of Capitalism and related articles in the International Review.
Fraternally, ICC.
Anarchy as an essential characteristic of capitalism
In Weltrevolution 124 [59] we reported on the first of a series of public meetings of the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (IBRP) in Berlin. The second meeting took place on May 15th. There, the causes of imperialist war were debated. A representative of Battaglia Comunista, the IBRP's section in Italy, made the presentation which dealt with the background to the Iraq War and the contemporary foreign policy of the USA. The comrade put forward the analysis of the IBRP, according to which the American "crusade against terrorism" mainly serves economic goals: the tightening of American control over the oil reserves of the world, in order to bolster the hegemony of the Dollar over the world economy, and thus to assure itself the cream of an additional "oil rent" profit. As a result of its waning capacity to compete, the USA has to rely on the parasitic appropriation of the surplus value produced world wide to keep its own economy afloat. In addition it was said that strategic considerations do also play a role, often in connection with the control of oil reserves, aimed at cutting off Russia and China from each other and from important oil fields, and at keeping the European Union weak and divided.
This analysis provoked different reactions on the part of the participants at the public meeting. Whereas a comrade of the Friends of a Classless Society (FKG) - formerly an initiator of the group Aufbrechen -praised the capacity of the IBRP to identify the concrete economic causes of war, the speaker of the group GIS (Gruppe Internationale Sozialisten) expressed doubts concerning this analysis. He pointed out that the act of acquiring international finance liquidity on the part of the USA is first and foremost the expression and continuation of a classical policy of indebtedness. Moreover, he repeated the point of view which he had already defended at the previous IBRP meeting, according to which the effort to militarily dominate oil resources serves military more than economic goals. A member of the Group of International Communists (GIK), for his part, pointed out that not only the USA, but also the other leading imperialist powers, and in the first instance the European states, are presently fighting for world domination. He put forward the thesis that, whereas in this struggle the USA mainly throws its military might onto the weighing scales, Europe banks mainly on its economic power.
In its first contribution to the discussion the ICC dealt with the argumentation of the IBRP. According to this argumentation, the US has to a large extent lost its competitive edge on the world market. In order to compensate for the consequences of this development - gigantic balance of trade and payment deficits, the growing public debt - America wages war in the four corners of the world, in order, through the control over oil and the hegemony of the Dollar, to attract capital.
From the point of view of the ICC this analysis is politically very dangerous, since it looks for the causes of imperialist war in the particular situation of a given state, instead of in the stage of development and the ripeness of the contradictions of the capitalist system as a whole. No wonder, therefore, that this analysis is very similar to the line of argumentation of the pro-European anti-globalisation camp, or of German left Social Democrats such as Oskar Lafontaine, who explain the sharpening of imperialist tensions through the allegedly particularly parasitic character of the US economy.
Secondly, this analysis fails to answer two questions:
In reality, the International Bureau is here confusing cause and effect. America is not arming itself to the teeth because it has lost its competitive edge. Rather, to the extent that it really has lost its competitive advantages, it is to a large extent the result of its efforts in the armaments race. This development, moreover, is not specific to US imperialism. The previous long-standing major rival of America, the USSR, collapsed mainly through having armed itself to death. The truth is that the bloating of the military budget, at the expense of the development of the productive forces, and the progressive subjugation of the economy to militarism, are essential characteristics of decaying capitalism.
Thirdly, it is true that there is an inseparable connection between crisis and war in capitalism. But this connection is not that of the simplistic thesis of a war for oil or for the hegemony of the Dollar. The real connection between the two is revealed, for instance, by the historic circumstances which led to World War I. At that time there was no world economic depression comparable to that which broke out later, in 1929. The crisis of 1913 still had a basically cyclical character and was actually a relatively mild one. There was no commercial, state budget, or balance of payments crisis in Great Britain, Germany, or any of the other main protagonists, in any way comparable to those of today, and no particular monetary turbulence (at that time the gold standard was still universally recognised). But nonetheless the first imperialist world conflagration broke out. Why? What is the general law of imperialism at the roots of modern warfare?
The more developed a capitalist state is the mightier the concentration of its capital, the greater its dependence on the world market; all the more therefore does it depend on access to, and domination of, the resources of the globe. Therefore, in the epoch of imperialism, every state is obliged to attempt to establish a zone of influence around itself. As for the great powers, they necessarily consider the whole world as their zone of influence - nothing less is enough in order to secure the basis of their existence. The stronger the economic crisis is, and the harder the battle for the world market, the more imperious this need must be felt.
Germany declared war on Great Britain in 1914, not because of its immediate economic situation, but because for such a power, for whom world economy has become its fate, it could no longer be tolerated that its access to the world market depended for the most part on the good will of Great Britain, the ruler of the world's oceans and of a large share of the colonies. This meant that the German bourgeoisie did not need to wait until 1929 until, in the face of world wide depression, it was really excluded from the world market by the old colonial powers. Rather, it chose to act beforehand, in order to try to change its situation before it came to the worst. This explains why, at the beginning of the 20th century, the world war came before the world economic crisis.
The fact that the capitalist powers more and more brutally collide with each other means that imperialist war leads increasingly to the mutual ruin of the participating states. Rosa Luxemburg already pointed this out in 1916 in her Junius Pamphlet. But the recent war in Iraq also confirms this. Iraq was once one of the most important sources, on the periphery of capitalism, of lucrative major contracts for European and American industry. Today not only the capitalist economic crisis, but even more so the wars against Iran and America, have completely ruined Iraq. But also the American economy is being additionally bled by the costs of the Iraq campaigns. Behind the idea that the present war has been waged over a monetary speculation or an alleged "oil rent", lurks the assumption that war is still lucrative, that capitalism is still an expanding system. Not only the policy of the USA, but also the terrorism of the likes of Bin Laden was interpreted by the representative of Battaglia in this sense; presenting the latter as the expression of the attempt of "200 Saudi Arabian families" to acquire a greater share of the profits from their own oil production.
After both the IBRP and the ICC had presented their own view of the causes of war, there ensued an interesting and lively debate. It was noticeable that the participants at the meeting were very concerned to get to know better the positions of the two left communist organisations present, insisting that the two groups answer each other. Nor did these comrades limit themselves to posing questions, but themselves brought forward objections and made criticisms.
For example, a comrade of the FKG accused the ICC of a "cheap polemic" on account of our comparison of the analysis of the IBRP with that of the anti-globalisation movement. He argued that underlining the aggressor role of the USA today has nothing in common with playing down the role of European imperialism by its bourgeois sympathisers. And he correctly pointed out that, in the past also, proletarian internationalists have analysed the role of particular states in the triggering off of imperialist wars, without thus making themselves guilty of any concessions towards the rivals of such states.
However, the criticism made by the ICC did not concern the identification of the USA as the main initiator of present day wars, but concerned the fact that in the IBRP's analysis the causes of these wars is not found in the situation of imperialism as a whole, but is reduced to the specific situation of the United States.
The speaker of Battaglia, for his part, did not at all deny the similarity of the analysis made by his organisation with that of different bourgeois currents. He argued, however, that this analysis, in the hands of the Bureau, is anchored within a quite different proletarian world view. This is thankfully still the case. But we maintain that such an analysis can only weaken the effectiveness of our struggle against the ideology of the class enemy, and ultimately it could undermine the firmness of one's own proletarian standpoint.
In our opinion, the similarity between the analysis of the IBRP and the commonplace bourgeois point of view is the result of the fact that the comrades have themselves adopted a bourgeois approach. This approach we called empiricism, by which we mean the basic tendency of bourgeois thought to be misled by certain particularly noticeable facts instead of discovering, through a more profound theoretical approach, the real inter-connection between the different facts. This tendency of the Bureau was exemplified through the way the IBRP presented the argument that the American economy would collapse without the constant inflow of foreign capital as the proof that the Iraq war served to oblige the other bourgeoisies to lend their money to America. In reply to this we recalled that the certitude that without these loans and investments the US economy would fold up is itself already obligation enough to make European and Japanese capitalism continue to buy American bonds and shares - they themselves would not survive a collapse of the United States [1].
In particular during this part of the discussion critical questions were addressed to the ICC from different sides. The comrades questioned the stress placed on the significance of strategic issues in our analysis of imperialist rivalries. The comrade of the FKG raised a criticism that - in his opinion - the ICC explains imperialist tensions through military rivalries, without connecting them to the economic crisis and apparently excluding economic motives. He pointed to the example of the economic war goals of Germany in World War II, in order to insist that imperialist states, through war, search for a solution to their economic crises. A comrade from Austria, once a founding member of the GIK(see above), wanted to know from us if the ICC gives any consideration at all to the role of oil, or if we consider it to be a mere coincidence that the focus of the "struggle against terrorism" lies precisely in an area where the biggest resources of oil in the world are to be found. And the representative of the GIS also asked for a precision on our statement that modern war is not the solution, but itself the expression, indeed the explosion of the crisis.
The ICC delegation replied that, from our point of view, marxism, far from denying the connection between crisis and war, is able to explain it in a much more profound manner. For the ICC imperialist war is not the expression of the cyclical crises which were typical of the 19th century, but the product of the permanent crisis of decadent capitalism. As such, it is the result of the rebellion of the productive forces against the relations of production of bourgeois society which have become too narrow for it. In his book Anti-Dühring Friedrich Engels affirms that the central contradiction in capitalist society is that between a mode of production which is already becoming socialised, and the appropriation of the fruits of this production, which remains private and anarchic. In the epoch of imperialism, one of the principle expressions of this contradiction is that between the world wide character of the productive process and the nation state as the most important instrument of capitalist private appropriation. The crisis of decadent capitalism is a crisis of the whole of bourgeois society. It finds its strictly economic expression in economic depression, mass unemployment etc. But it also expresses itself at the political, the military level i.e. through ever more destructive military conflicts. Characteristic of this systemic crisis is the permanent accentuation of competition between nation states, both at the economic and military level. This is why we spoke out at the meeting against the hypothesis of the representative of the GIK, according to whom the American bourgeoisie uses military muscle, and the European bourgeoisie economic means, in the struggle for world hegemony. In reality this struggle is waged using all available means. The commercial war is being fanned no less than the military one.
It is indeed true that the bourgeoisie, through war, still searches for a way out of the crisis. But because the world, since the beginning of the 20th century, has already been divided up, this 'solution' can only be sought at the expense of other, generally neighbouring capitalist states. In the case of the great powers, this 'solution' can only lie in world domination and as such requires the exclusion or radical subordination of other great powers. This signifies that this search for a way out of the crisis increasingly assumes a more and more utopian or unrealistic character. The ICC is talking here about the growing irrationality of war.
In the course of capitalist decadence, it has regularly been the case that the initiator of a war emerges at the end as the loser: Germany in two world wars, for instance. This reveals the increasingly irrational and uncontrollable nature of modern warfare.
What we criticise in the war analysis of the IBRP is not the affirmation that war has economic causes, but the confounding of economic causes with economic profitability. In addition, we criticise what, in our opinion, constitutes a vulgar materialist tendency to explain each step in the imperialist constellation through an immediate economic cause. This is revealed precisely regarding the oil question. It goes without saying that the presence of sources of oil in the Middle East plays a considerable role. However, the industrial powers - first and foremost the United States - do not need to militarily occupy these sources in order to establish their economic predominance over these and other raw materials. What is at stake is above all the military and strategic hegemony over potentially decisive energy sources in the event of war.
The IBRP vehemently rejected the affirmation of the ICC that modern warfare is the expression of the dead end of capitalism. The representative of Battaglia did admit that the destructive nature of capitalism would sooner or later lead to the destruction of humanity. But as long as this final calamity has not taken place capitalism can expand without limits. According to the BC comrade, it was not through the present wars imposed by the USA, but the "real imperialist wars" of the future, for instance between America and Europe, that capitalism would be able to expand, since a generalised destruction would open the way for a new phase of accumulation..
We agreed that capitalism is capable of wiping out humanity. However, the destruction of excess production, considered historically, did not even suffice to overcome the cyclical crises of ascendant 19th century capitalism. For this, according to Marx and Engels, the opening of new markets was also necessary. Whereas, within the framework of natural economy, overproduction could only appear as an excess over and beyond the maximum physical limit of human consumption, under the regime of commodity production, and above all under capitalism, overproduction is always expressed in relation to the existing solvent demand, i.e. buying power. It is an economic rather than a physiological category. But this means that the destruction of war does not in itself solve the basic problem of lack of solvent demand.
Above all, the viewpoint defended here by the IBRP, concerning the possible expansion of capitalism up until the moment of physical destruction, is not compatible with the vision of the decadence of capitalism - a vision which the IBRP seems more and more to be abandoning. According to the marxist point of view, the decline of a given mode of production is always accompanied by a growing fettering of the productive forces through the existing production and property relations. From the point of view of Battaglia, it would seem, war still seems to play the role of being a motor of economic expansion as it did during the 19th century.
When the representative of BC spoke, at the meeting about the coming "truly imperialist wars", this only confirmed our impression that the IBRP considers the present-day wars as merely the continuation of the economic policy of the United States by other means, and not as imperialist conflicts. For our part, we insisted that these wars are also imperialist wars, and that the major imperialist powers thereby enter into conflict with each other - at present not directly, but for instance via proxy wars. The series of wars in ex-Yugoslavia moreover, which were originally triggered off by Germany, confirm that in this process the United States is far from being the only aggressor.
In his conclusion to the discussion, the spokesman of the Bureau defended the point of view that the discussion had shown that debate between the IBRP and the ICC is "useless". This is because for decades the Bureau has been accusing the ICC of "idealism", and the ICC has been accusing the IBRP of "vulgar materialism" without either of the two organisations having altered their points of view.
In our opinion, that is a rather dismissive judgement of a discussion in which, not only the two organisations, but also quite a variety of different groups and persons participated in such an engaged manner. It is obvious that the new generation of politically interested militants in the German-speaking area have a considerable interest in getting to know the positions of the existing internationalist organisations, in becoming much more acquainted with the points of agreement and disagreement between them. What could better serve this need than public debate?
As far as we know no serious revolutionary to date has ever thought, for instance, of doubting the usefulness of the debate between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg on the national question, simply because neither of the two sides ever altered their basic position on the question. On the contrary: the contemporary left communist position on so-called national liberation movements is to a large extent based on the results of this debate.
The ICC, for its part, remains entirely committed to public debate, and will continue to call for it and participate in it. All such debate is an indispensable part of the process of the coming to consciousness of the proletariat. Weltrevolution, 19/8/04.
1. We might add here that, despite their rivalry with the USA, its rivals will continue to place their capital in the most stable economy, since that country, in the foreseeable future, will remain, militarily and economically, the strongest country in the world.
In May the media was full of stories about the success of 10 years of 'democracy' in South Africa. The pictures of tens of thousands of workers queuing up to vote for the first time in May 1994 were dragged out the vaults to remind us of what a benefit democracy is for humanity. The reality for the working class has been worsening living and working conditions: 76% of households in South Africa live below the poverty line, an increase of 15% since 1996; unemployment has doubled since 1994; income in black households fell by 19% between 1995 and 2000 (Insights, issue 46). All of this presided over by the 'liberators' of the African National Congress.
The sight of the 'revolutionaries' of yesteryear implementing the type of attacks on the working class and oppressed that the old regime could only dream of has led to a certain amount of reflection within the working class. Amid the media circus around the tenth anniversary there were stories about disillusionment amongst the black working class and the poor with the ANC and democracy. This was presented as being reflected in apathy about the elections. However, we have recently come across a more developed expression of this effort to reflect upon the meaning of the role of the ANC: the Zabalaza (Zulu and Xhosa for struggle) website of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation [61]. It contains several texts which denounce the ANC as capitalist. Given the weight of illusions about the ANC and democracy, as well as the threat of repression by the 'democratic' state, such denunciations express a proletarian response.
As with many other bourgeoisies around the world, the South African ruling class has dressed up massive attacks on the working class in the clothes of privatisation. In this way they hope to confuse any class response to such attacks with ideas about state ownership being better than private. The ZACF makes clear in its leaflet against the privatisations that "Privatisation is the process of turning government services and government companies into profit-making activities. This means a few simple things:
...It makes no real difference, in practice, if these companies remain owned by the government or become owned by big business. The basic problem already exists: the drive by government, led by the ANC, to turn government companies and government services into sources of profit. ESKOM is 100% government owned. Yet it cuts off nearly 15,000 people a month in Soweto alone. Government is co-owner of Servcon, the company that enforces evictions on the East Rand. TELKOM is 70% government-owned, yet it has raised telephone charges over 30% over the last 5 years. The point is simple. When we fight privatisation, we do NOT think that government ownership of these companies and services is a solution. On the contrary, there is NO difference anymore whatsoever between government-owned companies and privately-owned companies. Both are profit-driven, anti-worker and anti-union in nature. This means our struggle is a struggle against BOTH big business AND the government". ('Evict the bosses and politicians. Stop privatisation now'.)
The denunciation of the ANC in this text and others is based on a very serious theoretical effort to understand the real meaning of 'national liberation'. In their text 'Anti-imperialism and national liberation' this group tries to place the role of the ANC within the national and historical context of imperialism. This text rejects the leftist idea of national liberation and shows that all of the so-called socialist national liberation governments have been capitalist and, depending on their economic strength, try to impose their domination on their region. On the basis of this they reject support for any of the third world ruling elites against intervention by the imperialist powers. Very importantly the ZACF also firmly denounces the idea of the workers in the first world benefiting from imperialism, an idea very popular amongst the leftists.
These are very important points which allow them to see the role of the ANC. However, this clarity on such important question is in spite, not because of, the group's commitment to anarchism. This is not the place to go into the marxist critique of anarchism. Nevertheless, it is essential to see the contradictions and problems that anarchist ideology causes for the very real process of reflection that is taking place. The ZACF reject marxism and base their analysis on metaphysical 'principles' about autonomy, rejection of authority, etc. Thus, along with clear rejections of nationalism, national liberation and third worldism, we find a defence of the "freedom" and "right" of the "people" of Tibet, Burma and elsewhere to independence. Whilst showing how the national elites are part of the imperialist system they talk about how the struggles against colonialism could be defended when they give rise to "progressive" measures.
The text on imperialism was written by one of the groups that helped to form the ZACF in May 2003 and since then there has been an increasingly more evident loss of clarity in the ZACF's ability to confront the real nature of the ANC. For example, in the second issue of the journal Zabalaza (2002) the ANC is called counter-revolutionary. But in Zabalaza no. 5, which has a front page headline, "Ten years of ' freedom and democracy' - where?', there is no analysis of 10 years of rule by the ANC. Instead there is a serious regression on the potential clarity of the previous analysis of national liberation. In an article on the New Partnership for African Development there is a sad lament for a time when the African bourgeoisie had some backbone "Gone are the days when the African ruling classes at least struggled - under the thick haze of revolutionary cant - to develop their own capitalisms". "The radical nationalists of the 1950's and 1960's, men of the ilk of Nkrumah and Kaunda, men who hated colonialism (and loved capitalism), are gone from the stage. The old nationalists played, at least, a small role in challenging colonialism, and shaking the old Empire" (Zabalaza no. 5 pages 2 and 3). Now they are described as spineless and as carrying out neo-liberal policies.
This growing loss of clarity is also seen in the two communiques they made in response to 9/11 and the Madrid bombings. In response to the Twin Towers, the communique 'No war but the class war: Against capitalism -against the US government -against state and fundamentalist terror', issued by a "South African anarchist" and endorsed by the Bilisha Media Collective and Zabalaza Action Group, makes a powerful rejection of the attack, the US response and the role of fundamentalism. There are confusions in this text about democracy, Palestine and so on, but fundamentally it expressed a proletarian response to this massacre. By contrast the statement on Madrid is more like a liberal lament.
These expressions of regression in ZACF's initially strongest aspects demonstrate the pernicious weight of anarchism and its tendency to slide off into straightforward liberalism. Their rejection of marxism means that their efforts to develop a class analysis of the situation facing the working class in South Africa is struggling to stay afloat in a sea of anarchist confusion. The comrades of the ZACF above all need to discuss the fundamental marxist concept of the decadence of capitalism if they are to gain a real understanding of why the ANC and all other national liberation movements are anti-working class. It is only on the basis of this historical materialist approach that their healthy rejection of the ANC, nationalism and national liberation can be placed on a solid foundation.
Phil, 4/9/04.
The following article first appeared in Revolution Internationale, the publication of the ICC's section in France. Although many of the references are to specifically French phenomena, the basic points made in the article apply equally to the creation of the National Health Service in Britain as well as other systems of social welfare put in place after the Second World War. The ruling class wanted to justify the carnage of the conflict and to prepare workers for the ferocious exploitation of the reconstruction period. In the same way, the current moves towards dismantling the National Health Service and other aspects of the 'Welfare State' are by no means a particular policy of Blair's New Labour or a wish-fulfilment for Howard's Tories. As the introduction to the article in RI puts it, "with its new plan to 'safeguard social security', the Raffarin government is once again preparing to reduce the social wage. It's the turn of health to be cut in this new plan of austerity, after the significant attacks on retirement pensions last spring and on unemployment pay last January. Far from being a national specificity, these attacks are developing and generalising to all capitalist countries which set up the Welfare State at the end of the Second World War because they needed reasonably healthy workers to undertake the reconstruction of the economy. The present attack on the welfare system in France, as in Germany some months ago, and as in Britain for some years now, means the end of the Welfare State and explodes the myth of 'social gains'. This attack reveals that, faced with the deepening of the economic crisis and the development of massive unemployment, the bourgeoisie cannot continue to maintain the majority of the workforce. The survival of capitalism demands an intensification of the productivity of labour, the hiring of the cheapest workforce possible, while reducing the cost of its maintenance. For the great majority of proletarians, it is uncertainty and misery that faces them now - in some cases even death, as we saw at the time of the heat wave last summer in France".
These attacks demand a massive and united response by the whole of the working class (workers in work, unemployed and retired workers); but the unions and their Trotskyist and alternative-worldist accomplices are trying to turn workers' reflection away from the failure of capitalism and towards illusory measures to 'save social security' (or 'save the NHS' as the leftists clamour in Britain).
The defenders of state-funded social security lie to us that: "Social security is a conquest of the workers' struggle, acquired at the end of the Second World War, in continuity with the Popular Front of 1936". Faced with this falsification of history by the left, leftists and unions, it is necessary to re-establish the truth, basing ourselves on a brief historical outline of social security. Only a lucid marxist analysis will allow us to understand that the bourgeoisie is trying to hide the historic bankruptcy of the capitalist system with the fool's gold of social security.
During the second half of the 19th century, in the phase of capitalism's ascendancy, the proletariat established its own strike and assistance funds, its own mutual organisations in case of sickness or job loss, in order to attain its economic demands (reduction of the working day, the ban on the exploitation of children, night work for women, etc.). Most often it was the workers' unions who managed this economic solidarity within the working class. But such solidarity also had a political dimension, because through these struggles for improvements in its conditions, the proletariat constituted itself as a class with the long-term perspective of taking political power and establishing a communist society.
With the bloody outbreak of the First World War, capitalism signalled the end of its economic expansion and the entry into its phase of decadence. This phase is characterised by the absorption of civil society by the state. The bourgeoisie must impose its class domination on the whole of economic, social and political life and it's the state that fulfils that role. Faced with the change in period, the unions became a force for corralling the working class in the service of capital.
"The state maintains the forms of workers' organisation in order to better control and mystify the working class. The unions become a cog in the state and as such are keen to develop productivity, that's to say increase the exploitation of labour. The unions were the organs of the workers' defence when the economic struggle had a historic sense. Emptied of this old content, the unions became, without changing form, an instrument of the ideological repression of state capitalism and of control over the labour force." ('On State Capitalism', Internationalisme 1952, reprinted in the International Review 21, 1980).
Thus the state directly appropriated, through the union police, the different mutual and assistance funds, and emptied the very notion of workers' solidarity of its political content.
"The bourgeoisie has taken political solidarity away form the hands of the proletariat in order to transfer it into economic solidarity in the hands of the state. By splitting up wages into a direct payment from the boss and an indirect payment by the state, the bourgeoisie has powerfully consolidated the mystification consisting of presenting the state as an organ above classes, the guarantor of the common interest and the guarantor of social security for the working class. The bourgeoisie has succeeded in linking the working class, materially and ideologically, to the state" (IR 115).
From the very beginning, attempts to set up social security systems had the aim of boxing in the proletariat. In the 1920s, the proposals for social security were part of an attempt to establish social peace through the participation of the workers in the running of the country, as the Cerinda Report underlined: "In the administration councils of the social security we will establish the rapprochement and fraternal collaboration of classes; wage earners and employers will not defend antagonistic interests here. There will be unity in the same aim: combating the two great scourges of the workers, sickness and poverty. This permanent contact will prepare for the closer and closer association of capital and labour." (Quote in Governing Social Security, Bruno Palier).
Despite the political will of the state and the unions to implement this plan of compulsory social obligations, it was only during the Second World War that the National Council for the Resistance focussed on the organisation of a general regime of social security.
It was during World War II that the bourgeoisie, conscious of the millions of victims that the military conflict would provoke, of the inevitable destruction and ravaging of the world economy, rushed to justify its barbarity: "In a solemn message to the Congress pronounced on January 6 1941, President Roosevelt gave the first moral justification to the conflict by assigning to it the objective of a 'liberation from want' for the masses. This movement culminated in May 1944 with the Philadelphia Declaration of the International Labour Organisation, through which the member countries would make a priority objective of setting up a real social security after the war. Consequently, social security figured high in the aims of the war defined by the Allies" (History of Social Security 1945-1967, Bruno Valat).
In Britain in 1942 the Beveridge Report, in its attack on disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness, the obstacles "on the road of reconstruction", laid the basis for a system of family allowances and national insurance. This was accepted by the Churchill government and implemented by the subsequent Labour regime. In 1944, Belgium set up an obligatory system of collective social security under the control of the state.
In France, while a part of the bourgeoisie was in Vichy, the other part in exile, with General de Gaulle at its head, took up this preoccupation. He declared in April 1942, in a solemn message to the Resistance: "National security and social security are for us imperative and inter-connected aims". Also, it's not surprising that the programme of March 1944 of the National Council of the Resistance, where the Stalinists had a majority, called for a complete plan of social security aiming to guarantee every citizen the means of existence.
So, far from being a workers' victory, the origin of the systems of social welfare came from the capacity of the international bourgeoisie to foresee the need to fence in the proletariat at the end of the war, and thus to ensure the success of economic reconstruction. The years after the war were terrible for the living conditions of the proletariat. In France, wages were frozen, there was galloping inflation and a still flourishing black market; rationing, which had existed since the occupation, was maintained up to 1950, including electricity and petrol. The bread ration, which was 200g in the summer of 1947, was only 250g in June 1948. GNP in 1948 was still lower by 4% than in 1938. To meagre wages and food shortages can be added appalling standards of health. Infant mortality was more than 84 in a thousand and the adolescent population suffered from rickets. Faced with this situation, the bourgeoisie knew that it wouldn't be able to increase national capital with such a weakened working class. This was all the more true when you take the human losses of the war that reduced the number of available workers. The creation of social security, the nationalisation of health services, was thus the bourgeoisie's way of giving itself a workforce capable of carrying out the tasks of reconstruction. In exchange for super-exploitation (the length of the working day in 1946 was 44 hours and 45 in 1947), the proletariat had access to a social security cover that allowed it to reconstitute its labour power. Pierre Laroque, an official charged in October 1945 with setting up the social security system, was explicit in these objectives, even if he wrapped up the goods with fine words: "The aim was to assure the mass of workers, and to begin with wage-earners, of a real security for tomorrow. That went along with a social and even economic transformation; the effort that one was demanding from them to get the economy working had to have a counter-part."
The comment of Bruno Palier is also illuminating: "In 1945, it was also an immediate political investment, which had to allow the participation of wage-earners in the work of reconstruction (�) This dimension of the French social security plan was a counter-part to the efforts of reconstruction (and to the moderation of direct wage increases), which appeared as a sort of social contract of the Liberation." (Ibid).
Faced with the criticisms of some parliamentarians, who considered the cost of social security to be excessively high, the Socialist Minister of Labour, Daniel Mayer, responded: "Every industrialist considers it normal and necessary to deduct from his returns the indispensable amounts to maintain his material. Social security, in large measure, represents the maintenance of the human capital of the country, which is as necessary to industrialists as machines. Inasmuch as social security contributes to conserving human capital, to developing capital, it brings an aid to the economy that shouldn't be underestimated" (Bruno Valat, idem.).
It is for that reason that, initially, social security was reserved for wage earners because the bourgeoisie counted on them to put the country back on its feet. It later applied the welfare regime to the non-salaried population. One can thus measure the lie of the left and the unions that the creation of the Welfare State was a workers' victory: this 'concession' was given at the price of unprecedented super-exploitation. Thus, in 1950, French industry had almost recovered the level of production of 1929. As in 1936, it was the Stalinists, thanks to their engagement in the Resistance, who went on to play a decisive role in dragooning the proletariat for the reconstruction. Several Communist ministers were present in the government of General de Gaulle, calling on the proletariat, through the voice of its leader, Thorez, to "roll up its sleeves" for reconstructing the country and denouncing strikes as "an arm of the trusts". At the same time the CGT had a monopoly in presiding over the social security funds up to 1947. Subsequently, other unions succeeded the CGT.
In the years which followed the war social security spread to the whole of the population; but from the beginning of the 1970s came the first signs that the economic crisis was ringing time for these social policies. Social security itself could only function when capitalism could guarantee full employment. The development of unemployment meant that social costs increased more quickly than GDP. Faced with this situation, the bourgeoisie responded with Keynsian measures to re-launch consumption, particularly by creating and increasing new family allowances. From the point of view of the management of capitalism, these measures increased public deficits considerably. Henceforth, from 1975 up to today, the bourgeoisie hasn't stopped running after deficits, with a social security hole which looks like a bottomless pit, despite the permanent increases in social costs and the constant lowering of social allowances. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, successive governments of the right and the left came up with all kinds of ingenious ways of inventing new taxes, of making the sick pay for their treatment and medicines, of cutting unemployment benefits�. Not only have workers still in employment seen an ever-growing part of their pay tapped in order to finance deficits and other complementary mutual funds; on top of this, the care system is being constantly degraded by the reduction of workers in the health sector and endless austerity plans.
Thus, far from being a victory for the workers, social security is on the contrary a real organ of state imprisonment. Thanks to the participation of the unions in managing sickness, retirement and unemployment funds in company with the boss, this system of management merely provides the illusion that a policy is in place which defends the interests of the workers.
More than ever, the new attacks on healthcare signify the bankruptcy of the capitalist system, the end of the Welfare State and of the myth of social welfare "from the cradle to the grave". If revolutionaries show solidarity with their class faced with attacks on both direct and social wages, at the same time we denounce the myth of a system of state social security which is supposed to be above classes and for the wellbeing of the workers. The preoccupation of capitalism in 1945 was to have workers in good health in order for its reconstruction efforts to succeed. In 2004 capitalism sacrifices a growing number of proletarians in order to maintain the workforce at the lowest cost and leave the rest to rot.
"There's no need to underline that if socialist society defends the individual against illness or the risks of existence, its objectives are not those of capitalist social security. The latter only has sense in the framework of the exploitation of human labour and in terms of this framework. It is only an appendix of the system." (Internationalisme 1952, reprinted in International Review 21).
Donald 20/6/04.
Floodwaters are ravaging through many parts of India and Bangladesh. Floods, cyclonic storms in some parts of these countries and drought in other parts have become almost annual catastrophes. The fury of the floodwaters rages unhampered through villages, towns and cities, through agricultural lands and industrial centers. Thousands of people die and many more are injured and millions are rendered homeless. The working class and the exploited masses are the principal victims of these disasters.
About one thousand people have already died this year in the floods affecting parts of India and Bangladesh . There is every possibility that many more will fall victim to the spread of epidemics which generally accompany and follow every such disaster. Hundreds of thousands have been rendered not only homeless but also jobless having no wherewithal to live, confronting all sorts of humiliations and hardships.
According to a report in the Statesman, 'Bangladesh bows to the flood fury', 35 million people out of a total of 140 million have been hit by the floods. The death figure has already crossed the 600 mark. According to the estimate of the Bangladesh government and the officials of the UNO, 28 million people will have to be fed free up to the next harvesting season at the end of the year. The total loss of crops and other products amounts to 7 billion dollars. The flood has disrupted the 4 billion dollar textile industry of Bangladesh which accounts for 80% of its export earnings. Nearly half the city of Dhaka, its capital, has been swamped by high water mixed with sewage systems, creating a hellish situation. This has been partly due to the fact that 26 major drainage canals have been taken over by 'illegal' land grabbers. The dreadful menace of the spread of epidemics is staring at the people there.
The bourgeoisie is shedding crocodile tears for the hapless victims of floods in both India and Bangladesh. Top political leaders of both the government and the opposition are making ritual aerial surveys of the flood-affected areas. Political leaders in the government are making tall claims about the rescue and relief work done by them. The opposition leaders of both the right and left of capital are trying to extract the maximum possible political mileage by criticizing the insufficiency of the relief and rehabilitation measures of the government (criticisms which cannot fail to be one hundred per cent correct). But the roles are generally reversed when today's opposition parties are tomorrow's governmental parties. Thus they keep debate about the floods and other natural calamities on the capitalist terrain, in which lies their fundamental, unbreakable unity. Many commissions are created to investigate into the root causes of the recurrent floods and to suggest short and long term measures to deal with them. Many solutions have been proposed, but these solutions are either partial, or shelved forever or not implemented due to lack of adequate funds. But these bourgeois commissions and their political masters can never say that the decadent capitalist system is the root cause behind the uncontrolled fury of the floods and other natural calamities causing immense death and devastation in almost every year. Capitalism in decline can no longer protect humanity
When capitalism was in its ascendant phase, when it was expanding across the globe and had a real interest in protecting its productive investments and developing a coherent infrastructure, it won many victories against the destructive power of nature. This was not because the capitalists were bothered much about the plight of the working class and the exploited masses of people affected by various natural calamities; but capitalism could then use the available technology, skill, labor power and other productive resources to the fullest possible extent. It could provide and manage the money needed for the proper execution of projects to control the fury of the natural forces. This in turn ensured a better return for the whole national capital.
But today the situation is fundamentally different. The system has now sunk into permanent crisis due to the unavailability of the indispensable market for all the capitalist countries all over the world. So the conflict among all the national fractions of capital is intensifying with each passing day; and every capitalist country has been compelled by the material conditions to be imperialist if it is to survive. This has resulted in unprecedented amounts of military expenditure by each capitalist state, big or small, weak or strong, developed or backward. Every country is arming itself to the teeth, exposing the irrationality of all the national fractions of the decadent world bourgeoisie. The phase of decomposition of the capitalist system, heralded definitively by the collapse of the eastern imperialist bloc in 1989, has further worsened the conditions of this intensifying imperialist conflict.
In such a situation a large proportion of the total government expenditure in every capitalist country is being devoted to military purposes. Even in 1929 the capitalist government of the USA spent only one per cent of the total national revenue for military purposes, but in the fifties the same USA spent more than 10% of its GNP for its immensely expanding military machinery. More or less similar is the case with the other developed capitalist countries of the world. Thus little money is left for the projects for controlling the fury of the natural forces like floods, cyclonic storms and droughts.
This striking imbalance between the military expenditure and the expenditure for controlling the fury of natural calamities is bound to be much more marked in the backward countries. We can have a very clear idea of this from the budget allotments of the present left-supported United 'Progressive' Alliance government of India. 14 per cent of the total government expenditure for the 2004-2005 financial year has been earmarked for the armed forces, modernisation of armaments and military equipment, while only 0.28 per cent of the total government expenditure is meant for flood control and irrigation. 17,112 million dollars has been allotted for the military while only about 102 million dollars has been put aside for flood control and irrigation. What a glaring imbalance! According to the estimate of the Irrigation Commission of Bihar, an important province of North India, 350,000 to 400,000 million rupees or about 8.9 billion dollars (according to the existing exchange rate ) will be needed to control the fury of the flood waters of one major river flowing into that province from Nepal. This river is responsible to a significant extent for the almost annually recurring devastating floods in the northern part of that province. Thus we can easily have an idea of the huge amount of money that will be needed to control the devastating power of the flood waters of all the rivers not only of Bihar but also of all other provinces of India. This will very likely amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. This is simply beyond the capacity of the Indian capitalist state, which has to devote its meager resources to the fulfillment of the strategic goal of attaining the status of a major regional imperialist nuclear power! It has to arrange for money for its prestigious space programme (which is also a military programme ) and even think about manned space missions if it is to gain due status in the 'international community'. How can it raise the money necessary for the permanent solution to the recurrent problems of floods and cyclonic storms! The situation is even worse in Bangladesh.
Many important rivers which are responsible to a great extent for floods are international. Internationally coordinated planning and provision of resources are indispensable for putting an end to problem of recurrent floods. But this is simply impossible for the bourgeoisie, particularly in the imperialist free for all that has grown more and more chaotic since the collapse of the old bloc system. In recent times there has been a serious threat of flash floods from the rivers in a province of India in the Himalayan region, due to the lake burst in Tibet. But the Indian team of experts has not been allowed by the Chinese authorities to go the site of the lake burst and make an objective assessment of the seriousness of the threat and the necessary practical steps. The Indian authorities have expressed their unhappiness and their media are calling for pressure on China from the 'international community' to force it allow Indian experts to the site of the lake burst. Rivers flowing into Bangladesh from India are primarily responsible for the floods there. Here also there is no way out of this annual natural disaster other than collective coordinated efforts. But the intensifying imperialist conflict is the insurmountable stumbling block in the way of international efforts to control the problems of flooding.
When humanity has evolved the technical means to protect itself from natural disasters, and yet these means are not used, the disasters are no longer natural but social. When the principal victims of these disasters are the poor and the exploited, the disasters are not natural but social. And on top of this it has become increasingly evident that the extreme weather conditions striking every continent (this summer alone we have had raging forest fires in the USA and Europe, drought and hurricanes in the US, floods in the UK as well as the Indian sub-continent, to name but a few) are also the product of social and not merely natural conditions. Choking for lack of markets, capitalism in decay is more and more driven to seek profit in the short term exploitation of each country's natural resources: thus, for example, logging the forests of Indonesia or Brazil or replacing them with cash crops such as soya allows these countries to compete more effectively on the world market, regardless of the consequences for the local and global environment. It is well known that deforestation leads to the erosion of the soil and greatly increases the danger of flooding. In the Indian sub-continent, deforestation of distant mountains washes topsoil downhill and silts up rivers that would otherwise channel floodwaters into the Bay of Bengal. More generally, frenzied efforts at economic 'growth' in the context of capitalism's decline accelerates global warming, which in turn lies behind much of the extreme weather we are now witnessing.
The relentless demands of capital accumulation, the desperate search for profit by each competing national unit, is leading not only to a growing number of imperialist wars but to the disruption of the whole planetary environment, threatening more and more 'natural' disasters whose victims will be first and foremost the poor and oppressed. Capitalism has become a disaster for humanity, which will not live in harmony with nature until this social scourge is removed by the communist revolution.
CI, 4/9/04.
The victory of Hugo Chavez in the referendum on his presidency was not a triumphant for the proletariat and poor masses in Venezuela. Rather, as this Appeal to the workers of Venezuela and the world by the ICC's section demonstrates, it represents a powerful blow against the working class. The Appeal, whilst being written on the eve of the referendum, shows that no matter who won the vote the perspective for the working class was one of increasing ideological and economic attacks, along with an acceleration of the profound political crisis rocking the Venezuela bourgeoisie. Chavez's victory will allow him and his henchmen to continue their campaign to mobilise the non-exploiting strata and the working class behind their life and death struggle with the other sections of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie opposing them. Faced with this, the opposition will be forced into ever more desperate efforts to defend itself by overthrowing Chavez. As the Appeal demonstrates parts of the working class are already lining up behind one or other of the fractions. And the prospects for the coming period can only be the very real possibility of the explosion of a barbaric civil war. The proletariat's only response to this chaos is the defence of its autonomy; refusing to line up behind the 'revolutionary' Chavez or the opposition of the 'elite', and instead defending their class interests against both of these faces of the capitalist state in Venezuela.
WR, 20/8/04.
Once again, the Chavista and opposition bourgeois factions are calling upon us to go to the ballot box. They have used all of the media, spent a fortune on a deafening campaign, telling us to be good citizens and vote either for or against revoking President Hugo Chavez. They want us to choose between two bourgeois options, to decide whether it's going to be the Chavista or the opposition fraction that will continue to exploit us. Marxist revolutionaries call on the working class in Venezuela, and all workers, not to have illusion about Chavez remaining in government or his replacement by the opposition, about any let up in the attacks on working class living conditions, or about the worsening of pauperisation that the bourgeoisie dumps on our shoulders in response to the terrible economic and political crisis shaking the national capital.
The 15th August Referendum is not a plebiscite like the other elections called by the ruling class. This referendum, besides being an opportunity for the bourgeoisie to breathe new life into its democratic dictatorship, is the product of the profound political crisis in the ranks of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie that has been developing since Chavez came to power in 1999. It has led to the polarisation of the different cliques that form the national capital into two factions: the official one formed around Chavez and the other, opposition one grouped around the Coordinadora Democratica. The exacerbation of the confrontation between these two has led to an intense campaign that has divided a good part of the population between the "Chavistas" and the "anti-Chavistas". The proletariat, obviously, has not escaped this monstrous campaign, which has divided various sectors of the class, leading to many workers supporting one or other of these options, and has even lead to some being wounded or losing their lives in the violent confrontations, defending causes that only benefit the enemies of our class.
The 15th August Referendum poses a great danger for the working class. There is already a high level of uncertainty about the results and whether the leaders of one or the other gangs will accept them [1]. This could lead to important violent confrontations, where again the blood of the proletariat will be spilt. The Venezuelan and world proletariat must be conscious of the grave danger for the class if its remains trapped in this confrontation. Not only will this led to the loss of proletarian lives, but it will weaken class consciousness. The proletariat must avoid acting as canon fodder for any of the struggling bourgeois gangs.
The present political confrontation and its fanaticism and polarisation are the direct result of the social decomposition within the ranks of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, itself the expression of the decomposition of the capitalist system at an international level: global society is at an impasse. This is because, on the one hand, the world bourgeoisie has not been able to give its 'answer' to the capitalist crisis that has been developing over the past 30 years: generalised world war (as happened last century with the two world wars); and on the other hand, the proletariat has not been able to raise the perspective of the overthrow of capitalism. This decomposition had its clearest expression at the international level with the falling apart of the system of blocs that existed after World War Two. The collapse of the Russian bloc in 1989 brought in its wake not peace or progress as the bourgeoisie said it would, but the proliferation of localised wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, etc.). It brought starvation, terrorism, the pauperisation of whole sections of society. At the level of each country, decomposition has been expressed at a political level by the implosion of the traditional bourgeois parties, as much on the left as the right, by the increase in tensions between factions of the national bourgeoisie, resulting in convulsions and ungovernable political situations [2]. The newly political forces, needed to control the working class and society so that the bourgeoisie can continue its economic survival, are compelled to operate in a context of major crisis and world chaos.
It is in this context that the leftist and populist government of Chavez arose. Above all upon the ruin of the parties of the "Fixed Point Pact", principally the Social Democratic Accion Demoratica and the Christian Social COPEI, which had been rotted by internal struggles, corruption, political cronyism and their virtual abandonment of the basic necessities of society. The ex-solider, Chavez, one of the leaders of the coup against the Social Democrat Carlos Andres Perez, helped by his charisma and popular origins, was able to use this social discontent and the prevailing poverty to come to power in December 1998. Once in power, surrounded by those in the military that supported his initial coup attempt, and elements of the old left (amongst these the Venezuelan PC), along with leftist organisations and individuals (many of them ex-guerrillas from the 60s and 70s), he defeated the former governing factions and excluded them from the apparatus of power. Taking advantage of his widespread popularity he took on the institutions and powers of the state with the central aim of: developing a "real nationalist bourgeoisie", the old goal of the left of capital and the leftist petty-bourgeoisie.
With this objective in mind, the Chavista project proclaimed that these attacks against the sectors of the bourgeoisie that had benefited from the previous governments amounted to a "Bolivarian revolution". The response and organisation of these sections of the bourgeoisie threatened by Chavism over the last 6years, has led us to the worst political crisis in Venezuela since the beginning of the last century. In fact, the opposition factions (with the clear support of the USA) [3] have carried out a whole serious of attempts to throw Chavez out of power: the business strike of December 2001, the coup in April 2002, which only removed him from power for 48 hours, the oil strike in December 2002-January 2003. With the failure of these attempts, there was a change in strategy, appealing to the idea of presidential revocation as stipulated in the new Constitution adopted in 1999 by Chavism in order to give judicial substance to its 'revolution'.
Despite all the obstacles put in its way by officialdom (given the predominance of the Chavez's officials in all the organs and institutions of power), the opposition gained the necessary number of signatures to call a referendum. As we can see, the so-called "Bolivarian revolution" is nothing more than the cover for a capitalist project promoted by a sector of national capital and has nothing at all to do with the interests of the working class, much less with proletarian revolution, which is only way out of the barbarity which we are living through in Venezuela and the rest of the world.
As we draw close to the culmination of this phase of the political crisis in Venezuela, marxists have to make clear to the Venezuelan and world proletariat: that this political crisis has taken place against a backcloth of the most brutal attacks on the living conditions and class consciousness of the Venezuelan proletariat.
More than any anything else Chavism is a pure product of decomposition. Pressured by the opposition and by the USA, Chavez has made use of the ideological arsenal of the old left and has given a great boost to leftist theories (along with anti-Americanism, he has become the standard bearer of anti-globalisation in Latin America). He has also used all the ideological eclecticism that characterises the present phase of decomposition: fundamentalism (expressed in Bolivarianism), messianism, mysticism etc. He has also had no scruples about using the classic methods of the bourgeoisie since capitalism entered its decadence at the beginning of the last century: state terrorism, pogroms, intimidation, blackmail, etc - against the opposition and even against the working class. In this way, Chavez has learnt very well from the sections of the bourgeoisie that now make up the opposition, from those who pretend to be pristine and without guilt, when in reality the monster that they now want to control is a caricature created in their own image.
The first answer to this question is that it is necessary to look at the horrendous campaign about the 'death of communism' and the "end of marxism' unleashed by the bourgeoisie after the collapse of the Russian bloc in 1989. This campaign argued that the only option for any social movement was the perfecting of democracy, making the class struggle look like an historical anachronism and diluting the working class into the mass of citizens. In this sense, it has been a very important attack against the communist perspective, against the historical identity of the working class, and has applied a tremendous brake on its combativity and consciousness.
This campaign has contributed as much to the opposition as to Chavism. The first proclaims itself radically 'anti-communist', and uses theories about the 'end of history' and the superiority of democracy as the only option for the future of humanity. Chavism, although it says it is not communist, makes use of the ideas of the left of capital in order to argue for a 'humanist capitalism' and a movement towards socialism by successive stages, starting from the present reformism based on 'participatory and better democracy'. In this way, both approaches aim to rub out the consciousness of the proletariat, which is the only means by which capitalist barbarity can really be overcome. The opposition bases its anti-communism on the fact that the government has tried to copy the state capitalist model put forwards by Cuba. But Castro's regime, installed by the so-called Cuban 'revolution', also has nothing to do with the marxist legacy of the proletarian revolution. The new bourgeoisie that took over following the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista has maintained almost 45 years of exploitation, repression and ideological control over the Cuban proletariat and population. Similarly, Chavism tries to develop the mechanisms of social and ideological control of the population and the working class by means of the so-called Missions [4] in order to perpetuate itself in power. Just as Fidel Castro and his henchmen use the economic blockade imposed by the USA (which does not stop millions of Dollars going into the pockets of the Cuban bourgeoisie) to justify the poverty of the population, Chavism justifies itself by blaming the previous governments, when it says that in 5 years it is impossible to correct a situation caused by more than 40 years of "oligarchic government".
The most pernicious effect of this political crisis for the working class has been that many workers have become trapped in the confrontation between bourgeois factions. In fact, within a few months of the beginning of the Chavez government, the sections of the bourgeoisie confronting each other in this life and death struggle for the control of the Venezuelan state launched a strategy initially centred on the petty bourgeoisie of one side or the other. Later on this included sections of the working class, creating divisions within it. The Chavists and the opposition have concentrated their activity on the oil industry, the main source of national income: both of them have brought about a progressive weakening of the unity and solidarity that was expressed in the first months of the Chavez's government, when oil workers in 2000 paralysed production in protest at attacks on their social benefits. The National Guard (the Praetorian Guard of Chavismo) used the opportunity to unleash a powerful repression which led to the death of two workers and several injuries. The unions controlled by the opposition gained a better control, while the government developed a disgusting campaign about the oil workers being a 'workers' aristocracy' on the side of the oil elite. This work of division and erosion of workers' solidarity was taken further with the clearly bourgeois oil stoppage at the end of 2002, when we saw some workers lining up behind the petty-bourgeois oil elites regrouped around the "oil gentlemen", and many others were paralysed by the government's blackmail and repression. With the failure of the stoppage, the government summarily sacked 20,000 oil workers, half of the workers and administrative personal. Although there were solidarity demonstrations with the sacked oil workers, the divisions within the heart of the class stopped this movement gathering enough strength to oppose the jobs massacre.
The media campaigns by sections of the bourgeoisie have led to a situation where many workers are bewildered, confused and trapped in the confrontation between Chavismo and anti-Chavismo. This is a straitjacket that impedes reflection or makes it much more difficult. The few expressions of the workers' struggle that have tried to resist the attacks against their living conditions have been suffocated by the magnitude and virulence of the inter-bourgeois confrontation, or have been trapped in inter-classism. This situation shows, on the one hand the ideological weight of the right and left of capital on the class, and also the weakness of the proletariat in Venezuela. In this situation workers' solidarity is undermined.
Pauperisation is the only thing that capitalism has to offer the exploited of the world, and Venezuela is no exception. The capitalist crisis is irreversible, and therefore also the level of pauperisation to which capital subjects the working class: the bourgeoisie has no option but to re-distribute poverty, despite all its talk abut the re-distribution of wealth. Throughout the decades of capitalism's decadence we have seen a growing gap between the poor and the richest minority in society (amongst whom now we have to count the "new rich" of Chavismo) [5]. This tendency has accentuated during the "Bolivarian revolution".
The Chavez capitalist government, that is to say one which maintains the extraction of surplus value from the working class, independently of its 'revolutionary' verbiage, has followed the same road as the Caldera and Carlos Andres Perez governments: the systematic and unrestrained attack on the living conditions of the working class:
· the great majority of the public employees' collective contracts have been frozen during the period of the Chavist government;
· the pay rises that have been ordered have not matched the accelerating growth in prices;
· the level of open unemployment has reached 22-25% of the workforce of around 12 million, of which 57%, i.e., nearly 7 million live by means of semi-employment and in the so-called 'informal economy';
· the tax on bank debt and VAT (16%);
· the highest rate of inflation in Latin America (30% for this last year) which is devaluing workers' wages;
· nearly 85% of the population live in conditions of poverty;
· the official minimum wage is 321.235 Bolivars (around $160 according to official figures) does not cover the cost of the basic basket of food of about 545.361;
· the deterioration of public services: health, education, transport etc., cannot be hidden, despite the government's media campaigns;
· the levels of delinquency are producing weekly figures of more than 100 killings;
· the pauperisation of society is expressed through the growth in child begging, malnutrition and prostitution.
This is the crude reality that Chavismo, which shamelessly calls it the "beautiful revolution", and the whole of the opposition bourgeoisie in its struggle for power, daily subjects us to.
No matter who wins the perspective is the worsening of conditions for the class. Chavez will continue to do what he has done until now in order to sustain his 'revolution', not only through the ideological attacks against the class, but through attacks on its living conditions; a victory will give carte blanche to a accentuation of the attacks against the workers, principally the public employees [6]. If the opposition wins this will also mean belt tightening, with the attractive excuse that Chavismo has wounded the economy and has robbed the public treasury, when in reality the capitalist crisis was a constant long before Chavez came to power. In this sense, there can be no illusions about the siren calls of the opposition: about employment and conditions of life improving: any growth in the levels of employment will inevitably be based on casualisation, greater attacks on social security and greater taxes on the workers.
It is not a moral problem, of choosing which part of the bourgeoisie is worse than the other, or which government administers the nations resources the best, since one or the other, independently of the form of government that they take, democratic or dictatorial, have to be guided by the laws of capitalism which are based on the exploitation of labour by capital.
The proletariat is the only social class that can put an end to capitalist barbarism. However, in order to be able to do this it has to recuperate its independence, solidarity and class identity. Therefore, it must prevent itself from being trapped in the inter-classism of 'people's' and 'citizens' struggles.
The working class cannot avoid confrontation with the bourgeois state, whether it is led by Chavez or the opposition. The working class is an exploited class and has a unique mission in the struggle against capitalism, since it plays a central role in the productive process and is capable of developing a consciousness of its historical objectives. When it fights on its class terrain, the proletariat can give a direction to the struggles and demonstrations of the other non-exploiting strata of society.
This is the challenge that is today being posed to the world proletariat and in particular to its detachment in Venezuela, in order to stop itself being pulled in by the siren calls of the bourgeoisie. The present situation also poses a historical challenge to the most politicised minorities of the class: today more than ever it is vital to intervene in order to promote reflection and discussion within the working class, showing the dangers that bourgeois ideology brings in its wake, in particular the leftist ideology which has such poisonous consequences for the working class, as we can see from what is now happening in Venezuela.
CHAVISMO AND THE OPPOSITION ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.
CHAVISMO, THE LEFT OF CAPITAL AND THE LEFTISTS ARE AS MUCH ENEMIES OF THE WORKING CLASS AS THE PARTIES OF THE RIGHT.
NO TO CONFRONTATIONS AND DIVISIONS WITHIN THE PROLETARIAT.
THE ONLY ANSWER TO THE BARBARITY FACING VENEZUELA AND THE WORLD IS THE PROLETARIAN REVOLTUION.
Internacialismo,
section of the International Communist Current in Venezuela,
13.8.04
E-mail: venezuela(at)internationalism.org
[1] In recent weeks there has been a real war of the polls: some have placed the No vote (i.e., supporting Chavez) 10 points ahead of the Yes, whilst others have given the Yes vote a similar lead. For the last two weeks the pollsters have talked of a turn of the tide in favour of opposition of more or less 4%, whilst others have talked about a very narrow margin between voting intentions.
[2] The convulsions that took place in Peru with Fujimori, in Ecuador with Bucaram and recently in Haiti, Argentina and Bolivia, are all expressions of this situation of chaos created by the effects of decomposition in Latin America and the Caribbean.
[3] From the beginning the Bush government did not condemn the coup against Chavez in April 2002. For the USA Chavez is a factor of destabilisation in the Caribbean and South American region. The spearhead of its intervention has been the OAE, the Carter Centre and also the Southern Command. The USA's declarations since the beginning of the electoral process are transparent and in recent weeks they have become more frequent: last week, the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate, strongly denounced the government's actions against Sumate, a highly technical NGO that has organised the electoral aspects of the opposition and that receives funds from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); in the last few days the security advisor Condoleezza Rice has also criticised the government for the same reasons. The Chavez government tried to use the Bush-Kerry confrontation, demonising the first and maintaining hopes that a Democratic government would being about changes. However, declarations by Kerry and his advisors have come out strongly against the Chavez government, showing the continuity of US policy towards the region.
[4] In order to counter-act the actions of the opposition, a year ago the government initiated the so-called Missions: populist campaigns which have been named after leaders and battles in the struggle for independence from Spain, through which the resources of the state (principally from exporting oil) are used to deal with questions of health, education, employment, credits etc. They have really been transformed into an ideological medium for government policy and indoctrination, and to supply funds to the followers of the "Bolivarian project". The means assigned to these Missions, which this year amounts to more than $2000 million more than was assigned in the budget, is one of the principle means for the 'new bourgeoisie' to enrich itself. According to pollsters sympathetic to the opposition these resources only reach 15% of the poor in the country, whilst 80% of population lives in poverty.
[5] We are referring to the new private capitalists who have supported Chavismo, those who are forming the new importing bourgeoisie that has displaced or is trying to displace the old 'importing oligarchy' that has opposed Chavismo. This sector of the bourgeoisie has benefited from the unrestricted importing of the food and goods that are sustaining the government's social plans. Also forming part of this 'new bourgeoisie' are the state functionaries, parliamentarians, military and union bureaucrats who have given their unconditional support to the "Chavist project". All of whom take their share of state income and are paid salaries amounting to more than 20 to 60 times the monthly minimum wage.
[6] The political crisis has accelerated unemployment: the government sacked 20.000 oil workers, and has been laying off public employees opposed to its regime. The channelling of resources into financing the Missions has practically led to the freezing of the wages of public employees, and a major deterioration in public services.
The Republican Party has just held its Convention in New York to the accompaniment of daily demonstrations and 1700 arrests in a week of protest. Bush & Co have been hailed as a uniquely nasty faction of the American ruling class. In fact, as the following article from Internationalism, the ICC's publication in the US, shows, John Kerry and the Democrats offer no alternative to the current regime.
For four days in July the Democratic Convention occupied the center ring in this year's electoral circus. Political conventions for the ruling class in America are media events par excellence, as was demonstrated by the fact that media personnel outnumbered delegates 15,000 to 3,000. It was all part and parcel of the bourgeoisie's efforts to revive the electoral mystification that was so badly tarnished in the debacle of 2000.
Media pundits made it clear that they agreed with Democratic candidate John Kerry that "this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high", as he put it in his acceptance speech. The incessant propaganda message is that this election offers voters a stark choice about the future of America, and humanity, and it would be irresponsible to sit this one out. However, when you push aside all the hype and empty rhetoric, it's quite clear that this election, like all capitalist elections, is an ideological swindle, a charade designed to make the working class falsely believe that democracy works and that government is controlled by the will of the people. Quite the contrary is true: no matter who wins the election in November, the policies of the American government will be substantially the same: the bourgeoisie will still send young workers to fight and die for the interests of American imperialism around the world, especially in Iraq, and the economic crisis will continue to erode the standard of living.
Despite the fury of the criticisms heaped against Bush, the differences between Kerry and Bush on foreign policy are largely secondary, confined to questions of style in the implementation of the same imperialist strategy. All major factions of the American ruling class share the same strategic imperialist goal - assure that the US maintains its imperialist hegemony as the only remaining superpower by preventing the emergence of any rival power or rival bloc. Kerry's criticism of Bush focuses on three main points: the botched ideological and propaganda campaign to justify the war; the failure to pressure the major European powers to acquiesce in the war; and the failure to plan an effective occupation of Iraq.
The Bush administration's ideological and propaganda justifications for the war (WMD, Iraq's alleged ties to al Qaida and implied links to 9/11) have all been thoroughly discredited. This seriously undermines the ability of the US to mobilize the population for more wars and military interventions, which is a weakness for American imperialism since the continuing challenges to its dominance require ever more military interventions. It's not that Kerry rejects Bush's ideological justifications; his criticism is that Bush's mistakes have squandered the gains made after 9/11 in whipping up patriotism and war fever. Despite the fact that all of Bush's rationalizations for the invasion have proven to be outright lies, Kerry still supports the invasion and defends his vote in favor of authorizing the war. Under pressure from barbs from President Bush, Kerry stated that even knowing what he knows today about the situation in Iraq, he would still have voted in favor of the war authorization, but if he were president he would have used the authorization differently, to take the time to secure international support for the war and reconstruction. Since all the arguments used by Bush were lies, presumably Kerry would have told the same lies more effectively or would have conjured up a different batch of more plausible lies.
The capitalist media portrays the foreign policy debate as a clash between Bush's unilateralism and Kerry's multilateralism, but this is a gross distortion. Ever since World War II, US imperialism has always acted unilaterally in the defense of its imperialist interests as a superpower. Even during the Cold War, when the western bloc was intact, the US always acted on its own initiative and in its own interests, whether it was in intervening in Korea, or in chastising Britain and France for supporting Israel in the invasion of the Sinai in 1956, or the Cuban Missile Crisis , or in Vietnam, or in the decision taken by Carter in the late 1970s, and implemented by Reagan in the early 1980s, to deploy intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europe. As the head of the bloc, the US was easily able to oblige its subordinates in the bloc to go along with their decisions (with the occasional exception of the French bourgeoisie which sometimes acted out its own delusions of independence in resisting American policies).
With the collapse of the bloc system at the end of the 1980s, the cement that held the western bloc together dissolved, the tendency for each nation to try to play its own imperialist card emerged, and the discipline that obliged each member of the bloc to accept American diktats evaporated. It became more difficult for American imperialism to force its will on the other states. The first Gulf War against Iraq in 1991 was more designed to remind its former allies that the US was the only superpower in the world and that it was necessary to follow its leadership, than it was to contain Iraqi imperialist appetites. (After all, the American ambassador had purposely misled Saddam Hussein into believing that the US had given Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait in their border dispute when he was told that the US 'would not take sides' in a dispute between Arab brothers.) Throughout the 1990s, even during the Clinton years, American imperialism acted increasingly alone in the international arena when it exercised military force, as it became more and more difficult to pressure the European powers to accept American diktats. So, the extreme unilateralism of the Bush administration in the Iraq invasion is consistent with the evolution of American policy over the past 15 years and not an abrupt break in policy, even if it is a bit heavy handed and clumsily implemented.
Kerry's promise that he will bring other nations back into the fold is simply a proposal to be more patient and more effective in the efforts to get them to accept American policy, not a promise to abandon unilateralism. In his acceptance speech, Kerry said, "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." So, like Bush, he wouldn't let the United Nations Security Council block the US from waging a war, when the US government decides it is necessary to do so. In the final analysis, no matter who is president, American imperialism will continue to act unilaterally.
Anyone who thinks this election is a clash between hawks and doves needs to have their head examined. Kerry may have been briefly involved in the anti-Vietnam war movement in the early 1970s after his two tours of duty in Vietnam, but he and the Democrats made it abundantly clear at the convention that they are just as blood-thirsty and dedicated to waging imperialist war as their Republican counterparts. It was no accident that the Democrats paraded 12 retired generals and admirals on the stage at the convention, and produced a special film in which these military giants explained how the strategic and diplomatic errors of the Bush administration in implementing American strategic goals were weakening America in the world. Kerry and his generals made a bid to show that it is the Democrats who are better able to mobilize the population for war, challenging the right's claim to a monopoly on patriotism. Retired General Wesley Clark said "This flag is ours! And nobody will take it from us." Kerry said, "For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.
That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people." Kerry criticized Bush for squandering all the unity and patriotic fervor that gripped the population in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He promises to regain that unity in support of American imperialism by making patriotism palatable again for workers and all those disenchanted with the war in Iraq and putting forth believable arguments for war. Kerry also promises to "build a stronger American military" by increasing the armed forces by 40,000, doubling "our special forces to conduct antiterrorist operations" and developing new weapons and technology. Not exactly a peace candidate.
In the final analysis, the "most important election of our lifetime" boils down to a choice between two candidates who offer differ styles in mobilizing the population for and unleashing imperialist war. This surely is the hallmark of freedom in capitalist democracy, a system that offers death, destruction, terror, and repression, no matter who wins the election.
JG, August 16, 2004
When Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, visited Sudan to make humanitarian speeches this was not met with universal acclaim. "After two and a half years of rule by Mr Straw and his allies, Iraq and Afghanistan were declared the two most lawless places on earth by a risk-assessment company. And Mr Straw lectures Khartoum on keeping order in Darfur!" commented Simon Jenkins (The Times 25.8.04), illustrating the irritation felt by the British ruling class at both the paucity of the benefits it has gained from its 'special relationship' with the US and the performance of its government.
The difficulty experienced by the British bourgeoisie in pursuing its interests on the world stage is highlighted by a series of scandals, particularly those around the entry into the Iraq war alongside the USA: the dodgy dossier, the false claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, the death of David Kelly and the subsequent Hutton enquiry. That obvious whitewash had to be followed up by the Butler Report to maintain any semblance of the search for the truth. Then the scandal about torture and degradation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by US soldiers, and the efforts made to dissociate Britain from this. Lastly, we have seen a new scandal exposing Mark Thatcher, son of a former Prime Minister, for his role in funding a botched coup. While we do not know what Machiavellian forces within the bourgeoisies of Britain, USA or Spain led to the plug being pulled on an operation well known to the CIA and MI6, it clearly illustrates the uncomfortable situation faced by the Blair government.
The bourgeoisie are very good at using their difficulties and divisions to bolster the democratic myth that governments can be held to account, as the coverage of the Butler Report shows. After Hutton we said "calls for new inquiries feed the illusion that somehow there are figures capable of conducting investigations with their only goal being the disinterested uncovering of the truth. In reality, all the inquiries are entirely within the framework of bourgeois politics. Or take the example of the intelligence services. Critics of Blair say that intelligence was perverted for political ends, as if the secret state wasn't an integral part of the bourgeoisie's apparatus of repression, which only exists to serve the needs of the ruling class" (WR 272). We did not expect Butler to discover that Britain was engaged in an imperialist attack on Iraq for reasons of national interest with no humanitarian concerns, nor that such wanton destruction will only end with the overthrow of capitalism.
The results of the Butler Report were summed up in The Independent as "The intelligence: flawed. The dossier: dodgy. The 45-minute claim: wrong. Dr Brian Jones: vindicated. Iraq's link to al-Qa'ida: unproven. The public: misled. The case for war: exaggerated. And who was to blame? No one." The Butler Inquiry was set up to exonerate, to the extent that the opposition parties refused to participate, but that is not the whole story. Buried deep within it and in the annexe was some very serious criticism of the Blair government, particularly its kitchen style of cabinet away from the normal controlling and stabilising effects of the civil service. It is quite clear that there was enough in all this to force resignations, if the ruling class felt they had an alternative. The reason they are sticking with this Labour government is not lack of ability in the other parties. The problem Britain faces is this: it is a declining second rate power trying to defend its national interest around the globe; and in doing so it has to maintain as much independence as it can from the world's one remaining superpower, without falling into the orbit of its traditional rival, Germany, and its French ally. To have its troops on the ground, to avoid exclusion from Afghanistan and Iraq, it has to maintain its 'special relationship' with the US, but this is a very one-sided relationship in which all Britain's suggestions on the Middle East and the Palestinians, on using the UN, and so on, have been politely ignored. Yet the alternative of falling in with European anti-Americanism to gain independence from the USA is not an option since this would mean it could no longer oppose a German dominated Europe. If Labour cannot successfully maintain Britain's independence from these two stronger powers, the Tories would face greater difficulties due to the greater weight in their ranks of pro-American factions (such as Thatcher). That, not the 'good faith' of government and secret services, is why Butler found no-one to blame.
Alex 4/9/04.
For decades the British state has shown both determination and skill in the management of a declining economy. Britain has gone from being the strongest capitalist power in the world, able to penetrate every market across the globe with the products of its manufaecturing industry, and impose economic policies on all its rivals, to a second rate position where it relies on the financial and service sectors to stave off economic catastrophe. In response to the perpetual problems of the economy the ruling class has been able to impose repeated measures of austerity on the working class, attacking its conditions of life and work and make workers pay the price for the crisis of their exploiters' system. And when workers in Britain have fought against capitalism's attacks the ruling class has generally succeeded in limiting the working class' response by disorientating and dividing it. In short, the British bourgeoisie has mastered the art of crisis management. However, it remains the management of the crisis, not its resolution. The ruling class undermine workers' struggles; but it has not been able to impose a decisive defeat. The crisis continues. The class struggle continues. Managing the crisis
The government claims to have turned the economy round. Figures for inflation, unemployment and growth of GDP are routinely cited. Public spending has increased by about 5% per year in real terms since 2000, with substantial proportions going to health and education. The level of debt is growing, but it is still lower than many other European countries. In 2003 the European Commission declared that "The British economy has weathered the global weakness rather well" (Guardian 9/04/03).
However, the 'health' of the economy is only relative. The European Commission report identified four weaknesses "Low productivity, the large number of working age people claiming sickness and disability benefits, poor quality public services and regional and socio-economic unemployment blackspots" (ibid). The first is very deep-rooted: in 1870 real GDP per worker in Britain stood ahead of both the US and Germany; in 1938 it was still just ahead of Germany but substantially behind the US; in 1992 it not only lagged behind the other two but was below the average of the OECD as a whole. Today it is slightly ahead of the OECD average but still substantially behind America and Germany. The decline in the productivity of British capitalism is over a century old and the increase in the rate of growth in recent years is not a result of increasing productivity but, fundamentally, of greater exploitation of the working class.
"Through the 1960s and 1970s, unemployment and inflation crept up steadily�By the late 1970s, it had become widely recognised that the United Kingdom's wage and price fixing institutions were too insulated from market forces, and the outmoded industrial relations and vocational training systems were handicaps to achieving better economic performance. A radical change in policy orientation was introduced by the new government in the early 1980s. The UK government's new policy approach to durably raising human resource utilisation and living standards emphasised a stable macroeconomic environment and well-functioning markets. Within this broad orientation, significant reforms have been implemented to improve the efficiency of markets, was well as to enhance the skill, knowledge base and innovative capacity of the economy" (OECD survey, 1996). In practice "raising human resource utilisation" has meant longer hours, lower pay, greater job insecurity and cuts in benefits to force workers to accept unacceptable jobs. The OECD report said that: "the United Kingdom has seen a very marked widening in wage inequality, a growth in temporary jobs, a sentiment of less job security and a growing divide between 'work rich' and 'work poor' households". The Labour party has continued on the same path. "Academic institutions and think tanks have produced considerable evidence showing that inequality has grown during Blair's seven years in office�the top half of the population now owns 95 per cent of marketable assets, compared with 93% in 1997. The richest 1 per cent has seen its share of national income double from 6.5 to 13 per cent over the past two decades. And, most astonishing of all, the top fifth in the earning scale pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax (34 per cent) than the bottom fifth (42 per cent)" (The Observer, 29/8/04). "�Poverty has grown significantly over recent years and by 1999/2000, between 13 and 14.5 million people in the United Kingdom - around a quarter of our society - were living in poverty" (Poverty: the Facts, Child Poverty Action Group, 2000). The health of the economy rests on the greater poverty of the working class. Today's situation is not the same as that of capitalism's ascendance in the 19th century, despite all the arguments about the similarity of the growth rates, since in the 19th century the working class benefited from the growth of the economy.
Back in the 1970s and 80s the working class in Britain tried to defend itself against capitalist attacks, playing its part in struggles waged by the working class around the world. But the ruling class made its attacks gradually and against particular parts of the working class. In the eighties the Tories went on the offensive while Labour and the unions protested against Thatcher's 'heartlessness', and claimed they would be different in government. Workers' struggles were isolated with a fog of phoney sympathy and empty rhetoric. Back in power in 1997, Labour picked up where the Tories had left off. Because they no longer even pretended to talk of socialism or the working class, Labour was perfectly in tune with the ruling class's main themes after the collapse of the USSR and its domination over eastern Europe. This was used to prove capitalism as the final form of human society, and to feed the development of the ideology of 'look after number one' that undermined the very idea of collective struggle and even of the existence of the working class.
Today the official figures for the class struggle are at an all time low. And, while there has been an increase in the number of strikes and the number of workers taking action in the first part of 2004, there is no comparison with the 1970s and 80s. And, despite media warnings of chaos and disruption, in particular with the recent threats of action by fire fighters and BA staff, the bosses seem unperturbed, ending those two disputes without any strikes.
However, the ruling class is far from complacent. Internationally there are signs of the working class feeling its strength once more through large-scale actions, such as those in France and Austria in the spring of last year (see the 'Report on the Class Struggle' in IR 117). In Britain the evolution has been far less obvious, but in actions such as the unofficial strikes by the fire fighters earlier in the year there is a sense of the working class beginning to probe the defences of the bourgeoisie. This puts the recent disputes in a new light. Both the fire fighters and the BA workers have taken unofficial action in the last year and have demonstrated a sense of class solidarity - for example, fire fighters in one part of the country came out in support of those in another. Such an example, even though very small, worries the ruling class. By stage managing a new dispute it has reinforced the grip of the unions and demoralised those workers who were prepared to strike. The same sense of solidarity was expressed at the end of August. Workers employed in building the new Wembley stadium mounted a picket in support of 200 workers who had been sacked when they fought attempts to force them to work longer hours and weekends..
Such struggles show that the working class remains a force within capitalism that the ruling class must take account of. Most importantly, the working class still has the potential to end capitalism.
North, 1/9/04.
In 50 facts that should change the world journalist and BBC television producer Jessica Williams has written a book that hints at the scale of suffering across the planet. The proliferation of wars, poverty, hunger, disease, repression and the threats to the environment are evidence of the state of the world in the early 21st century. Any alert reader, concerned about the picture painted in this book, will be disappointed by the means proposed for changing the situation. The approach of 'alternative worldism' is served up here, another variation of the 'anti-globalisation' activism that is no challenge to the capitalist order of things.
The author tells us about the mess the world's in. There are short essays on the proportion of the world at war, the widespread use of landmines, the size of military budgets, and the number of countries that use torture, executions, imprisonment and CCTV surveillance. Women appear as victims of domestic violence, genital mutilation, prostitution and eating disorders. There are child soldiers, children forced to work, children in poverty and children expelled from school. Cars kill; oil's running out; and billions of plastic bottles are discarded without any thought for the consequences. Meanwhile, drugs, pornography, mental illness and suicide show how people cope with modern life.
In an introduction Williams tells us that the facts "are not immutable truths. It's not too late to change the way the world acts. But we need to act soon. Some of the facts need major shifts in thinking, while others require governments to start taking their responsibilities to the international community seriously". This is a book for 'activists' and pressure groups that live in a world where governments and corporations will change their ways if only consumers "keep in mind the idea of thinking globally, acting locally". It "doesn't have to be about big gestures" because a commitment to recycling, to shopping for Fairtrade products and investing ethically might be "small things", but "they do make a difference".
It's not startling to be told that there are dozens of wars going on in the world that affect the lives of millions of people. But for war to stimulate a questioning about the state of the world it is necessary to look at the real causes of armed conflict.
50 facts partly blames the struggle for natural resources for wars, but otherwise takes them for granted. It says that it's "vital to ensure that both states and NSAs [non-state actors] are aware of their responsibilities". After wars there should be disarmament and criminal courts that will "remove the perception that combatants can carry out crimes against civilians with impunity". Also "because rebel groups will try to infiltrate civilian groups" it is "crucial that fighters and bystanders are kept clearly separated". But while "the big military powers have little idea of how to deal with these new adversaries" they should try "to protect civilians as much as possible".
Given the overwhelming evidence of modern warfare's indiscriminate mass brutality it's tempting to reject such remarks as laughable. Yet what have the 'anti-war' demonstrations of recent years over Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine/Israel amounted to? They have pleaded for capitalist governments to alter their imperialist policies; to opt for conventional weapons rather than nuclear, chemical or biological means; or for resources to be turned from 'warfare to welfare'.
Capitalism doesn't 'fight fair'. The ruling class of every state will use every weapon at its disposal to defend its interests. Criminal courts will dispense the justice of the victor. The UN is not an impartial body but an arena that's an integral part of imperialist conflicts. The idea of carefully separating "fighters and bystanders" is as absurd as expecting capitalism to disarm without a revolution.
This book sows the illusion that governments can act in the interests of the exploited and oppressed, that the worst aspects of war can be curtailed, that for poverty to be reduced it's only a matter of will.
Williams suggests that for the policies of governments or corporations to change it's just a matter of exerting pressure. Governments are supposed to respond to the popular will, companies to market forces unleashed by 'ethical consumers'. However, one of the problems posed in 50 facts is that there's decreasing interest in the electoral process, especially from the young.
Williams thinks it necessary to "make politics seem relevant and worthwhile". She's convinced that there's a potential for political involvement because younger people boycott products, take part in events to raise money for charity and especially embrace mass activities (runs, bike rides) where they can see themselves as part of group "making a difference". If people don't trust politicians then the parties must make sure that "young voters ... receive all the information they need to understand the issues".
If people don't trust politicians or bother to vote it's because they've worked out that politicians lie and that elections don't change anything except the colour of the government. Young people have fewer illusions in the power of the ballot box, but not yet any real appreciation of what can change the world.
The view of the book, far from being inspiring, is potentially very depressing. There are all-powerful states 'opposed' by small groups that might possibly influence them. There is no history of past struggles to show what is possible. There is no perspective for what human society could actually be like.
The most obvious omission from the 50 facts view of the world is the working class. There is slavery, forced labour, bonded labour, child labour, but no reference to the working class, the class that sells its labour power for wages. While we're treated to the vision of a ruling class defending its position, and the degradations of capitalist society, there's not a hint of what it means for the working class to defend its interests.
50 facts adopts the 'think global, act local' slogan. But the local actions of individual voters or consumers are completely incorporated in the mechanisms of capitalist society. There is only one force that can think globally and that is the working class, an international class with the same interests across every national frontier that can only defend its interests in an international struggle. It's the only force that can take on capitalism, a system that exists across the globe. That is a perspective for the future struggle of the working class.
Many people are worried about the state of the world, but because there have not been any major working class struggles in more than a decade are not entirely convinced of a class analysis of society. Marxism doesn't depend on immediate events but on the whole history of the class struggle. Understanding the real forces at work in capitalist society is part of that struggle. Against pleas to put pressure on implacable governments the case for a working class revolution is overwhelming.
Car, 1/9/04.
The horror of the kidnapping and slaughter in Beslan has barely passed and already Russia is gearing up for another huge crackdown. This time the Russian bourgeoisie has learnt the lessons of September 11th and is instituting a large number of new repressive laws aimed as much at its own population as 'foreign terrorists'. Meanwhile, in Chechnya, they are waiting for the next attack.
It would seem a prime opportunity for the 'democratic' powers to attack Moscow's handling of this 'internal issue' with hypocritical denunciations of 'human rights violations'. Instead, there is voluble and unconditional support from Blair, Bush, Chirac and Schroeder. Indeed, there is no real difference in the foreign policies of these leaders: all are united in their support for President Putin and his own 'war on terror'.
Why has Russia been left to its own devices on this question? There is the very real fear that the tensions in the Caucasus area might lead Russia to go the way of ex-Yugoslavia: the break-up of the Russian Federation, chaos, civil war, genocide - with the potential use of nuclear weapons looming in the background. None of the major imperialist powers has an interest in such instability which could only increase the perspective of the entire world being riven by chaos and barbarism. As a result, they have averted their eyes from Chechnya and allowed the dirtiest war imaginable to go largely uncriticised and unabated. In the present situation they have no choice in the matter - Putin knows this and has taken full advantage.
But even though they don't want to see the break-up of Russia, the major powers still cannot stop the dynamic of 'each for himself', the tendency for each imperialist power to seek full advantage for itself at the expense of its rivals and without any kind of restraint.
For the British ruling class it is still important to maintain good relations with Russia, despite its weaknesses. After all, they were allies in the both the First and Second World Wars, in which the common enemy was Germany. Despite the rhetoric over Britain's 'special relationship' with the US, the British ruling class also has an interest in restraining the world's only remaining superpower in its quest to gain control over the Middle East oil supplies and its present strategy of encircling Europe.
In the present context, the UK has to compete with Germany and France who have been making a big push towards Russia, especially in the period since Putin came to power and just before the present Gulf war. This was reflected in the Moscow/Paris/Berlin axis against the war.
Of course, Moscow also has an interest in defending its southern flank in the Caucasus region, an area where the US state has made big inroads in setting up military bases in the 'Stans' (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc). Russia, for its part, will do everything it can to prevent Chechnya breaking away and initiating a chain reaction within the Federation.
The perspective for the Caucasus, at least in the short and medium term, is one of increasing instability. This reflects the overall perspective of the world situation: economic crisis, famine, wars and barbarism. The continuation of all of the above, and the inability of the most powerful countries and leaders to improve the situation, also shows that the bourgeoisie is no longer a progressive force in society.
Graham, 30/9/04.
The WSF/ESF are the 'official' faces of 'anti-globalisation'. Not everyone is convinced of their claims to be a real focus for 'anti-capitalism'. Many people have reflected on a movement that has been under way since before the 1999 Seattle demonstrations against the World Trade Organisation and have developed wide-ranging criticisms and alternative forms of organisation.
'Radical' critiques of WSF/ESF were made at the Paris ESF in November 2003 which had its own 'libertarian' fringe; the WSF in Mumbai (Bombay) earlier this year saw a vast array of groups outside of the headline events. The same will be repeated in London, this time under the slogan: "Beyond ESF - Autonomous Spaces". Criticism of the whole WSF/ESF circus from within Britain has come from the Wombles, who describe themselves as an "anti-authoritarian social struggle initiative". On the introductory page to the 'Beyond ESF' section of their website (www.wombles.org.uk [68]), they say that though the ESF "may be seen as a positive step by some of what has been termed by the media as 'the anti-globalisation movement', in reality the ESF functions as a place where political parties and social democrats co-opt and dominate the new movement against capital for their own purposes."
Furthermore, in their text 'A short analysis of the socio-political role of the WSF-ESF' they say that the ESF will "attract towards politics a lot of people who are starting out in their political activity" and that "many of the individuals who are coming for the event, will be interested in a more radical social analysis and direct action". Therefore, they are concerned that the ESF will play a "...potentially dangerous role on the global scene - that of becoming the new 'pool' where people will feel that they are active, political participants, but where their hope, disappointment or anger will be filtrated not to radical, emancipatory demands and visions, but to reformist ones." So what 'radical social analysis' and practical activity do the Wombles themselves offer?
The Wombles criticise the WSF/ESF as operating within the framework of capitalism. "The ESF is the child of the WSF and focuses its criticism on the policies of the European Union they try to control the 'bad' effects of neo-liberalism, as if policies are the problem and not capitalism itself and its institutions as a whole system". Indeed, they go further when they consider that the ESF is one of the "contemporary institutions of domination". The text rails against the growing commodification of every aspect of human existence by the forces of 'globalisation', and there is a basic understanding that the 20th century saw 'civil society' absorbed by the development of state capitalism.
The central weakness of the Wombles' critique is that it is rooted in that age-old enemy of the working class: anarchism and the petty-bourgeois, idealist view of history that goes with it. That those who are critical of the 'marxism' of the leftists - be they 'socialists', 'communists', Trotskyists or even increasingly Maoists - are attracted towards anarchism and 'anti-authoritarianism' comes as no surprise to us. This is often a healthy attribute. However, following the collapse of the Eastern bloc after 1989 the bourgeoisie launched a concerted, international campaign whose central theme was that 'communism is dead': that what died in the east was communism; that Stalin was the heir of Lenin; that the horrors of the gulags and the famines in the '30s were the 'inevitable' consequences of the revolution of October 1917, led as it was by the Bolsheviks. The Wombles seem to revel in this when they say that: "Unfortunately, the 20th century was dominated by marxist politics which placed the control of the state as the basic aim of the anti-capitalist social struggle" (note 4 of their text). They must consequently think it somehow 'fortunate' that marxism no longer 'dominates politics'! The fact that since the collapse of the Eastern bloc the working class has yet to engage in massive struggles as it did in the 1970s and 1980s has lead to large numbers of the younger generations losing confidence in the revolutionary potential of the working class and provoked a search for other 'social actors'. By cutting themselves off from the working class, from marxism and the history of the workers' movement the Wombles are losing the only compass that can give a clear understanding of why the world is in the state it is in and how 'another world' can be brought into being.
Those who are looking for a real alternative to capitalism need to understand precisely what the anarchist critique amounts to. "When the working class reflects on its own past, it does not do it in order to laugh or cry but in order to understand, its errors, and, on the basis of this experience, to draw up a class line, a demarcation from the enemy class. The revolutionary proletariat does not 'laugh' at the 'outmoded Marxism-Leninism of Stalin' in order to glorify the 'new' Marxism-Leninism of Mao Tse-Tung: it denounces both of them as arms of the counter-revolution." (International Review 16, 1979, 'The rise and fall of Autonomia Operaia [69]'). The ICC's Platform [70] is very clear on this point: "All the so-called 'revolutionary' currents - such as Maoism which is simply a variant of parties which had definitively gone over to the bourgeoisie, or Trotskyism which, after constituting a proletarian reaction against the betrayal of the Communist Parties was caught up in a similar process of degeneration, or traditional anarchism, which today places itself in the framework of an identical approach by defending a certain number of positions of the SPs and CPs, such as 'anti-fascist alliances' - belong to the same camp: the camp of capital. Their lesser influence or their more radical language changes nothing as to the bourgeois basis of their programme, but makes them useful touts or supplements of these parties".
What the anarchists fail to see is that there are two camps belonging to the historic classes of the capitalist epoch: that of the bourgeoisie, and that of the proletariat. Furthermore, by understanding that the leftists are really the radical wing of the bourgeoisie it is much easier to see why the leftists are trying to dominate the WSF/ESF: that the bourgeoisie is conscious that they can use the Social Forums and the broader 'anti-globalisation' movement as a weapon in their struggle against the working class, to throw sand in the eyes of those looking for clarity.
It is also obvious that within the Wombles and the 'Autonomous Spaces' fringe of the ESF there is the influence of the Italian autonomous movement from the 1970s via the more recent 'white overalls' method of protesting and the 'occupied social centre' movement. When the ICC addressed the rise and fall of Autonomia Operaia in IR 16 [69] we noted that, "we have seen an incredible development of an 'autonomous movement' which, far from being working class, has one unifying theme: the negation of the working class as the fundamental axis of their concerns. Feminists and homosexuals, students anxious about the disappearing mirage of a little job in local administration or teaching, 'alternative' artists plunged into crisis because no-one will buy their wares, all of them form a united front to defend their 'specificity', their precious autonomy from the stifling working class domination which reigns in the extra-parliamentary groups." There are further similarities between the period when AO were at their height and the current period. Without a marxist framework there is disillusion in the class struggle, but "These years of apparent passivity were actually a period of subterranean maturation, and only those who believed that this reflux was eternal were likely to be disillusioned. It is true that the difficulty of defending their living conditions can disorientate and demoralise workers, but in the long term it can only hurl them back into the struggle, with a hundred times more anger and determination. In the face of the reflux, the 'autonomists' had essentially two kinds of answers: (1) the voluntarist attempt to counterbalance the reflux, through an increasingly frenetic and substitutionist activism; (2) the gradual displacement of the factory struggle towards other, supposedly 'superior' areas of struggle." (ibid.).
We can see history repeating itself, but under much more difficult and potentially dangerous conditions. For the Wombles, the alternative to 'party politics' is the building of a network of 'occupied social centres' - in reality squatted empty buildings - that can be used to bring life back into 'local communities'. There have been a number of such social centres, squats that local authorities have often turned a blind eye to. These centres are often used to show films and to hold discussions, and the ICC has intervened in these discussions on several occasions. However, we have found that there is not much attempt at real clarification, or serious consideration what our militants have put forward. Their activity is strongly inter-classist, and the Wombles belie their anarchist roots when they say that, " every person has the potential for radicalisation, both in thought and action".
But there are no 'autonomous spaces' in capitalism, nor anything positive in the individualism they glorify. For example, they rejoice in the marginalisation of the unemployed, as if being out of work puts you outside capitalism. The working class is revolutionary precisely because it is at the heart of the capitalist mode of production
The Wombles say that, "we want to demonstrate 'another possible world' which is already here today. The world of Self-Organization - Solidarity - Autonomy - Direct Action." So, there's no need for a revolution then! The 'other world' can be created despite the existence of capitalism.
In rejecting the struggle of the working class, the Wombles seek out other 'radical movements'. While Autonomia Operaia became the critical conscience of the Red Brigades, the Wombles have become the less restrained cheerleaders of the Zapatistas [71] who have made a constant ideological attack on Marxism and promoted blind activism.
For those who want to go 'beyond the ESF' they will need to turn to the contributions of marxism and away from the rehashed anarchism of the ESF.
Trevor, 2/10/04.
For years the developed countries have been piling up huge budget deficits; levels of debt have increased at a constant and almost uncontrollable rate. The welfare state is being dismantled in numerous parts of the world, massive lay-offs are on the agenda, and all the promises of an imminent recovery prove to be without substance. And yet in the midst of this bleak situation we are being bombarded with propaganda about the 'Chinese economic miracle': economic growth in China, 'the triumph of Red Capitalism', is being interpreted as a sign of a new phase of development for the world capitalist system.
The growth of GNP in China is certainly beating all the records: 7.8% in 2002, 9.1% in 2003, and two-figure predictions for 2004. Since it joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, when world trade was visibly falling off, trade between China and the rest of Asia was showing a strong increase and in 2003, when world trade was only progressing by 4.5%, trade in Asia was going up by between 10 and 12%; China's levels of trade were explosive, with imports going up by 40% and exports by 35%. Between 1998 and 2003, exports went up by 122%; car production increased by 172% and hi-tech production by 363%. In 2003 China became the leading zone for international investment with levels reaching $53 billion, even by-passing the USA.
In two years, China has acquired the status of the locomotive of the world economy. Certain economists predict that it will have caught up with Japan in 15 years and with the USA in 45 years. Its GNP is already the equivalent of France or Britain.
Japan, the USA, and Europe are grabbing products 'made in China' and new Chinese industrial regions are springing up like mushrooms, attracting vast amounts of investments. The European Union is looking to strengthen its partnership with China and to make it its main trading partner. The American bourgeoisie is pouring investments into the country, with the aim of encouraging the development of the Chinese economy and of avoiding a situation where it loses its competitive edge to the Chinese state. In 2003, as a result of the invasion of the American market by Chinese products, the US budget deficit vis-a-vis Beijing hit the $130 billion mark.
The picture seems idyllic: staggering growth which appears to defy the crises of 1997 in south east Asia and the collapse of the financial bubble of the 'New Economy' in 2001, the date China entered the WTO.
Joining the WTO was not a real rupture for the Chinese economy, but a step in its policy of economic liberalisation which goes back to the 1970s. At the beginning, this policy favoured the export industries and protected others - cars, food industry, industrial capital goods. Over the past 10 years, China has set up a customs regime which gives preference to export industries concentrated on the coastal areas.
However, despite the displays of wealth highlighted in this so-called bastion of 'Communism', the destructive tendencies of capitalism are still at work.
The bourgeois experts themselves are clearly posing the question: how long can this go on? And they have called for a slow-down in investment, noting almost with relief that investments in fixed capital had only grown by 18% at an annual rate last May! Inflation is at the galloping stage, a sure sign of the 'overheating' which all the economists are so worried about. In April, inflation was officially at 3.8%, but in reality it's more like 7%, according to analysts who are familiar with the vagueness of Chinese statistics. In the sphere of food products, it has reached 10%. But it's the market in raw materials, given the rapidity and insatiable hunger of industrial demand, which has seen the most violent price increases for 30 years. Steel, aluminium, zinc, cotton and above all oil are shooting up in price, fuelling a speculative bubble which is already out of control.
The Chinese state itself is trying to limit the rate of growth, imposing credit freezes and blockages on consumer prices, which are currently rising at a rate of more than 1% a month. It has already expressed its satisfaction at limiting growth to 15% in July.
However, all kinds of dangers remain. The housing bubble for example is making the Chinese authorities break out in a cold sweat; the banking sector is in a state of semi-bankruptcy with at least 50% of credits being doubtful. 60% of investment does not feed the cycle of production but is recycled in Hong Kong or in tax havens - in short, it goes into financial speculation or money-laundering.
The astronomical profits being grabbed in China today are actually the result of the frenzied speculation going on all over the world; they don't derive from the real sale of commodities and the valorisation of productive capital. The commodities which are inundating the world market will find it harder and harder to find buyers, despite their low prices. Thus the real perspective is a further deepening of the historic crisis of capitalism. What's happening in China today has nothing in common with the type of development of the productive forces which took place in the 19th century. Whereas in those days phases of growth contained the promise of a more and more impetuous development of the productive forces, today they bring with them the certainty of aggravated contradictions for the system.
What the Chinese population is going through clearly expresses this reality. Despite all the claims about China reducing poverty, the tragedy of the Chinese cockle pickers in Britain, speaks otherwise: if your living standards are improving, you don't flee a country to work in the kind of horrifying conditions that resulted in the mass drowning in Morecambe Bay.
To give an example: in the famous Pearl Delta, in the province of Guangdong between Shenzen and Canton, a rice growing region which in the last ten years has been transformed into the planet's biggest manufacturing region, wages - considered to be among the best in China - are around 100 euros a month, and the workers have only 9 days off a year!
As for unemployment, it has become massive. Officially it stands at 4.7% but in certain regions such as Liaoning it has reached 35%. At the end of 2003, 27 million proletarians had been laid off by bankrupt state enterprises. Millions of jobs have been cut in the countryside where there have been a number of revolts. The balance sheet is that no less than 150 million peasants have migrated to vast slums in the urban centres in eastern China, looking for jobs which the majority of them won't find
The education system has been abandoned and sanitary conditions are terrible. With no sickness insurance, with hospitals having to charge for their services to keep going, a real catastrophe is brewing. Hepatitis B and C affect over 200 million Chinese; between one and two million are HIV positive and within 6 years the figure could have reached 15 million. 550 million people have tuberculosis, with about 200,000 dying each year.
At the level of food supply, the incredible chaos of the Chinese's state's economic policies has resulted in a dangerous fall in cereal reserves and the total disorganisation of agriculture, while the countryside is emptying out. The intensive exploitation of the soil is threatening 80 million hectares (out of 130 million under cultivation) with desertification. All this brings the danger of famine in the future.
The environment is being devastated by the frenetic burning of coal and the construction of huge dams, spurred on by the ever-growing demand for electricity. Thus China is already the world's second biggest producer of greenhouse gases on the planet. Pollution in the cities is reaching crisis point: 16 Chinese towns are among the 20 most polluted on the planet.
A true disaster is looming in China. What's happening in China today is not the harbinger of a new phase in the development of the productive forces, but of a new plunge into economic collapse. Since capitalism entered into open economic crisis in the 1960s, the bourgeoisie has boasted about the Brazilian model, the Argentinean model, then about the Asian tigers. It has also told us about the miracle of the 'New Economy' driven by the internet. It will not be long before the demise of the Chinese dragon shows what lies behind these miracles - the sombre reality of a bankrupt capitalist system.
ES, 2/10/04.
In the last few years, the movement which describes itself variously as the 'anti-globalisation' or 'anti-capitalist' movement, the 'alternative world' or 'global justice movement' has been in the forefront of protest across the world. Through its speeches, writings and demands everything is being done to give the impression that this movement is the bearer of a new analysis of the current social order and that it holds the key to doing away with all its ills. This is summed up in its slogan 'another world is possible'. What does this 'new social critique' really amount to?
According to the theories of anti-globalisation...
Thus the anti-globalisation lobby raises the battle-cry: 'our world is not for sale'. They demand that the law of the market must not guide political policies. Political decision-making must be restored to the citizens, and democracy must be defended and extended against all financial diktats.
In reality, anti-globalisation obscures the experience of marxism and the class struggle
In sum, the anti-globalisers have reinvented the wheel. It's some revelation that capitalist enterprises only exist to make profit! That, under capitalism, all goods are turned into commodities! That the development of capitalism means the globalisation of exchange!
The workers' movement did not have to wait until the 1990s and the new wave of clever academics and radical thinkers to discover all of this. All these ideas can be found in the Communist Manifesto, first published in 1848:
"The bourgeoisie has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single unconscionable freedom - Free Trade� The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers�
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood."
Thus, the anti-globalisers claim to be offering a new analysis and a new alternative while at the same time suppressing all reference to two centuries of struggles and of theoretical endeavours by the working class, aimed precisely at understanding the bases for a truly human future. And little wonder: the better world proposed by the anti-globalisers looks back longingly to the period between the 1930s and the 1970s, which for them represents a lesser evil compared to the liberalisation which got underway in the '80s. After all, that was the period of 'Keynesianism' in which the state was a more obvious actor on the economic stage.
However, before rushing to choose the years 1930-70 over the last two decades, it's worth recalling a few of the characteristics of that period.
Let's not forget that Keynesian policies did not solve the crisis of 1929 and that massive unemployment had returned to most of the western economies by the end of the 30s; let's not forget the second world war; let's not forget the catastrophic situation of the working class during the world war and for some years after it; let's not forget that since 1945 not a single day has passed without war and that this has resulted in the loss of tens of millions of lives. And finally, let's not forget that at the end of the 1960s, capitalism plunged into an economic crisis which led to the inexorable growth of unemployment.
This is the 'better world' the anti-globalisers look back on so fondly, the lost paradise destroyed by the multinationals!
All this is the expression of a classic ideological manipulation by the bourgeoisie: to rehabilitate the state and make people believe that it can be used against the excesses of neo-liberalism, or even serve as an alternative to the law of the market.
This ideology argues that the state has withdrawn from the economy, leaving a free hand to the giant companies which are undermining democracy and the general interest. This is a total fraud. The state has never been more present in the economy than it is today, including in the USA, supposedly the model of neo-liberalism. It's the state which regulates world trade and fixes the interest rates, customs tariffs, etc. The state is still the leading economic actor, with a public expenditure which makes up an increasing portion of GNP and of the ever-swelling budget deficit. This is the so-called 'powerless', 'absent' state. It is virtually impossible to mention any economic, political or social sector in which the state doesn't have an important, if not preponderant role.
Thus, according to the anti-globalisers, the proletarians only have to rally to the defence of the state and of public services. This is the real secret of this 'radically new' theory: state capitalism, whether in its Stalinist or democratic form.
But the state is not the guarantor of a better world, where riches are more equally distributed: it's the state which ruins this world, through war, through attacks on workers' wages, pensions and social benefits. What the anti-globalisers are saying to all those who ask questions about the state of the world is this: the choice is between neo-liberalism and state capitalism, when the real choice is between socialism or barbarism.
The source of wars, of poverty, of unemployment, is not the so-called neo-liberal 'revolution' imposed by super-powerful multinationals, but the mortal crisis of capitalism, which no policy of the bourgeoisie, whether Keynesianism or neo-liberalism, can resolve.
Sowing illusions in reformism in order to hide the necessity for proletarian revolution
The anti-globalisers claim to be anti-capitalist. But all their policies boil down to a criticism of the 'excesses' of this world and to proposals aimed at safeguarding democracy. Behind the whole melange of issues and proposals they put forward the lies of the old left-wing reformism which the revolutionary movement has fought against for over a century. The project of a fairer distribution or management of wealth is just a new version of the old social democratic idea of sharing out the benefits of growth.
Let's look at the idea of a 'solidarity economy', in other words the global extension of all the experiences of cooperatives and self-management which have always meant no more than the self-exploitation of the workers. Linked to this is the notion of the citizen's initiative, according to which each individual can play his part in improving the condition of the world. This approach ignores the division of society into classes and only serves to dissolve the working class into a mass of citizens, to divert their consciousness into the dead-end of participating in democracy. In the end it is aimed at preventing the proletariat from being able to find a real alternative to capitalist barbarism
But the anti-globalisers also claim to be internationalists. It's true that the various organisations who campaign for 'global justice' exist in many countries, are in contact with each other and repeat the same slogans. But this is done with the aim of conserving the existing order, and thus nations. The only possible form of internationalism is that of the working class, the only class which has the same interests in all countries. It is inseparable from the goal of overthrowing capitalism and abolishing frontiers, which is the precondition for any genuine liberation of humanity.
The internationalism of the anti-globalisers is just the respectable shop window behind which is hidden the real goods: the defence of one imperialist interest against another. One of the main unifying themes of the anti-globalisers is opposition not just to the multinationals or the World Trade Organisation, but to the USA. What they denounce above all is US domination of the world market, not the world market as such. And when they call for a stronger democratic state, this is above all a plea for America's imperialist rivals to stand up to the USA's attempts to maintain its global hegemony. Global justice campaigner George Monbiot was quite explicit about this when, in one of his many articles for The Guardian in Britain, he called for European unity and the extension of the Euro as a bulwark against US war-mongering. This is about as far away from internationalism as you can get - calling for resistance to one imperialism by binding yourself hand and foot to another. It is no accident that the anti-globalisation movement now plays a central role in the pacifist deception - and thus in the march towards new imperialist wars.
The strong grip the old socialist and communist parties once held over the working class has been weakened by its experience of left-wing governments and the collapse of Stalinism. Faced with the aggravation of attacks on the working class, the bourgeoisie has a real need for mystifications which can derail the tendency for workers to become conscious of the real situation. 'Alternative worldism' corresponds to this need, posing as a credible alternative to the old left. The demand for a 'real left' makes use of old recipes for a fairer capitalism so that its foundations are not put into question. More specifically, the bourgeoisie cannot afford to ignore the fact that within the proletariat more and more people are posing serious questions about the current state of the planet. This is why the anti-globalisation movement, with its ideology of local self-activity, of libertarianism and syndicalism, its mish-mash of a hundred different mini-causes and sub-movements, is so well placed to lead this embryonic questioning into the dead-end of inter-classism and bourgeois ideology.
By reheating the old mystifications of the left, the bourgeoisie is once again seeking to obscure the simple truth: the only alternative to the destruction of humanity by capitalism in decay is the proletarian revolution and the construction of a communist society. Communism means the end of classes and national frontiers, where decisions are taken on the basis of needs rather than on profits and where each contributes on the basis of their abilities in a society which has solidarity at its core.
The ruling class needs to hide the fact that any serious proletarian movement will inevitably have to confront the very things that the anti-globalisation movement supports: the state, the left and democracy.
The working class must recognise the bourgeois nature of anti-globalisation ideology and see it for what it is: an obstacle to its authentic struggles to defend itself from the growing assaults of capitalism.
International Communist Current, 2/10/04.
At the time of writing, the British hostage Ken Bigley is still in the hands of the Islamist group 'Unity and Holy War' led by Abu Masub al-Zaqarwi. The mass media in the democracies, and Britain in particular, have not found it hard to wage an intensive ideological campaign around this kidnapping. This is after all one of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty of all the various armed gangs proliferating in Iraq today. It has already filmed the beheading of a number of its captives and is probably responsible for some of the worst bombing atrocities since the beginning of the US invasion, with the majority of its victims being Iraqi civilians. Ken Bigley is thus being held by the forces of 'evil incarnate'; his desperate video pleas for action to save his life and the dignified appeals of his family cannot fail to elicit strong feelings of sympathy throughout the world.
And yet behind the simple issue of an ordinary working man facing a horrible death, all kinds of sordid intrigues are going on; Ken Bigley is not just a victim of Islamist fanatics, but of all the conflicts and rivalries between different cliques of the ruling class.
The hostage-takers, of course, are playing their own game. They kidnapped Bigley along with two Americans, and the latter were cruelly murdered within days. If they have played cat-and-mouse with Bigley's life, it is for definite political ends. They know that the Blair government's pro-American line on Iraq faces considerable opposition from within the British ruling class, and they are surely calculating on putting further pressure on the Blair clique. In line with the US and its obedient interim regime in Baghdad, the UK government has maintained the line of 'no negotiation with terrorists' and thus appears to be abandoning Bigley to his fate. It has thus come under considerable criticism for its handling of the crisis, most noticeably from Bigley's family at a fringe meeting during the Labour Party conference.
Thus the campaign to free Bigley has been integrated into the schemes of those bourgeois factions who favour a more 'independent' British foreign policy and a more critical stance towards the US. This in turn seems to be causing the government some concern. For example, there has been a raid by British and Dutch intelligence officers on the home of Ken Bigley's brother in Amsterdam. They trawled through his computer, looking for evidence of illicit contacts with Zaqarwi's group.
The Americans meanwhile have stepped up their attacks on the group's alleged hiding places in Fallujah and Samara, making it increasingly unlikely that Zaqarwi will be inclined to cut some kind of deal. This follows shortly after the Berlusconi government apparently paid a hefty ransom for the release of two Italian aid workers; it has also been claimed that American air attacks have blocked the release of the two French journalists currently held in Iraq. There may be more than one motive behind the recent US offensive - for example, it could be seen as an attempt to crush the main centres of Sunni insurgency prior to the Iraqi elections in January. But this massive show of US force could equally be aimed at other powers involved in Iraq. As we argue in another article in this issue, the competition between America and France for influence in the Middle East is more or less out in the open. But Washington must also be increasingly worried that its main coalition partners, Britain and Italy, will start to 'lose their nerve' faced with the widespread domestic unpopularity of their adventures in Iraq.
In all these sordid manoeuvres, the welfare of Ken Bigley, and of countless Iraqi civilians suffering from the renewed bombing of their home towns, are the least of our leaders' concerns.
Amos 2/10/04
Hostage taking has become an almost daily part of warfare today. In Chechnya, in the Middle East, in Africa, wherever imperialist conflicts are out in the open, human beings are abducted, decapitated, massacred and filmed by the media. Capitalism was born in mud and blood, but if the proletariat leaves it with a free hand, it will drown us all in an ocean of suffering and destruction. French imperialism's offensive in the Arab/Muslim world
A month ago, two French journalists, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot were abducted in Iraq. In spite of a strong and active military presence, other journalists were seized in the Ivory Coast, while a journalist from Canal Plus, Jordanov, was held by an Islamic faction in Iraq for several days last year. But never before has the French bourgeoisie waged such a fervent ideological campaign over the hostage issue as it is doing now. The working class should have no illusions: the French state doesn't give a fig about the lives of these two journalists. Capitalism has always had a total contempt for human life and this is hardly likely to change in its period of decomposition. We only have to recall the cynical and barbaric role played by France in the genocide of nearly a million people in Rwanda in 1994 to be convinced of that. All the diplomatic efforts of French imperialism in the Arab and Muslim countries have a single objective: to strengthen the influence of French imperialism as much as possible. An article in the Courrier International of 20 September begins thus: "if the kidnappers of the two French journalists Christian Chenot and Georges Malbrunot had known that their action would have been met with such disapproval in the Islamic world, they probably wouldn't have done it". From the moment the kidnapping was officially announced, we saw a major diplomatic offensive - no doubt with a secret component as well - led by the highest representatives of the French state in all the Arab/Muslim capitals. The result of this political offensive by the French bourgeoisie is that France has never before enjoyed such support and sympathy in this part of the world. Not one state, including those like Egypt which have for years been the USA's most loyal allies, failed to make an appeal on behalf of the hostages. All warmly welcomed the declarations by French imperialisms about how firmly it supports the Arab/Muslim world. In this respect France's position on the war in Iraq is only one aspect of its overall policy in the region. But a more significant sign of the pro-Arab and pro-Muslim orientation of French imperialist policy is the large number of messages of support and sympathy that the French state has received from high ranking religious dignitaries and from a number of armed terrorist groups: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (a leading Sunni cleric); Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah (one of the leaders of Hizbollah); the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq; Hamas; the Islamic Jihad group in Palestine�. It is impossible to know who is behind the seizure of the French hostages or what the political colouring of the group that kidnapped them might be. There are so many totally uncontrolled gangs in the chaos that is Iraq today. In any case, it seems that for the moment the French bourgeoisie has taken maximum advantage of this kidnapping in order to reactivate its network of political links in this part of the world. It is undeniable that France has used the affair to score real points on the imperialist game board.
It is obvious that the main rivals of French imperialism, in particular the USA, can't be indifferent towards this offensive. It should be noted that the French state, through the intermediary of its chief diplomat Michel Barnier or its interior minister Dominique de Villepin, was initially very optimistic about the chances of getting the two journalists freed. This optimism could only have been based on reliable information on the positive results of the diplomatic offensive about the liberation of the hostages. And yet, a month later, they have yet to be freed. If, as everyone is saying, the hostages are being held in the Fallujah region, it is worth noting that the international campaign for the freeing of the two French journalists has coincided with a major US bombing offensive against Fallujah: "The American army has said in the last few days that its target has been the presumed hiding places of the group led by the Jordanian Islamist Abu Moussad al Zarkawi, linked to al Qaida. This has resulted in numerous civilian deaths" (Courrier International, 20.9.04). There is no doubt that this new armed offensive by the US, centred especially on the region where the French hostages are being held, is only the visible part of America's reaction to France's imperialist offensive. This gives added significance to the statement by the Chirac government that the continuation of the violence in Iraq is the reason for the delay in the liberation of the French journalists and their Syrian driver.
The religious dignitaries seem to have been a particular target for some time: "Two members of the Sunni Ulema Committee were assassinated in the Iraqi capital. Armed men killed Sheikh Mohamed Djadou on Monday when he left a mosque in west Baghdad. A few hours earlier, another leader of the committee, Hazem al Zadi, was killed at the entrance following prayers at a mosque in Sadr City, the Shiite area of the Iraqi capital. The Committee fears an 'organised campaign' of assassinations of its dignitaries" (ibid). These targeted assassinations are in turn a very important factor in the radicalisation of part of the Iraqi population, in particular the more religious elements, and thus help plunge the country even further into chaos. In this context, whatever the real motives of the terrorist group which holds the two French hostages and the level of influence that the religious authorities may have on them, it seems that the kidnappers are in a very dicey situation which seriously complicates the possibility of the freeing of the two French journalists. Both the wide-scale and quite threatening reaction to this kidnapping and the whole game of imperialist tensions, directly implicating France and the USA, have trapped the hostage-takers between the hammer and the anvil. On all sides they face the prospect of being crushed. In this sense, the fatwa issued by the highest religious authorities, permitting the killing of the kidnappers, is a significant expression of the support for French imperialism in the Arab/Muslim world. On 16 September two Americans and a Briton were taken from their residence in a comfortable neighbourhood of Baghdad; this coincided with the abduction of the two young Italian women working for an aid organisation. Here it is noteworthy that none of the states or religious and political institutions which mobilised to support France in its hostage affair moved on behalf of the Americans. In fact there was almost complete silence, implying their effective support for the kidnappers. The barbaric murder of the two Americans, beheaded on the Internet, followed soon after�..
The proletariat can have no illusions. Iraq is heading for a further slide into war and chaos. Behind the civil war in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, the imperialist powers are playing their games. Whatever the outcome of the kidnapping of the two French journalists, this episode has been another moment of inter-imperialist confrontation, notably between France and the USA, with France scoring the points for the moment. The life of the hostages is just a pretext for developing this confrontation.
France has drawn an added advantage from the media barrage around this event. It has made it possible to create a climate of national unity which has linked everyone from the right wing parties to the PCF and the Trotskyists on the left. The working class has nothing to gain and much to lose by being drawn into campaigns which only serve to divert it from its own struggle.
Tino, 25/09/04.
For Haiti, hurricane Jeanne is only the latest in a succession of horrific events. This year alone the population have suffered during the violent conflict in which ex-president Aristide was forced into exile, severe flooding in May which killed more than 3,000, and an earthquake on its border with Dominican Republic.
The hurricane hit the city of Gonvaives particularly hard, bringing severe flooding in its wake. The death toll has been estimated at around 2,000, but with corpses floating in the flood water and rotting in the streets before being buried in mass graves, without identification or ceremony, the true numbers will never be known. The living huddled on roofs without food, water or shelter from the sun, and when aid arrived the food was rapidly exhausted. Many thousands have lost their homes while armed gangs have been battling each other for control of emergency food supplies.
Jeanne is one of a series of hurricanes and tropical storms to hit the Caribbean and America this year, and not the most powerful. It was the fourth to hit Florida this year, after Charley, Frances and Ivan had caused $17 billions of damage. What has made hurricane Jeanne so deadly and so devastating is that it hit Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, characterised by political corruption and disorder, as we showed at the time Aristide was overthrown, "Haiti is ravaged by famine and epidemics: 70% of the population is unemployed, 85% of the population lives on less than 70 pence (1 Euro) a day. The average life expectancy in 2002 was less than 50 years as opposed to about 70 in the other South American and Caribbean countries. 40% of the population have no access to the most basic care and the rates of infection with HIV and TB are the highest in Latin America. Infant mortality is twice as high and half the children under 5 go hungry. The situation is worsened by the western powers who have promised credit and aid which has never been paid... To this sombre picture of crushing pauperisation is added the riots and confrontations between pro- and anti-Aristide forces which have left hundreds of dead. These victims have been added to the long list of extortion and massacres committed by preceding regimes, supported by the western democracies, from the bloodthirsty Duvalier, father and son�" ('US and French intervention in Haiti: more militarism, more chaos [73]').
In particular, every house in the port of Gonaives, a city of a quarter of a million people, "was flooded when heavy rains in nearby mountains, severely eroded by deforestation, created an avalanche of water..." (The Times 22.9.04). As in the Indian Sub-continent, floods are largely the result of deforestation and soil erosion (see 'The responsibility of capitalism for the flood disaster in India and Bangladesh [74]').
Decades of pillage of the natural resources by the great powers, including deforestation, have reduced the majority of the population to hunger and subjected them to terror at the hands of armed gangs. In these circumstances of daily barbarism the natural disaster could only become a social catastrophe.
The aid sent, an absurd pittance in comparison with what is needed, shows that help for the victims is no more important than the prevention of the disaster for capitalism, when its profit or interests are not at stake. The ruling class is capable of deploying huge resources when its military and strategic interests are at stake, but not when it is a question of protecting or aiding vulnerable populations.
Alex, 2/10/04.
In Revolutionary Perspectives no. 32 the Communist Workers' Organisation (CWO) introduce a "contribution to the debate on capitalist decadence", 'For a definition of the concept of decadence' written by one of the comrades of Battaglia Comunista. We welcome this debate first of all because of the importance of subject; as the CWO state in their introduction, "The notion of decadence is a part of Marx's analysis of modes of production." It is not just any part of Marx's analysis, but the basis of scientific socialism, as they showed in RP 21 (original series, November 83): "Marxism, unlike anarchism, has always recognised that before communism can be established capitalism must itself destroy feudal systems of production and create both an international proletariat and advanced means of production. In doing this capitalism is creating both the basis for communism and the class able to bring it into being. We therefore maintain, as did Marx, that capitalism has been a historically progressive mode of production. We regard history as a complex of processes in which opposites are struggling against each other. The dynamic of history is located in these struggles and their progress is the progress of history. The development of the struggles engendered by these contradictions leads to a historical period in which capitalism can be considered to be progressive and on in which its further development turns it into a barrier. We quote again from the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy. 'At a certain stage of their development the material productive forces of society come into contradiction with the existing productive relationships, or, what is but a legal expression for these, with the property relationships within which they have moved before. From being forms of development of the productive forces these relationships are transferred into their fetters. Then an epoch of social revolution opens.' This is a dialectical understanding of the process of development, not a mechanical one. The very idea of decadence, which we describe as a period in which the material pre-requisites for communism exist but the revolution has not been made (since the subjective consciousness is absent), is a notion which would be nonsense to a mechanical materialist since he sees causality as working directly from material conditions".
Furthermore, after quoting the very same passage from Marx's 'Preface to the Critique of Political Economy', the introduction to the latest article points out that "At the time of the formation of the Comintern in 1919, it appeared that the epoch of revolution had been reached and its founding conference declared this". In other words, the recognition that capitalism had reached its decadent phase underpinned the founding of the Third International: "capitalism had fulfilled its mission of developing the productive forces and had reached a stage of irreconcilable contradiction with the requirements not only of modern historical development, but also of the most elementary conditions of human existence. This fundamental contradiction was reflected in the recent imperialist war, and further sharpened by the great damage the war inflicted on the conditions of production and distribution" ('Theses on Comintern tactics' Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of the Third International, Hessel).
Yet the CWO now write that "85 years later this at least appears questionable. Within the 20th century capitalist property relations have, despite the unprecedented destruction and suffering caused by two world wars, enabled the productive forces to develop to levels never previously seen, and have brought hundreds and hundreds of millions of new workers into the ranks of the proletariat". It is certainly true that the theory that capitalism has become a fetter on the productive forces and entered an 'epoch of social revolution' must be tested against reality. Testing theory against reality was the approach of the Communist Left which had to subject all the positions of the Comintern to the most rigorous criticism in opposing its degeneration. In this sense we can take inspiration from Bilan which in 1933 in its first issue wrote that "it calls on all revolutionaries to subject the positions it now defends to the verification of events, as well as the political positions contained in its basic documents" (The Italian Communist Left, ICC pamphlet). However, to successfully re-examine a key position such as the question of whether capitalism has an ascendant and a decadent phase, and whether the latter was reflected in and announced by the First World War, we must be very careful to do so in the historical framework of marxism. It was the theoretical solidity of the framework in which the Italian Left subjected its positions to the verification of events that allowed it to survive and provide the heritage which all the organisations of the proletarian political milieu reclaim today, whatever differences we may have. The importance of this method is perhaps most clearly highlighted by the fact that it was the Italian Left that provides the methodology for our understanding of many questions today, even when the German Left had profound insights into questions such as the trade unions or state capitalism much earlier.
In this sense, the article reproduced in RP 32 does not provide a framework for testing the theoretical framework of decadence against the events of the last century because it does not return to the key programmatic and theoretical texts that have to be re-evaluated. The IBRP's (note 1) Platform recognises the same key change in period as the Comintern and the ICC, although they, like Lenin, talk of imperialism rather than decadence: "The 1st World War, the product of competition between the capitalist states, marked a definitive turning point in capitalism's development. It showed that the process of capital concentration and centralisation had reached such proportions that henceforward the cyclical crises which had always been an intrinsic part of the process of capital accumulation would be global crises, resolvable only by world war. In short, it confirmed that capitalism had entered a new historical era, the era of imperialism. The opening of capitalism's imperialist epoch, with its infernal cycle of global war - reconstruction - crisis, also put the possibility of a higher form of civilisation (communism) on the historical agenda." Yet the new article makes no reference to this. In order for the IBRP debate on this question, one in which other organisations will obviously intervene, to have a positive influence on the development of class consciousness, it will be necessary to base it on the existing theoretical framework. (Note 2)
The introduction to 'For a Definition of the Concept of Decadence' states: "The CWO has previously argued that it was not the absence of growth of the productive forces, but the overheads associated with such growth which needed to be considered when assessing decadence. Such an argument, while recognising massive growth of the productive forces, opens the door to a subjective assessment of the overheads which have allowed such growth to occur." This self-criticism by the CWO seems inappropriate. It is not clear if this introduction is using the term 'overheads' in the same sense as it was used in 1983 in RP 21: "From the First World War the capitalist system, because of the development of its internal contradictions, was unable to develop the productive forces without tremendous overheads; namely, the devaluation of capital by world wars", or in a more economic sense. In any case the introduction to The Economic Foundations of Capitalist Decadence (CWO pamphlet no 1, published in 1985) makes clear that "For revolutionaries a scientific understanding of the dynamic of the capitalist economy is not an academic exercise. It is essential for clarifying our perspectives and organisational tasks." The effort to do this is clear in the pamphlet and it is certainly not merely a 'subjective assessment'. We entirely agree with the CWO of 1983 that it is not necessary to show a complete halt to the development of the productive forces to argue that capitalism is decadent. Was it subjective to point out that "Given the high organic composition of the most advanced states, it is impossible that the so-called Third World countries could compete on the world market independently of the imperialist powers" (CWO pamphlet no 1)? This can be tested against reality, and we find that the IBRP were able to answer the mystifications about the Chinese economy in Internationalist Communist 22 by showing that what passes for miraculous growth is nothing but "An enormous mass of goods with a low technological content which are competitive only and exclusively because of Chinese workers' low wages." Was it a mere 'subjective assessment' that led the CWO to study and describe the growth of state intervention in the economy as a world wide tendency since World War I? It certainly is not subjectivism for the CWO pamphlet to show "Since 1914 imperialist war has stretched in an almost unbroken chain. In three of the least militaristic states, Britain, France and the USSR, arms expenditure rose by 144%, 142% and 103% respectively between 1937 and 1939" (CWO pamphlet no 1). It was perfectly correct to show that this is "waste production", not because we - "subjectively" - don't like getting killed, but because weapons can only destroy and not enter a new cycle of production as capital.
However, we wonder what the CWO mean by a "subjective assessment" that they criticise here. It would be wrong to give the impression that subjectivity is in contradiction to materialism. The subjective conditions are just as essential for the revolution as the objective conditions of decadence.
The analysis in the pamphlet is materialist, and based on the study of the marxist analyses of the development of capitalism through ascendancy and the development of imperialism. The fact that the ICC disagrees with the CWO's explanation of the crisis from the point of view of the analysis of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which is incomplete without an understanding of the question of the market, does not change that. The relationship between the theoretical understanding of the economic foundations of capitalist decadence and political positions is not a simple one. A coherent understanding of economic foundations will make our understanding of decadence and the political conclusions that derive from it much stronger, but errors at this level do not necessarily lead to general political errors. This is illustrated when the CWO say: "In this ascendant period of capitalism it was possible for new independent capitalist nations to emerge and thus widen the basis for the creation of the working class, the future gravediggers of capitalism. However since the opening of the present imperialist phase of domination of the planet no such independent capitalist formation is possible. It was Luxemburg, not Lenin, who grasped this reality better despite her erroneous analysis of the roots of imperialism" (in their pamphlet Socialism or Barbarism). The ICC support Luxemburg's analysis, the IBRP believe it erroneous, but both agreed that capitalism is no longer ascendant and has entered its imperialist phase where national liberation is impossible.
However, as the IBRP debate the concept of decadence it will be important for them to heed the warning the CWO gave in The Economic Foundations of Capitalist Decadence "we shall see how the tendency towards equalisation of profit rates, along with the tendential fall in the rate of profit, allows us to understand the salient features of capitalist development, both in its period of growth and in its period of decline. But we must always remember that, 'It is the nature of the rate of profit, and of economic laws in general, [that], none of them has any reality except as an approximation, tendency, average, and not as an immediate reality.' (Engels to Schmidt)" To look for 'proof' of decadence in the statistics churned out by the bourgeoisie would be to misinterpret the marxist method; on the contrary, the statistics have to be analysed with our theoretical framework.
Here we want to take issue with the notion put forward in the discussion article that "the concept of decadence solely concerns the progressive difficulties which the valorisation process of capital encounters stemming from the principal contradiction expressed in the relation between capital and labour-power" (our emphasis). This would tend to divorce the economic foundations from all other aspects of society. Decadence has arisen because capitalism has become a fetter on the productive forces, and this necessarily affects not just the economy but every aspect of society including the superstructure. This is why it forms a cornerstone of our political positions.
As we have already seen, the IBRP Platform bases itself on the understanding that "capitalism had entered a new historical era, the era of imperialism" from the First World War and that this "also put the possibility of a higher form of civilisation (communism) on the historical agenda". This understanding informs many important positions for both the ICC and the CWO/IBRP. For instance, having noted that "The most telling reason, however, for the failure of any underdeveloped economy in the twentieth century to establish a firm industrial base is the domination of the world market by capitals of a high organic composition" (pamphlet no 1) they also understand "Establishing local bourgeoisies in new states around the world does not do the things which it did in the 19th Century. It fails to centralise and unify the nation, to capitalise agriculture and put local capital on a firm foundation. The states remain vassals of imperialism just as if their formal independence did not exist, and such development as does occur, occurs as a result of the demands of imperialism" (RP 21, 1983).
The same is true of the understanding of the role of the unions: "The trades unions have never been revolutionary. They began life as workers in specific trades came together to fight for better conditions. Initially banned and attacked by the full force of the capitalist state the unions gradually won legal recognition through the sacrifices and solidarity of the working class. Under imperialism they have tended to become part of the capitalist state's planning apparatus. Those who argue that all we need to do is change the trades union leadership in order to change the unions don't understand that it is the function of the unions today rather than their leadership which determines their reactionary policies" (Socialism or Barbarism). "If, in the period of capitalism's ascendancy there existed objective conditions and leeway to justify the union's specific task of making contractual demands, that leeway has been progressively reduced in the imperialist monopoly epoch - to the point of having been annulled by today's general economic crisis" (Internationalist Communist 16).
The recognition of the general tendency towards state capitalism is also based on the understanding of decadence: "The rise of global capital means the end of laissez-faire or classical capitalism. The accumulation of capital after World War One could only take place on the basis of constant and growing state intervention in each national economy and gradual absorption of civil society by the state - hence the existence of the permanent tendency towards state capitalism throughout the world" (pamphlet no 1).
And after revolutionaries in the Second International worked so hard to get social democratic deputies in parliament, this tactic could no longer play the same role in the new period: "As Lenin made clear, the realisation of the will of workers could only be achieved by revolution, the installation of the dictatorship of the proletariat (meaning nothing more than the working class 'organised as the ruling class' in opposition to the capitalist class) and proletarian democracy. Nothing could be done to realise the historical tasks of the working class by the use of bourgeois democracy as proposed by the official parties of that time. If the working class was to retreat back into the 'pig-sty of bourgeois parliamentarism', then the working class would put itself back into servitude under its class enemy. In short, the new phase of imperialism had demonstrated that capitalism was now in decay. The proletarian revolution was on the agenda" (RP 12, present series, 1998)
In order for the debate on the 'definition' of the 'concept of decadence' to be fruitful it will be necessary for the comrades in the IBRP to discuss the question starting from their basic programmatic texts and the classics of marxism. This will provide the framework to analyse events, and not be blown all over the place by them. This alone will allow this debate to test the concept of decadence, and the political conclusions that flow from it, against the actual evolution of bourgeois society in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Alex, 2/10.04.
Notes
1. International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party, encompassing the Communist Workers' Organisation, publishing Revolutionary Perspectives and the Partito Cominista Internazionalista publishing Battaglia Comunista and Prometeo. The IBRP also publishes Internationalist Communist. See www.ibrp.org [75].
2. See 'The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism [76]' in International Review 118, in which the ICC examines the way this question has been developed by marxism historically, and our series 'Understanding the decadence of capitalism' in IR 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 58 and 60.
The Labour Party conference was a demonstration of the unity of the party and its determination to win a third term rather than of its divisions over Iraq and the feud between Blair and Brown. The intervention of the unions to squash the debate on Iraq, the back-peddling of many 'anti-war' activists and the result of the Hartlepool bye-election strongly suggest that Labour is still backed by the British ruling class as the best party to defend its interests. At the same time, the real tensions between Blair and Brown, which don't seem to be based on any significant political differences, give an insight into life within the ruling class today.
Before the start of the conference it was widely predicted that Iraq would dominate the week and that the leadership would be given a hard time by the branch activists. This seemed to be confirmed with the vote at the start of the conference to have an emergency debate on a motion demanding the withdrawal of British troops and with the direct attack on Blair at a fringe meeting by the family of the British hostage Ken Bigley. However, Blair's speech, with its softer, less confrontational tone, together with the semi-apology for not actually finding any weapons of mass destruction, began to neutralise this criticism and divert it onto the horrors of the situation, justifying the removal of Saddam Hussein and a humanitarian occupation of the country. In the end, the great debate was pushed off the front pages by news of Blair's operation and his declaration that he would remain for a full third term.
There are real differences within the Labour party over imperialist policy, in particular on the question of the nature of the relationship with the US. The 'anti-war' faction led by Cook and Short had significant backing within the party and by the wider anti-war movement outside. The concern that Blair was leaning too much towards the US was shared by a significant part of the British ruling class and led to pressure being put on him through the Hutton and Butler investigations, even though the published reports formally exonerated him. This pressure has also been applied through the steady exposure of the excesses, torture and abuse carried out by American forces in Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay and, above all, by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
The defining feature of British imperialist policy is the increasing pressure that has resulted from its efforts to pursue an independent line between America and Europe. By working with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq it has been able to stay in the game but, while this may have reduced the pressure from the US, it has made things more difficult in Europe. In this context, despite Blair's tack towards Washington, Labour remains the better option for defending Britain's overall imperialist interests.
In other areas Labour has been a successful capitalist government. It has managed the economy effectively, using the achievements of the Tories in deregulating the market and increasing the exploitation of the working class to gain a relative advantage over its European rivals in terms of overall economic growth. This has allowed it to boast of having the best economic performance in 200 years! It has managed the class struggle effectively, maintaining a low-key strategy of manoeuvres and containment, despite presiding over an increase in poverty and a polarisation between rich and poor. And it has also reinforced the state effectively, through measures to increase the surveillance and control of the population in the name of 'law and order' . Here it has been adept at using the fear and anger that exists within a population faced with the growing crime and anti-social behaviour that results from the dog-eat-dog environment created by rotting capitalism.
Labour remains the most disciplined and effective political party of the ruling class. Its divisions are not comparable to those in the Tory Party before 1997 or even today, where it remains largely dominated by the remnants of a Thatcher faction still tied to the close alliance with the US. The Liberal Democrats have in turn benefited from the Tories' weaknesses. Their strengthened role may be a response to the relative eclipse of the Tories, ensuring that a 'democratic' alternative exists, and also, through their pro-European stance, helping to balance the tendency to cow-tow to the US. The UK Independence Party, in contrast, may express the tendency that has been seen in many countries - a weakening of control over the political situation by the ruling class: UKIP's central policy of withdrawal from Europe seem irrational both economically and strategically. However, its ability to take votes from the Tories may be integrated into an overall strategy of ensuring that Labour is re-elected.
Gordon Brown's speech to the conference was seen as a coded attack on Blair. He argued that economic stability rather than radical initiatives was the key to election victory and that the commitment of health staff was more important than "contracts, markets and exchange" - that is than the sort of reforms advocated by Blair and his allies.
Throughout the two Labour governments the supposed rivalry between Blair and Brown has been a frequent theme. In the recent cabinet reshuffle allies of Brown, like Douglas Alexander, were replaced by Blair loyalists like Alan Milburn. In his own speech to conference, Tony Blair went out of his way to praise Brown as the best chancellor the country has ever had. Two days later however, on the eve of his operation, when Brown was in Washington at an IMF meeting, he announced that he wanted to serve a full third term, a move which makes it much less likely that Brown will succeed him because by that time many new, younger rivals will have come forward. One of Brown's allies commented "Its like an African coup. They waited until he was out of the country" (The Guardian, 2/10/04).
This rivalry and intrigue seems real and is nothing new in bourgeois politics. What is new is the extent to which it intrudes into the open and the manner in which it is carried out through anonymous press briefings and asides. In this it is part of the general way in which Labour has ruled, developing a style that bypasses some of the traditional aspects of state functioning. Early on there was criticism of the number of 'special advisors', then of Blair's kitchen cabinet and more recently of the informal, unconstitutional way of governing. This last was taken up by the Butler Report: "We do not suggest that there is or should be an ideal or unchangeable system of collective Government, still less that procedures are in aggregate any less effective now than in earlier times. However, we are concerned that the informality and circumscribed character of the Government's procedures which we saw in the context of policy-making towards Iraq risks reducing the scope for informed collective political judgement. Such risks are particularly significant in a field like the subject of our Review, where hard facts are inherently difficult to come by and the quality of judgement is accordingly all the more important". (Paragraph 611, emphasis added). What this seems to express is the pressure under which the bourgeois political class functions today, with the consequent risk of a weakening of control and the prioritisation of personal and factional rivalry over the collective defence of ruling class interests.
North 2/10/04.
The novelist and art critic John Berger wrote an article in the Guardian, 24 August, 'The beginning of history', praising Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 in glowing terms. "The film, considered as a political act, may be a historical landmark. Yet to have a sense of this, a certain perspective for the future is required. Living only close up to the latest news, as most opinion-makers do, reduces one's perspective. The film is trying to make a small contribution towards the changing of world history. It is a work inspired by hope". For Berger, this is an attempt by an artist to intervene in world politics and has both an immediate and a deeper and wider aim. The immediate aim "is to stop Bush fixing the next election as he fixed the last. Its focus is on the totally unjustified war in Iraq. Yet its conclusion is larger than either of these issues. It declares that a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty needs - in order to survive - a continual war with some invented foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. It requires ceaseless war.
"Thus, 15 years after the fall of communism, a decade after the declared end of history, one of the main theses of Marx's interpretation of history again becomes a debating point and a possible explanation of the catastrophes being lived. It is always the poor who make the most sacrifices, Fahrenheit 9/11 announces quietly during its last minutes. For how much longer?
"There is no future anywhere for any civilisation in the world today which ignores this question. And this is why the film was made and became what it became".
These are indeed the vital questions facing this civilisation, and Berger has sensed that these questions are being posed more and more widely today despite all the drivel about the end of history and the death of marxism. We can argue with part of Berger's interpretation of the marxist theory of capitalist war, since capitalist states don't have merely 'invented' enemies but real competitors for the domination of the world. Imperialist war is not (as in Orwell's 1984, for example) a massive fiction whose essential function is to divert the masses from challenging the present system. Capitalism's 'requirement' for ceaseless war derives from real inner contradictions and conflicts; but it remains true that the endlessness and ubiquity of warfare today can only be understood by seeing it as inherent to the present form of political economy; more precisely, to capitalist social relations in an epoch when they have become a barrier to human progress.
Berger sees no conflict between the posing of this fundamental question and the film's immediate aim - "to make it less likely that President Bush will be re-elected next November" by exposing Bush as "a political cretin" and by proposing that "the White House and the Pentagon were taken over in the first year of the millennium by a gang of thugs so that US power should henceforth serve the global interests of the corporations". But as our US comrades argued in their article 'Fahrenheit 9/11 obscures reality of war in Iraq [77]' (Internationalism 131), the essential political function of the film is not to issue a call to class war but to boost the prospects of the anti-Bush camp in the next election. In other words, to serve the illusion that a change of personnel in the White House made a major difference in 2001 and that a further change could make a difference in November 2004. Kerry has already demonstrated the opposite. Bush has maintained the same militarist foreign policy as the Clinton administration, and Kerry would carry the baton round the next lap. This is precisely because global and continuous war is an unavoidable product of capitalism in decay, not of this or that politician or administration. This is why a revolution against the whole capitalist system is needed to stop the headlong flight into war, not further participation in the electoral charade, not the dead-end choice between political mouthpieces of the ruling class.
In this sense Michael Moore's references to class and capitalism are a demonstration not of any commitment to real change, but of the endless capacity of capitalism to take up the real questioning that is going on in the working class and return it in the sterile packaging of bourgeois politics. It is a total irrelevance whether Michael Moore is conscious of this or not. Capitalism needs its left wing mystifications, its false or partial critics, even more than it needs the "political cretinism" of the right; it therefore finds ways of creating them and giving them voice. Revolutionary film-making, the rallying of art to the revolution, will certainly return if the class war engulfs society as it did most powerfully after the First World War, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is not it.
Amos, 2/10/04.
The Argentinean public employees who work for the state at national, provincial or municipal level are divided up by the artificial separation imposed by the constitution of the bourgeois state in 1853 and the various reforms that followed; but they are also divided by the activities of those other agents of the capitalist state, the trade unions. The public employees are affiliated to a myriad of union organisations, and this division has been institutionalised by capitalist legislation itself, such as the law on professional associations.
One capitalist government after another has been able to take measures against these workers through so-called 'state reforms' and policies of privatisation which have led to thousands of workers being laid off either openly or in a more hidden manner through early retirement and the like. At the beginning of these 'state reforms' in 1991 there was a wage freeze affecting all these workers at national, provincial and municipal levels.
We should underline that the effects of inflation have been very severe, including during the period of the convertibility of the Argentine peso vis-�-vis the dollar which lasted up to 2001: the workers had to put up with price increases in basic goods of up to 60% and since the failure of the economic policies brought in by Carlos Menem, the buying power of the workers has fallen by between 30% and 50%, depending on whether you reckon it in peso or dollars.
During this whole period of nearly 14 years, there has been very little protest by the public employees, despite their miserable wages, with the exception of some provinces or municipalities who took action because their wages simply weren't being paid at all; and even this was under the watchful eyes of the trade unions.
But faced with a brutal drop in wages, and finding themselves excluded from the 250 dollar raise in the private sector described as an 'emergency' by the government, and faced also with the silence of the unions, the workers broke from their moorings to trade unionism. In March 2004, with the unions looking on in alarm, they began to meet spontaneously in general assemblies, where workers participated without regard to trade union membership, or to whether they were contractual or casual. Here they began to discuss the question of wages and the need to fight for the extra 250 dollars.
The response of the big public service unions in Buenos Aires was twofold, using two different methods, but with the same aim: to exhaust the workers' energies, divert and destroy the struggle. One of the tactics adopted, in this case by the SUTECBA (United Union of Municipal Workers and Employees in Buenos Aires, affiliated to the CGT), was to try to frighten the workers with the threat of losing their supplementary hours and bonuses or even their jobs. The other union, the ATE (Association of State Workers, affiliated to the CTA) adopted the tactic of proposing various sterile actions: numerous expressions of support for the struggle, strikes of 24, 48 and 72 hours, all aimed at isolating the workers from their comrades in other institutions - an old tactic of the unions. But the development of the workers' struggle led to the ATE abandoning its 'Struggle Plan' without having put it into effect.
It was by becoming aware that the unions are opposed to the working class that the hospital workers began to meet at their workplaces and tried to spread the action to other hospitals, to hold general assemblies in all the hospitals, with demands like "immediate increase in wages" or "Neither ATE nor SUTECBA".
Some hospital workers put forward the demand for a struggle for a wage increase outside the trade unions, rejecting both their threats and their 'fighting directives', going so far as refusing to allow union leaders to speak in the assemblies. They did not remain isolated in their own workplace, but tried to extend the movement to the rest of the public services.
The proof of this was the general assemblies which sprang up like mushrooms all over the place, in all sectors, integrating new workers who came to join in on a daily basis and, starting from the demand for a wage increase, came to reject the entire government plan, concluding that there is no solution in the capitalist system. This is what happened in different hospitals and it was a very important step for the municipal workers, who have historically been detached from other workers' struggle owing to the illusion that they were part of a 'workers' aristocracy'. Today this myth has been smashed forever; something very significant has changed and these struggles are proof of this.
These assemblies mandated delegates to represent them in inter-hospital assemblies, which were not closed, but on the contrary were open to all workers, with all having the chance to speak and take part in decision-making. Faced with the pressure coming from various political and union currents, they decided that no representative or delegate would negotiate in the name of the workers and that any agreement would have to be approved by all the workers.
Seeing the turn-around in the struggle of the capital's health workers, and faced with the risk that this would extend not only to other workers in the city but also to workers at provincial or national level, the unions, especially the ATE, stopped trying to take things over by force; but the SUTECBA used its whole arsenal to intimidate the workers, to deceive them with false wage increases, which would not be applied to 80% of municipalities.
This tactic, together with the threat of disciplinary and economic sanctions, brought the healthworkers' struggle to an end.
Workers must recognise that an important step forward has been made here, concretised in slogans like "Neither ATE nor SUTCBA, the decisions are taken by the assembly", "The trade unions are our enemies", "Workers' unity, without any distinction between permanent and temporary workers".
While it's true that we didn't win a wage increase, we have begun a new practise in the struggle, by insisting on the unity of the class and developing the instrument for this struggle, the assemblies.
We weren't hundreds of thousands of workers, only a few thousand, but what is important is that we have had this experience, we have verified that the working class is one class, that there is no difference between workers who are union members and those who are not - we are all workers, we have the same needs and the same enemy, the bourgeois state and its trade unions.
But the most important thing of all, along with the quest for unity and the creation of organs of struggle, is that the majority of workers didn't allow themselves to be seduced by the siren songs of the leftists with their proposals for new 'class struggle' unions. On the contrary, our practical experience in the heat of the struggle has shown us that whatever form the unions take on, whether bureaucratic or 'rank and file', these organs cannot be won back for the workers' struggle, and that whatever the good intentions of those who get involved with them, they will always be absorbed by the capitalist state and become an apparatus in the service of a decomposing system.
This unprecedented struggle by the hospital workers, whose importance is not seen by many, was a very powerful moment in the class struggle, above all because of the generalisation of the base assemblies and the election of mandated and rotating delegates.
All struggles led by the unions lead to a catastrophic defeat for the workers. For this reason, faced with workers' actions outside the unions, with decisions taken in general assemblies and tending to generalise throughout the working class, the bourgeoisie, the unions, the private or state bosses will use every means at their disposal to undo the movement.
We must organise ourselves outside the unions, create our own tools for the struggle and try to spread it as widely as we can. We have started along this path; we didn't go all the way, but the struggle has been rich with lessons for the future: we can only have confidence in the force of our class and not in our enemies and false friends.
M. NCI
This text was written by the comrades of the Nucleo Comunista Internacional (NCI) in Argentina, which has developed political positions very close to those of the ICC, and is currently engaged in discussions with our organisation and the whole of the communist left in a militant, internationalist perspective.
This text has a dual interest: on the one hand, it is testimony to a very combative struggle by the hospital workers of Buenos Aires, one that is rich in lessons for all workers. At the same time it clearly defends the unity of the working class: "the working class is one class, that there is no difference between workers who are union members and those who are not - we are all workers, we have the same needs and the same enemy, the bourgeois state and its trade unions". It supports the workers' methods of struggle and clearly denounces the trade unions. The end of the text is particularly eloquent: "We must organise ourselves outside the unions, create our own tools for the struggle and try to spread it as widely as we can. We have started along this path; we didn't go all the way, but the struggle has been rich with lessons for the future: we can only have confidence in the force of our class and not in our enemies and false friends".
We have always fought - and the comrades of the NCI have actively participated in this combat - against the error that sees the revolts of December 2001 in Argentina as a working class movement, when what really took place was an inter-class revolt without any perspective (see International Review 109, second quarter of 2002). As a result we have faced many criticisms from other revolutionary groups who have accused us of being 'defeatists' and of having a 'disdain for real workers' struggles'. Our reply was that it is absurd to try to grab hold of a mirage and to see giants where there are only windmills; at the same time, we made it clear that we were confident in the real capacities of the Argentine proletariat (see International Review 117, second quarter of 2004). Today, this small experience of the hospital workers' struggle has confirmed this perspective. Not because it was a spectacular and decisive movement, but because it supplies proof that what's happening in the Argentinean proletariat is part of the same tendencies maturing in a slow and often contradictory manner within the world working class.
In this sense, we want to make a precision about one aspect of the comrades' text. In certain passages, they say that "the workers broke from their moorings to trade unionism", that they were conscious that the unions are enemies of the working class and that "the majority of workers didn't allow themselves to be seduced by the siren songs of the leftists with their proposals for new 'class struggle' unions". There is certainly a tendency within the international working class to distrust the unions and to confront their manoeuvres; however, we don't think this has been generalised to the whole working class or to the majority of workers in Argentina. The proletariat still has to walk a long and difficult road before it can once again have confidence in itself, recover its class identity, and understand that the unions are its enemies and that the numerous varieties of trade unionism are an integral part of the bourgeois state.
We have to try to understand the global and historic balance of forces within which each particular struggle of the proletariat takes place. The fact that a small minority of workers are beginning to grasp the issues mentioned above is one thing; it's a very different thing for this consciousness to generalise irreversibly to wide layers of the class.
For us, it is very important that, on the basis of a dynamic analysis of the present situation of the class struggle, a minority of comrades has drawn the lessons and published them so that they can be part of the effort of the world proletariat to become conscious of itself. This effort faces many difficulties and contradictions and is only consciously carried out by small minorities, but in the end it will serve to change the balance of forces in the proletariat's favour.
ICC. 2/10/04.
Where the big meetings at the ESF considered how government policies could be changed, the fringe events 'Beyond the ESF' had proposals for action. Typically they put a positive spin on all sorts of activities that have nothing to do with the struggle of the working class. For example, a Class War meeting on the issue of precarity (job insecurity), extolled the virtues of the black economy, and saw petty trafficking (e.g. in contraband cigarettes) as an expression of the class struggle, just because those who engage in it are hassled by the police. At other meetings there were calls for individuals to shoplift, fare dodge and squat empty buildings.
A pamphlet on sale during the ESF, Days of dissent: reflections on summit mobilisations, summed up the attitude of this wing of the anticapitalist movement. It's full of pictures and accounts of demonstrations but with no attempt to place these events in a historic or international framework. That's what happens when you reject marxism and the experience of the working class. They prefer people who are prepared to 'fight back', whoever that might be, and whatever they do. Many groups declare that they are part of a 'new' movement free of the old ideologies of the 20th century. But denying the acquisitions of the workers' movement means searching for an alternative to the revolution of the working class and the destruction of the capitalist state. The slogans of 'solidarity - autonomy - direct action' are meaningless when they're part of the 'radical' wing of an 'anticapitalist' movement that is not only no challenge to capital but an obstacle to the development of class consciousness.
When capitalism insists that workers are flexible and put up with short term contract work, with inevitable periods of unemployment, in increasingly insecure patterns of working, it's a very real problem.
Attacks on social security have increased throughout Europe in the last ten years with the British state leading the way. Recent struggles in France and Italy over the question of pensions have mobilised hundreds of thousands of workers. Workers who lose their jobs are often forced, alongside migrant workers, into low paid, insecure, work or government schemes aimed at hiding the real unemployment figures. The idea of a 'job for life' has gone and, as the pensions crisis deepens, capitalism clearly offers no perspective for the future for the majority of workers.
This is the stark reality of the situation; what is problematic is how to respond to these measures. The only revolutionary class in capitalism, the working class, employed or unemployed, organises to defend its interests. The development of this struggle leads to a confrontation with capitalism and the bourgeois state. This is a fundamental understanding of the workers movement.
But many of those at the meetings on precarious work posed 'dole resistance' as a response to the state's attacks. This can mean anything from tobacco smuggling, squatting, 'liberating' property & food from multinationals and attacking job centre workers. Such actions tend to be the responses of desperate individuals trying to survive; as proposals for struggle they're not part of the combat of a revolutionary class that poses the possibility of a future society.
For example, a leaflet distributed by the French group, Action Chomage (AC), From wage earners (salariat) to precarious workers (precariat), ends up calling for a united front (of whom?) to confront the latest attacks, alongside a call for the 'rethinking' of the welfare system and a demand for the unions to strengthen themselves for the defence of all. This is plain old leftist reformism sowing the illusion that the capitalist system, and its supporters the unions, can be altered for the benefit of the exploited and dispossessed. A video was shown of AC activists staging pointless occupations of expensive shops and restaurants in Paris; it didn't mention why they hadn't involved the undoubtedly poorly paid workers of these businesses in their activities. So much for a united struggle!
A German group ACT seemed to advocate more radical action. In their leaflet, From protest to rebellion, they reject the welfare state and parliament. They hope to "appropriate, expropriate and be rebellious" ... through anti fascism, environmentalism and anti-globalisation, to cite a few of the 'struggles' they are involved in. Their radicalism is just another veneer for the familiar slogans of the more conventional left.
The weight of the bourgeoisie's campaigns around the 'death of communism' has meant that any mention of the working class, marxism or communism is met by incomprehension or even hostility from younger generations of workers like some of those present at 'Beyond the ESF'. The lie that marxism=Stalinism has been repeated so often that it is often accepted without a second thought.
Workers are disarmed if they don't challenge that lie. With the proliferation of wars and the growing attacks on working and living standards we live in difficult and dangerous times. Humanity faces the alternative of socialism or barbarism. The working class, the only force that can overthrow capitalism, needs to rediscover its identity. It needs to reclaim the acquisitions and clarity of the historic workers' movement.
At the heart of this process is a commitment to discussion and clarification. This wasn't on offer at the ESF. Those who want to be part of the struggle for the only possible 'alternative world', communism, will need to look beyond the ESF, towards the clarity of the communist left.
William 29/10/04
The European Social Forum, having visited Florence and Paris in previous years, passed through London in mid October. As before there were hundreds of meetings, seminars, 'workshops' and cultural events touching on a wide range of issues, and a concluding demonstration where everyone was able to dress up and make a lot of noise. While a Guardian (18/10/04) leader announced that "New politics takes a bow" and banners declared that "Another world is possible", it was clear that there was nothing 'new' on display and nothing that even hinted at the possibility of an end to capitalist society and all its horrors.
The ESF received �500,000 of state funding from the Mayor of London, including free travel for participants and accommodation at the Millennium Dome. There was also a lot of union sponsorship. It is significant that these pillars of capitalist society were so keen to ensure that the ESF would run smoothly with no financial problems. Socialist Worker (23/10/04) saluted "the beautiful, crazy, creative chaos", and thought that the ESF was a "great success". As a 'media partner' of the ESF the Guardian was bound to be enthusiastic about the "content and style of the inclusive non-party politics now emerging under the ESF umbrella". It also revealed the hopes of the ruling class in wondering whether "the ESF can refresh mainstream British politics and influence the European left."
Many people, the young in particular, want to understand what's going on in the world and how to change it, but are disillusioned with 'mainstream politics'. Spectacles such as the ESF offer the illusion of an 'alternative', an extensive variety of events all claiming to be different from the stale sedative of stuffy parliaments and the spin of the mass media.
But what was really on offer? One of the main slogans of the ESF (and the demonstration) was 'stop the war'. Yet, in all the meetings on conflicts in the Middle East, Latin America, Nepal, Burma, Western Sahara, Ireland etc, the call was not for opposition to war, but for support and participation. Today's war cries are not flagrant outbursts of jingoism but attempts to mobilise against the US, against global corporations, for democracy, against racism, as well as the less subtle nationalist appeals to rally to capital.
The possibility of reorganising the global capitalist economy was one of the ESF's other main concerns. In showing the role of multinational corporations, the IMF or World Bank, or what has happened in particular national economies there were not (according to Socialist Worker) "repetitive denunciations of neo-liberalism". They had taken up Susan George's exhortation (Guardian 15/10/04) to "take the time to examine power coldly, determine its strategic weaknesses and decide, together, how to push our neo-liberal adversaries back until at last they fall over the edge of the political cliff."
They 'examined power' and came up with the answer to all economic and social ills: the capitalist state. If only the state was not controlled by the transnationals, if only privatisation was reversed and everything taken into public ownership, if only governments were more democratic and responded to the pressure of a thousand campaigns, if only political leaders appreciated the importance of sustainable development, then � 'another world is possible.' The experience of humanity, as understood by the marxist current in the workers' movement, is that the state has always expressed the interests of the ruling class which are in opposition to the interests of those it exploits and oppresses. The capitalist state is at the heart of the bourgeoisie's domination of the world. It is the first line of capitalism's defence and will be its last bastion against the revolution of the working class.
It is quite usual to see non-governmental organisations, unions and leftists rallying to the state, trying to channel workers' energies behind their reformist schemes and campaigns. Some people might have expected a different message from 'Beyond the ESF' in the fringe events and 'autonomous spaces'.
There were many events organised 'outside' of the ESF: included in the official publicity, but trading under the name of 'Beyond the ESF' in 'autonomous spaces'. These events promoted "a celebration of resistance, organised without funding from government, or political parties", focused more on direct action, DIY media and "A world of autonomy, self-organisation and sustainability". Yet, apart from the more 'radical' language, they were just an authorised loyal opposition to the main events.
Take the protest against Ken Livingstone at an anti-fascist meeting. Although the mayor of London didn't put in an appearance, the protestors displayed a banner with "Ken's Party, War Party" on it. Ken was supposed to be a hypocrite in speaking about racism when he's just rejoined a party that is "prosecuting an unjust and racist war" (in the words of a sympathetic explanation of what happened). Livingstone's presence would have been in conflict with the principles of the World Social Forum, point 9 of which includes "Neither party representations nor military organisations shall participate in the Forum".
Why pick on Livingstone in such a carnival of reaction? At the ESF ideas acceptable to the parties of the left were common currency and the armed struggle of many imperialist conflicts was consistently acclaimed. However, it is worth remembering that it was anti-racist reasons - the persecution of Bosnians and Kosovans by Serbs - that 'Red' Ken gave for supporting the bombing of Belgrade.
This was typical of the 'alternative' approach, where there were reservations about some aspects of union activity, criticisms of the 'corporate' culture of the main events, and a rejection of the 'authoritarianism' of the traditional leftists.
There was certainly a different atmosphere at the 'alternative' meetings. Entirely contradictory points of view were put forward without anyone seeming to mind. This didn't matter, because when you're not interested in a process of clarification there's no need for the confrontation of ideas. To celebrate the autonomy of the atomised individual the meetings in the 'autonomous spaces' spent their time (in the words of an ad for a meeting on 'Life despite capitalism') "weaving discourses of empowerment".
The different ambience could not hide the fact that the same politics were on offer. If unions were criticised it was because of their 'limitations' and the 'concessions' they had made, not because of their role against workers' struggles. The state was still seen as the tool of the multinationals.
Above all there was no evidence that the struggle of the working class meant anything in the 'autonomous spaces'. In sessions at the SchNEWS conference 'direct action' was identified in union struggles, the ANC in South Africa, the Iraqi Resistance, as well as squatting, consumers making 'ethical' choices, food co-ops, using weblogs and opting for bio-diesel. There was praise for the seizure of churches in Colombia to get the Catholic Church to put pressure on the state, and a salute to an indigenous people that was going to commit mass suicide if its demands weren't met. The central reality of capitalist society, the struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie and its state, was not a concern of such meetings. We were told that the state was too powerful to be overthrown, it had to be undermined. For example, if you build your own house you won't have to pay rent.
At the Radical Theory Forum there was a debate on whether marxism and concepts of class have anything to offer the anticapitalist movement. This was attended by about 60 people, and immediately split up into workshops. The groups reporting on 'revolution' told us that the majority view in their group was that the concept of revolution as a particular 'utopian' event was out of date, and that we should be looking at a more "processual" approach.
An Indymedia meeting billed as "Infowar: Media Deception and Disinformation Vs Dissent and Direct Democracy" was on the media treatment of protests, and on attacks on alternative sources of information. We made a basic point about the media as part of the capitalist state apparatus, how it will give publicity to struggles that unions have firmly under control, but conceal any examples of workers extending their struggle or taking it into their own hands. This was against the spirit of the meeting which, at root, stood for democracy and free speech. It was blind to the reality that democracy is one of the main means that the bourgeoisie uses to rally workers to the defence of their exploiters. Indymedia had an online petition against the seizure of hard drives from two of its servers. The list of names was due to be delivered to the FBI, the US Department of State, the Italian and Swiss governments and David Blunkett.
Militants of the ICC intervened outside the main event at Alexandra Palace, at a number of the 'Beyond the ESF' events and at the closing demonstration. Although the label on the ESF product said 'Another world is possible', you'd never have got any sense of the historic struggle of the working class and of its potential to destroy capitalism. As communists we not only criticised the ESF and the way such events act against the development of class consciousness, we were also a small voice putting forward a perspective for a working class revolution that can establish a world-wide human community with relations of solidarity at its heart.
Car 28/10/04.
Twenty years ago one million people died of starvation in Ethiopia following a severe drought. In response to the tragedy Bob Geldorf organised charity concerts and released 'Do they know it's Christmas' as part of the benefit. Since then many Ethiopians have relied on aid to stave off famine. Today followers of Sir Bob will release a new version of the same record in the face of a much more extensive crisis in and around the Horn of Africa. In other words, the problem has got worse over the last 20 years.
This year the Ethiopian government began driving 2 million people away from the arid eastern highlands, claiming this will be a lasting solution to famine in the country. This is hardly convincing given that the drought of 2002/3 has been much more extensive than that in 1984 (Northern Highlands) or 2000 (South Eastern pastoral region), covering areas never previously needing food aid. At the same time, Somalia has fallen apart with effectively no central government since 1991, its new 'president' sworn in not in the Somali capital but in Kenya. Most of the little industry it had has been sold off as scrap metal by the local warlords, and its agriculture and pastoralism is threatened by desertification. To the west, Sudan is suffering the very worst crisis as drought in the neglected Darfur region has sharpened the competition between settled and pastoral people for scarce water and pasture. It was the government that turned this into a massacre by sending in the military and recruiting the Janjaweed, so that now 70,000 have been slaughtered, 1.6 million driven from their homes, and the tragedy extended to Chad with the refugees from Sudan. The whole situation has been worsened by this year's rain, making it harder to bring in aid, and by the plague of locusts being blown in first to Chad and then to Darfur.
The Darfur tragedy "would have been so easy to avoid. None of this had to happen" according to General Ibrahim Suleiman, who as governor had been one of those most instrumental in causing it (quoted on the New York Times web site, 17 Oct). The role of the Sudan government in arming the militia to put down the SLA and JEM rebels in Darfur has been well publicised.
But this is no mere local conflict; it is a small corner of the conflict between the great powers for control of the strategically vital Red Sea and North East Africa. The long running conflict in Southern Sudan was stirred up and used first by the Western and Eastern blocs in the 1970s and 1980s (with the SPLA being supplied by Russia via Ethiopia and the government armed by the US), and is now being used in similar ways by the US and its former allies turned rivals (see WR 276). In the conditions of instability that followed the collapse of the blocs, each country, rebel army or warlord will seek its backers among the great powers while the latter seek influence with whatever client they can use against their rivals. So the SPLA has been backed by Russia, and later by the US, when Sudan was backed by France. Meanwhile France has armed both the SLA and JEM in Darfur (discretely, via Chad), once Khartoum began to get more friendly with Washington again.
In the 1970s and 1980s Ethiopia, as a client of the USSR, supported rebels in Sudan and in turn suffered Western-backed rebels launched from Sudan and Somalia. The pro-Russian regime fell in 1991 following the collapse of its backer.
Somalia fell into the US orbit in the 1970s and 1980s. The fall of its government in 1991 was even more catastrophic, with mass starvation and the country plunging into the grip of ruthless warlords. The US invasion in the 1990s only added to the chaos.
In these circumstances we can understand the current 'humanitarian' intervention by the various imperialist powers as simply the expression of their self-interest. EU foreign minister Javier Solana's visit to Ethiopia and Sudan, with the promise of 100 million Euros to support the increase in the size of the African Union force in Darfur from less than 500 to more than 3,000, is nothing more than the effort of the powers he represents to gain influence in the region. The US sponsored Security Council resolution threatening sanctions against Sudan is likewise a manoeuvre aimed at keeping its domination of the region. And the opposition to that resolution from China is a completely understandable response from Sudan's main trading partner.
Without doubt there are presently millions in the Horn of Africa and Sudan totally dependent on food aid to survive. Yet international aid has not prevented the succession of famines and massacres in the region. Even worse, aid is given in circumstances in which it cannot be anything but an instrument of imperialism. With aid provided by nation states this is crystal clear, as a report on US aid shows: "U.S. national interests are clear: stability and security will not be achieved in the greater Horn of Africa region without putting an end to conflict and stopping potential Somali support for terrorism" (www.usaid.gov [79]).
This has always been the case: "In 1984 16,000 tons of emergency food aid went to Somalia of which 9% went to the armed forces, 21% to other government bodies and 58% was left to rot!" (WR 157).
Non-government organisations cannot escape becoming integrated into the plans of imperialism, whatever the intentions of those who work for them or donate money to them: "Through them [imperialisms] not only channel aid to their clients, but also get the working class to help pay for this through charitable donations. The aid agencies may not give arms to war-lords, but they do something equally as important: they feed and care for their populations for them. Without this 'aid' they would not have the cannon fodder they need to wage the war: a war that causes the famine and misery in the first place" (WR 219). In this period the refugee camp becomes the base for the war lord.
It is no accident that Sir Bob got his knighthood for arranging aid that got Western agencies into Ethiopia at a time when it was a Russian client. Today in the name of 'doing something practical', Sir Bob has become an open advocate of US and British government 'Plans for Africa'. This is the fate of the ideology of charity in an epoch when revolutionary politics are the only realistic hope for humanity.
Alex, 30/10/04.
On Saturday 2nd October the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party held a public meeting on the theme 'Why the war in Iraq?' The ICC welcomed this initiative by the IBRP, as it did with its public meetings in Berlin, an account of which can be seen on our website. However, this IBRP meeting in Paris had a peculiarity which distinguishes it from the ones in Germany: it was decided upon and organised on the suggestion and with the political and material support of a parasitic group which calls itself the 'Internal Fraction of the ICC'.
It's because of this peculiarity that, before giving an account of the debate between the ICC and the IBRP on the analysis of the war in Iraq, we are devoting the first part of this article to the question of the 'joint work' between the IBRP and the IFICC, which had already been announced in no. 27 of the IFICC's Bulletin ('Account of a discussion between the IBRP and the Fraction').
This question seems all the more important to deal with given the manner in which the IFICC presented this public meeting in its advertisement for it on its website:
"Since the beginning of the crisis that the ICC is currently going through, a crisis which led to our formation as an 'Internal Fraction' of this organisation, we have not stopped underlining a painful reality - the serious weakening of an important proletarian political pole, which has manifested itself in the Paris region by the fact that its so-called 'open' public meetings have been deserted or are forbidden to some people, and above all are not places for debate and the confrontation of points of view within the class.
We have also underlined that, given what's at stake in the present situation, the necessary strengthening and regroupment of revolutionary forces within the proletarian camp can only take place today around the only serious pole that exists: the IBRP
On our suggestion and with our political and material support, the IBRP will be holding a public meeting in Paris (a meeting which, we hope, will be merely the first) in which we call on all our readers to participate" (our emphasis)
We can see that in this advertisement, the IFICC did not judge it useful to write a single phrase of analysis or denunciation of the war in Iraq (unlike the leaflet published by the IBRP). This advert was dedicated to one question only: how to reconstruct in the French capital a pole of regroupment for revolutionaries following the collapse of the ICC. A collapse which has, according to the IFICC, been verified by the fact that its public meetings have been "deserted"" and no longer serve as a place of debate (which is a lie, as all the sympathisers who regularly come to our public meetings can attest - ten of them came to the IBRP meeting).
Apart from the delegation of the IBRP and four members of the IFICC (only the element Jonas was absent), the following were present at the meeting:
Three other people breezed through the meeting but left without taking part in the debate.
Thus, this public meeting which was, according to the IFICC, supposed to prove that the IBRP is the "only serious pole" of discussions and reference of the communist left would have been a total fiasco if the ICC had not been present and had not invited its contacts to participate. There was a large delegation of ICC militants and ten sympathisers.
Thus despite the brilliant publicity put out by the IFICC about this meeting, it managed to demonstrate one thing: it has created a void around it. The ICC and its sympathisers made up two thirds of the participants and filled the room. This was so obvious that:
The audience at this public meeting was the proof that the IFICC (and perhaps also the IBRP?) takes its desires for reality: the ICC is not yet dead and buried as a "serious pole" of the proletarian camp. It is precisely because its own meetings would be totally deserted that the IFICC does not organise its own public meetings and has no other policy than to feed parasitically off the meetings of the groups of the communist left!
But even more important is the question: why, despite the loud publicity done by the IFICC, was this public meeting, announced as such a scoop, boycotted by the readers of the IFICC Bulletin and by our subscribers?
It's precisely because the latter learned that this meeting of the IBRP had been organised on the "suggestion" and with the "political and material support" of a parasitic group whose main activity is to heap the worst kinds of insults on the ICC! Thus, one of our contacts told us that he would not be taking part at this meeting because he didn't want to "put his feet in the shit"!
The only elements that the IFICC could attract were its own supporters and experience has shown that there are not many of them.
If the IFICC had not yelled from the rooftops that it was with its "political and material support" that the IBRP was organising this public meeting, other searching elements (who are by no means all in agreement with our positions) would surely have come to take part in the debate.
It is a lesson that the IBRP should draw from this slap in the face: you can't be better served than by yourself. It has made an alliance with the IFICC, which has rained tons of slanders on the ICC, which has openly behaved like a group of informers, which has stolen the material and money of the ICC - and all this clearly has had the effect of repelling serious elements close to the communist left.
The IFICC's excess of zeal (as well its flattery towards the IBRP) has only served to make the IBRP look ridiculous.
What the IFICC has tried to show is that, without its help, an organisation of the communist left which has existed for several decades would have been incapable of taking the initiative of holding this public meeting!
It is regrettable that the IBRP didn't see the trap the IFICC was laying for it when, in its Bulletin no.27, this so-called 'Fraction' claimed that, on the question of building the party, "the Fraction defends positions which are more categorical than those of the IBRP". Which means that, by claiming to defend positions that are much more 'radical' than those of the IBRP, the IFICC is presenting itself as being to the left of the IBRP.
In reality, this parasitic grouplet has used the name of the IBRP to make its own publicity and to gain a certificate of respectability, while at the same time presenting the IBRP as being less advanced than the IFICC! This is what the IBRP has refused to admit (despite repeated warnings from us) before celebrating its nuptials with the IFICC. If it had taken the ICC seriously, it wouldn't have had to go through this experience to understand that every flatterer lives at the expense of those it flatters, as La Fontaine put it in his story.
By offering its "political and material support" in organising this meeting, the IFICC is clearly seeking to gain recognition as a group that belongs to the proletarian political milieu. Unfortunately the marriage between the IFICC and the IBRP can only have the effect of making the IBRP look ridiculous. It has helped to throw discredit on an organisation of the communist left which, up till now, has never infringed one of the basic principles of the workers' movement: the rejection of any practice of stealing the material of other communist organisations.
Thus, during the course of this public meeting, the ICC asked to be able to read out a letter which one of our subscribers has sent to the IBRP and has asked us to make public. This comrade (and he's not the only one) received in his name and at his personal address the IBRP leaflet about this meeting. He expressed to us his astonishment about this (again, like other ICC contacts who also received this document in the mail): how did the IBRP obtain his address when he had only given it to the ICC? Following this question posed by several of our contacts, the ICC decided, on the eve of this public meeting, to address a letter of protest to the IBRP (and we hope that this will not simply be ignored, as other letters have been in the past).
As soon as we raised the question of the theft of our list of addresses, the presidium initially tried to stop us speaking with the argument that the IBRP "does not want to take sides between the ICC and the IFICC" because this is an "internal" matter for our organisation. Then, following our protest, the presidium told us twice that the IBRP does not have RI's list of addresses and added: "even if had been offered to us, we would in any case have refused it". We then asked the comrades of the IBRP: "does that mean that you condemn the theft of this address list?" To this question the presidium refused to reply despite our insistence and declared that "we will clarify this between ourselves and the IFICC after the public meeting".
This incident demands several remarks:
For our part, we can only take note of the declaration that the IBRP would have refused to accept the IFICC putting this 'war chest' stolen from the ICC into the wedding dowry.
It seems clear (and we believe the comrades of the IBRP when they tell us that they do not have a copy of our address list) that the members of the IFICC have acted behind the IBRP's back (as they did over and over again when these elements were members of the ICC, holding secret meetings with the aim of "destabilising" us ([2])).
We hope that the IBRP will be able to draw the lessons of this disastrous experience, which we vainly tried to spare it from with our repeated warnings. When you sleep with a woman of easy virtue ([3]), you shouldn't be too surprised about picking up the clap.
The trade between the IBRP and the IFICC is on all evidence a dupes' market. By accepting this so-called Fraction's offers of service, by giving ground to its flatteries and taking its gross lies as the truth, the IBRP has taken the risk not only of losing all credibility but also its honour as a group of the communist left.
We invite the IBRP to take position on our 'Theses on parasitism' (International Review 94) in which we show that the main activity of parasitic groups is to discredit communist organisations. Using either slander or flattery, these political tics can only live by sucking the blood of the groups of the proletarian camp. It is now clear that the parasitic function of the IFICC goes well beyond the ICC. By using the IBRP for its own ends (as it did with Le Proletaire in 2002 ([4])), by throwing discredit on this group, this so-called 'Fraction' shows that it is not just a parasite on the ICC, but on the whole of the communist left.
If the IBRP wants to carry on with its joint work with the IFICC, if it wants to continue being the turkey in this farce, obviously we can't stop it. On the other hand, the ICC cannot accept that it uses (even indirectly, via its commerce with the IFICC) theft and slander against our organisation and our militants as part of its policy of regroupment.
The ICC has always stigmatised the opportunism of the IBRP, which has led it, since its foundation, to carry on a policy of regroupment lacking in principles. On numerous occasions, we have warned it against the danger of getting together with groups and elements of the extreme left of capital (such as the Iranian SUCM) or which have made an incomplete break with leftism (such as Los Angeles Workers Voice [80]). Today, the opportunist collaboration of the IBRP with the IFICC reveals the danger that threatens this organisation of the communist left. By allowing itself to use the recruitment methods of the leftists (based not on open and loyal clarification of political divergences but on fishing for new members), the IBRP risks moving further and further away from the methods and traditions of the communist left and closer towards those of Trotskyism ([5]). The IBRP thought it could use the IFICC as bait for catching big fish at this public meeting. Not only has it had to go home without any miracle catch, but it's lost some of its own feathers in the process.
What's most serious about all this is the fact that the opportunist approach of the IBRP has led it to give its approval to practises which are totally alien to the workers' movement, based as they are on theft and slander. If these methods are common coin among bourgeois groups, they have always been rejected and condemned by the organisations of the proletarian camp. ([6])
Opportunism is "the absence of any principle" (Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution [81]). By making an alliance with individuals who use the methods of the bourgeoisie (the theft of material belonging to the ICC), the IBPR has totally lost sight of a principle which it was still able to defend when, after being the victim of a fraud perpetrated by a fictitious group in the Ukraine (whose aim was to extort money) it wrote: "When means and ends are separated... the road towards the counter-revolution is open" (IBRP Declaration on the 'Radical Communists of the Ukraine, 9/9/03).
In their combat for the overthrow of capitalism, revolutionaries have always rejected the Jesuitical morality of the bourgeoisie, according to which "the end justifies the means", countering this with a proletarian ethic in conformity with the essence of the class that is the bearer of communism (as Trotsky among others showed, in his pamphlet Their Morals and Ours). This is why revolutionary organisations must firmly reject any policy of regroupment that makes use of the theft of material belonging to other communist organisations.
This pitiful misadventure shows that the IPRB has indeed been taken hostage by a gang of thugs (and we have to ask how the IBRP is going to escape from this situation). We hope that this experience will at least oblige it to take off its dark glasses and finally understand the nature of this so-called 'Fraction'.
What determines the proletarian nature of a political group is not just the programme it defends or claims to defend. It is also its political behaviour, i.e. its practice and the principles it is based upon. This position of ours has nothing to do with 'psychology' (as the IFICC claims). And this is because as Marx says in his Theses on Feuerbach: "Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power of his thinking, in practice.".
Faced with the dangerous attitude that the IBRP is adopting, it is the duty of communist militants to appeal to the sense of responsibility of the comrades of this organisation. They have to see what is really at stake here for the future of revolutionary organisations, to understand the consequences of any opportunist collaboration with parasitic groups, with adventurers, thugs or with phantom groups which only exist upon an Internet site.
In order to defend its principles the ICC will continue to close the door of its public meetings to parasites without any principle who have behaved like informers. But it does not see itself as the only pole of reference of the communist left; its public meetings are always open to the IBRP and we strongly encourage it to participate in them.
ICC 10/10/04.
Notes
1. Furthermore, as we shall see in the second part of this article, the debate on the question of war did not take place around the analyses of the IBRP, but around those of the ICC.
2. According to the terms used by a member of the IFICC, Olivier, in one of these secret meetings (the notes of which we discovered by chance).
3. We admit that this comparison between the IFICC and 'women of easy virtue' is a bit of an insult to the latter.
4. See our article 'PCI trails behind the "internal fraction" of the ICC' in WR260 [82].
5. As we already showed four years ago in our article 'The marxist and opportunist vision of the construction of the party [83]' in International Review 103.
6. The methods of the IFICC, typical of those of gangsters, can be seen all the more clearly in the vocabulary it is now borrowing from the lumpen proletariat (see on its website 'No limits to ignomy!). Here we can find a veritable call for a pogrom against our comrades who are now called "salauds" (bastards). When the masks fall, this so-called Fraction shows its true face.
In October the ICC held a public meeting in Calcutta attended by a large number of people from a diverse milieu. Their participation was testimony to the ICC's success in pushing for discussion and reflection. The debate that unfolded in the meeting took this process of clarification further.
The ICC made a brief presentation on the 'revolutionary perspectives' being peddled by different varieties of leftists, in particular the Naxalites (Maoists), and others in India. Since the 1960s a large array of Maoists, in India and other 'third world' countries, have talked of a 'new democratic' revolution in conjunction with the so-called 'progressive' and 'national bourgeois' revolutions. The underlining mystification is one of 'India Mortgaged' by a 'comprador bourgeoisie', a ruling class acting on behalf of foreign interests. But because recent decades have given the most naked display of the Indian bourgeoisie's imperialist appetites, the mystifications of 'India Mortgaged' and 'national liberation' have lost their hold. Some Maoists have now come up with the idea of a national 'socialist revolution', just as much marked by nationalism and patriotism. This is the Dalit movement, the political expression of the ideology of the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie among the lowest and untouchable castes, that talks of 'Dalit Liberation' instead of class struggle. Throughout the bourgeois left there are claims to have discovered revolutionary potential in forces other than the working class - peasants, tribal communities, lower castes, students, women. The proletarian revolution - the only revolution
The entry of capitalism into its decadent phase in the early 20th century did not only have an impact on the most advanced capitalist countries. The bourgeoisie was not reactionary in some countries while still retaining a progressive or even 'revolutionary' role in the 'third world'. The entirety of capitalist relations - wage labour, commodity production, money economy, nation states - wherever they existed they became fetters on the progress of humanity. Capitalism everywhere became a reactionary system. It needed to be destroyed everywhere. The only revolution that can destroy world capitalism is the revolution of the world working class, the only revolutionary class under capitalism. It's only the bourgeois left that talks of any other sort of 'revolution'. And when it does it's to mobilise the working class in the service of national capitals.
The subsequent discussion brought up the following questions:
(1) With the vast majority of the exploited population in the 'third world' being peasants, how can the ICC talk of the working class being the only revolutionary class? Can't the working class at best provide 'leadership'?
(2) The ICC talks of the peasantry splitting, but aren't there different strata in the working class too? How can you talk of the working class being the have-nots when workers own lots of things, including shares?
(3) It's fine to talk of proletarian revolution being the only revolution. But can't partial struggles, for example for the defence of environment, feminism etc work in tandem with proletarian struggles?
(4) What about the struggle of the unemployed?
(5) And finally, isn't it a bit much to talk about the counter-revolutionary nature of the Maoist movement?
Due to limited time the point on unemployed struggles couldn't be taken up, and the question of partial struggles wasn't fully developed. But there was a chance to clarify the bourgeois nature of the so-called 'struggle' for the protection of environment. Someone at the meeting gave the example of the Indian Supreme Court putting itself at the forefront of the campaigns over pollution, in no way contradicting its role as defender of bourgeois interests.
When Marx spoke of society being more and more split into two great camps, that of the working class and the bourgeoisie, he was not blind to the capitalist reality of his times. He knew that the peasantry still constituted a substantial proportion of the population even in advanced capitalist countries in Europe. But owing to his deep understanding of capitalism, he insisted that the peasantry in capitalism is a class of the past. Its dreams are those of a petty proprietor, individual peasants only change their circumstances by joining the working class or the bourgeoisie (or becoming completely destitute). As a class it is incapable of waging a revolutionary struggle for the destruction of capitalism
This applies perfectly to the situation in countries like India. The peasantry has been torn into warring strata. On one hand there is the landed peasant, part of the bourgeoisie that owns local transport, flour and rice mills and other means of production. On the other hand there is the rural proletariat. In between are the peasants who need to mechanise or modernise to survive; they take on loans which they can't repay, they are pushed into indebtedness and the mass suicides of whole peasant families. These have been seen in the 'advanced' states of India (Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana). This is all part of a 'green revolution' encouraged by a 'peasant friendly' government that is helping poor peasants by giving them more loans� This stratum lives an insecure existence, their only prospects are death, despair or disappearance into other strata. Of all the classes within capitalism only the working class is capable of waging a revolutionary struggle for the destruction of capitalism.
Yes, there are divisions within the working class. But these are not expressions of different relations to the means of production. All sections of the working class are separated from the means of production and must sell their labour power for wages. When there are divisions they are often fostered by the bourgeoisie, for example, by manipulating the remnants of pre-capitalist society, as in the caste divisions in India. There is also the conscious, relentless propaganda of the bourgeoisie over differences in the working class, like higher wage rates for more skilled workers or the mystification of share-holder capitalism.
Maoism emerged as a patriotic, nationalistic current that has openly advocated, and at one time or another gone into alliances with war lords and factions of the bourgeoisie. It has played the game of one or other imperialist power at different moments. After the triumph of the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia Maoism emerged, not as a proletarian revolutionary current, but as a child of the counter-revolution.
AM, October 2004.
In a situation of generalised chaos, of permanent civil war, of daily terrorist attacks and the abduction of hostages of all nationalities including Iraqis, the American army in Iraq has launched a new land and air offensive. For the first time since the beginning of the war, Iraqi soldiers armed entirely by the US and under American command have taken part in the first phase of this offensive. As the Financial Times put it "it's better to confer military operations on Iraqi forces in order to minimise the political repercussions". On October 3 this resulted in the fall of Samara, 100km north of Baghdad. The assault involved bitter fighting and house to house searches. It is well known that many civilians died even though statistics are hard to verify. According to a recent inquiry by a team of American and Iraqi researchers, the number of civilians killed since the beginning of the invasion in March 2003 may be as high as 100,000, the majority the result of aerial bombardments by the Coalition, which now hardly even bothers to claim that it is using 'precision' methods aimed at limiting civilian deaths. Since the team was unable to operate in Falluja, which has been reduced to a semi-ruin, the real casualty figures could be even higher.
So far there have been at least 2300 attacks on Coalition forces, the Iraqi police and the civilian population, in an area that reaches from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south. Not one region of Iraq has been spared. The situation is so bad that some of the countries who are maintaining troops in the country are openly questioning whether they will remain. The Polish defence minister Jerzy Somajdzinski announced in an interview with Gazeta Wyboteza that Polish troops might be withdrawn by the New Year. Not one of the imperialist states which took part in the war alongside the Anglo-American forces has managed to avoid the same impasse as the US.
The USA's loss of control over the situation, despite the new military offensive, is such that there is a real danger that Iraq will fall apart as a unified entity. In the north, the town of Kirkuk is claimed in an increasingly aggressive manner by Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. But more significant than this is the fact that now all the southern provinces are threatening to secede. "Members of the municipal council of Basra, Iraq's second city, with a Shiite majority, have begun talks with their counterparts in the two neighbouring towns of Maysan and Dhiqar in order to discuss the creation of a federal region in the south" (Courier International 19/10/04). Although the break-up of Iraq in the manner of the Balkans or the Caucasus is not on the immediate agenda, wherever imperialist wars ravage the world today they bring the possibility of the complete dismantling of national entities. Since the control of oil as a strategic and military weapon is so important, it's worth recalling that 80% of Iraq's oil reserves are in the south where there is a push for autonomy; and here the Shiites are very close to Iran. The increasingly chaotic situation in this part of the world casts serious doubts on the USA's ability to control the oil producing zones.
But the present military offensive by the US has a more immediate objective. The American bourgeoisie hopes that the elections, due to be held on 31 January, will stabilise the situation, if only temporarily. However, even the holding of the elections is extremely problematic. The Iraq authorities and the representatives of the UN who are trying to organise these elections have said that they will be very difficult to hold. A member of the organising committee has even declared: "compared to here, the Balkans are Norway". The White House has even envisaged a worst-case scenario of holding the elections only in the regions that are secure. With the elections discredited in advance, the Iraqi authorities have been compelled to react, since a half-baked election will not ensure the position of Prime Minister Allawi. In order to limit the damage as much as possible, the US has had to discretely inject 100 million dollars into the "education of electors", as well as carrying out the military offensive. It has also asked for extra help from Britain. After a period of playing hard to get, the British government has dispatched the Black Watch to Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad, where foreign and Iraqi forces have been subjected to frequent attacks.
Recent polls suggest that only 2% of Iraqis see the American army as liberators. US imperialism is widely hated for its imperialist policies in this part of the world. This has not always been the case: up till 1967 and the Six Day war, France was far more unpopular - it had conducted a brutal war in Algeria, had taken part in the Suez fiasco and was the main supplier of arms to Israel. Today all this has been turned on its head and France poses as the friend of the Muslim world. The weakening of US hegemony is such that, even if the elections managed to regain a certain degree of credibility, the aftermath will be worse, not better, for US imperialism. "No Iraqi government could last long after the departure of American troops, unless it was made up of forces that had already proved themselves as opponents of the occupation" (John V Whisbeck in the journal Asharq al-Awsat)
The terrorist attacks that took place recently on hotels in the Sinai are the latest step in the descent into chaos in this part of the Middle East. This had been one of the last places where Arabs and Jews could rub shoulders without being threatened by violence. Whoever carried out the hotel bombing in Sinai, it shows that there are no longer any sanctuaries in the region. For the Israelis, Egypt is less and less reliable as a kind of ally. "It is not necessary to be subjected to the insensitivity, indolence, indifference, even hostility which the Egyptian authorities displayed in a revolting manner the night the attacks took place to understand that the security of Israel and Israelis is not one of Egypt's priorities" (Martin Sherman in Yediut Aharamut). Since it stood so close to the US, Egypt has for some time been one of Israel's main interlocutors in the Arab world; but now it has become a haven for terrorist groups like Hamas and has been drawn more and more into the heart of the conflict. This can only be aggravated by Israel's military offensive in Gaza and the West Bank, which has continued despite the Knesset's backing for Sharon's plan to dismantle a limited number of Jewish settlements to withdraw troops from these areas. Even if Sharon succeeds in overcoming the opposition to these plans from the hardliners in his own party, there is no basis for claims that Sharon is a peacemaker. His plan aims at the creation of a Palestinian Bantustan which will do nothing to defuse nationalist tensions in the region. Meanwhile there are widespread fears that if Arafat doesn't survive his current illness, the resulting political void will further strengthen the position of the extremist wing of Palestinian nationalism.
An even more sinister sign of growing conflict in the region is the fact that Israel's real bête noire is Iran, which stands to gain a great deal from the consequences of inter-imperialist confrontations in the Middle East. With the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, its main rivals have been eliminated. In a situation of every man for himself, where no one imperialist state can impose its will over another for long, Iran is desperately seeking to arm itself with nuclear weapons, which are already possessed by neighbouring rivals Israel and Pakistan. "The people in charge of Israel's security services are faced with a paradox: pleased by the disappearance of a sworn enemy thanks to the American invasion of Iraq, they are becoming more and more anxious that this same invasion has created another enemy for them. And they are seeing the Middle East going from conventional rivalries to far more dangerous nuclear rivalries" (Stevens Erlanger in The New York Times). This is why we are hearing increasingly bellicose declarations from Israel's leaders. These are not the expression of a few individuals who are losing their head; it reflects the frightful reality of decomposing capitalism. Left to its own dynamic, this perspective is just as real as the danger of nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
The accelerating decline of US leadership can only push its rivals large and small to strike out in defence of their imperialist interests. Every state, every war lord is being drawn into this spiral of violence. The working class, the only class which can unify and organise itself on a planetary scale, is the only social force that can offer humanity a different perspective. The proletariat cannot afford to allow itself to become habituated to the nightmarish scenes it sees on TV screens all around the world. Faced with this flood of massacres and atrocities, the only healthy response is indignation, informed by a clear understanding of the capitalist origins of all this horror.
RI, October 2004.
In October the Pensions Commission published its first report on the future of pensions in Britain. It painted a stark picture of what the working class faces with the intensifying attack on pensions.
The introduction of state pensions was presented as one of the great triumphs of capitalism, as proof that it was capable of meeting human needs. The politician responsible for introducing the first state pension in an industrial country was more pragmatic. "Whoever has a pension for his old age is far more content and far easier to handle than one who has no such prospect. Look at the difference between a private servant and a servant in the chancellery or at court; the latter will put up with much more because he has a pension to look forward to". These were the words of Otto Von Bismarck, the German Chancellor, as he began to introduce a system of national insurance across Germany in the 1880s. This 'state socialism' was the counterpart to the anti-socialist law of 1878 that banned socialist organisation and agitation and the publication and distribution of socialist literature. Where the one sought to deny the independent political expression of the working class, the other sought to remove the need for such expression. Further, the introduction of state benefits tended to replace or minimise the system of benefits set up through the trade union and social organisations of the working class and, thereby, tied the workers to the bourgeois state.
Pensions were introduced in Britain with the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908, which gave means-tested benefits to those over 70. The Act was passed in the middle of an intense period of class struggle that was beginning to have revolutionary overtones and also when there were growing concerns about the ability of British capitalism to keep up with its rivals. Subsequent legislation continued to have the twin aims of pacifying and containing the working class and of ensuring a sufficient supply of healthy workers. The role of pensions, as Bismarck said, was to give workers something to hope for, but also something to lose, while the social impact of industrialisation made it necessary to give some support to the non-productive parts of the working class in order to allow the better exploitation of the productive part. Welfare legislation always arises from the economic and political needs of the bourgeoisie.
During the First World War a ministry of pensions was set up in Britain as part of the wider 'welfare movement' that expressed the strengthening of the state necessary to wage the military struggle. After the war, as the struggle of the working class and the economic crisis shook capitalism around the world, pensions were extended and the amount increased, although those receiving them were still below the poverty line. At the end of the Second World War, the National Health Service and National Insurance Acts established the framework of the Welfare State. The Basic State Pension was introduced, linked either to earnings or prices. This has never been very generous (in 1946 it was £1.30 a week, in 2003 £77.45) and a range of occupational or private pension schemes developed alongside it. In 1978 it became compulsory for all employees who earn above a certain level to enrol in a second pension, either the State Earnings Related Pension (SERPs) or a private pension.
Today pensions around the world are in crisis as the funds available become insufficient to meet the need. A recent OECD report noted "there seems to be increasing concern over the funding situation of defined benefit plans in many OECD countries. In the United Kingdom, where pension funds always have had a relatively high equity allocation, recent estimates for the aggregate shortfalls range from BP 55 to 65 billion (or 6� per cent of GDP). In Japan, estimates of deficits of around USD 200 billion were cited in the press. 73 of the 1650 corporate pension funds were dissolved in fiscal year 2002, while 366 reduced the benefits they had promised to pay. A recent report estimated that pension fund assets at 100 of Japan's largest companies covered less than half the cost of payments due to retirees. In Canada, underfunding has been put at CAD 225 billion (20 per cent of GDP). In the Netherlands, the average funding ratio of pension funds fell by 25 percentage points in the two years to 2002, dropping in many cases below 100 per cent� In Switzerland, funding ratios have declined to 100 per cent or less in most pension funds... In Germany, Siemens indicated that under US accounting rules its pension shortfall exceeded 5 billion Euro in mid-2002." (Recent Developments in Funding and Benefit Security, November 2003).
According to the mouthpieces of the ruling class this is a simple, 'natural' consequence of the increase in the older population. In reality the pensions 'crisis' is an expression of the global crisis and the response of the bourgeoisie. In Britain pensions have been under attack since the late 1970s:
Many companies gave themselves 'contributions holidays', or even took money out of the pension funds. Some £19bn was not paid into funds, with 94% of this being used to reduce employers' contributions and only 6% to reduce employees. Over three-quarters of final salary pension schemes have already been closed and replaced by less valuable ones, with the result that the contributions of many employers has halved from 12% to 6%.
The overall tendency has been to shift the risk to the employees: "The UK places greater responsibility on its citizens for looking after their own needs than any other developed state. Indeed, both major parties are still committed to changing the current 60:40 ratio between state and employee investment in retirement income to 40:60." (Guardian 13/10/04).
The Labour government and its apologists have made great claims about reducing pensioner poverty. But they can't hide the fact that the working class, and especially the poorest part of it, have not actually benefited that much. Firstly, as is noted by the author of an article in the Guardian (13/10/04, 'We cannot allow the poor to fall into the pensions abyss'). "A third of poor pensioners don't claim pension credit, leaving a million people to live on the basic pension with little or nothing else, in a poverty that is beyond contemplating" She is mystified by this "since they [the government] already pay these missing claimants their pension every week. They know who they are; they know where they live�it should not be beyond the wit of the Department of Work and Pensions to knock on the door of every single one of them and help fill out the now simple forms". Secondly, the poor tend not to live so long to collect their pensions: "Sir Michael Marmot, director of the International Centre for Health and Society at University College London, recently pointed out that the difference in life expectancy between the rich and the poor rose from 5.5 in the 1970s to 9.5 years in the 1990s. If you take the central line from the centre to the east of London, he explained, for every stop there is a drop in life expectancy of a year" (Guardian 14/10/04). Given that significant numbers of the working class don't live much beyond 70, the proposal being floated of an increase in the retirement age, albeit dressed in the hypocritical language of choice and equal opportunities, could go a long way to solving the crisis.
The assault on pensions that is taking place throughout the developed world is part of the systematic dismantling of the post-war welfare state (see WR 277 'The dismantling of social security'). The approach in Britain has been a gradual, piecemeal one, but, in the case of pensions, it has gone on for a quarter of a century so that cumulatively such attacks have gone furthest here. These are not Tory attacks or New Labour attacks but attacks by the bourgeoisie as a whole; an expression of the class war.
The pensions crisis is not due to increased numbers of old people but to the inability of capitalism to use the immense resources it has created to meet human needs. Capitalism is locked in a contradiction it cannot resolve. With pensions this is expressed in the fact that the working class is being exhorted to save more for the future while it is also required to spend more now to keep the economy going: "if everyone responded to the recent pleas for a dramatic increase in savings to fund future pensions, a huge hole would appear in the economy: consumer spending would collapse" (Guardian 12/10/04)
Capitalism is no longer able to offer the pretence of a better tomorrow. The future will be one of increasing exploitation and poverty. There will be efforts to hide this, but it is becoming harder to do so. If the working class wants to plan for the future it must regain the vision of communism. It must raise again the rallying cry of "from each according their means to each according to their needs". To realise this vision it must renew the struggle against capitalism today - against its attacks and its lies. This has nothing to do with the anti-globalisation and 'alternative world' movement that celebrated its futility in London last month. To defend the welfare state of the 20th century against 'neo-conservatism' is no more in the interests of the working class than to have defended the laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century. The working class has no interest in looking back to decide which period of its exploitation was preferable, it can only look forward to the ending of all exploitation.
North, 30/10/04.
The capitalist propaganda barrage that accompanies each electoral circus always promotes the democratic mystification, the capitalist political swindle that tries to convince the working class that its participation in choosing the particular politician who will formally preside over the capitalist class dictatorship for the next few years means that it is free. While it is fashionable this year for journalists, politicians, pundits, professors, and clergymen to proclaim that this is the most important election in a generation or in our lifetime, one must note that similar claims were made in many previous elections. From the perspective of the democratic mystification, there is no such thing as an 'unimportant' election.
This year the media blitz is awesome. The war in Iraq, national security, terrorism, civil liberties, chronic unemployment, medical care, social security, abortion, gay marriage, the environment - are all invoked as hot button issues, the better to get people interested in voting.
But despite the hoopla, like all elections in the period of capitalist decadence, this election is not really about the clash of alternative policies advocated by different factions of the bourgeoisie, but about manipulation and mystification. Certainly there are differences within the bourgeoisie but these disputes are confined primarily to tactical questions on how best to implement a shared strategic outlook internationally and domestically. No matter who wins the election, the US will continue a policy of austerity at home (making the working class pay for the brunt of the economic crisis) and military intervention abroad (making the working class risk the lives of its young men and women to protect US imperialist interests). The style in which these policies are implemented may differ slightly, but the end result - austerity and war - will be the same.
On the level of political strategy, the ruling class this year has two primary political imperatives:
1) It needs to revive and repair the credibility of the democratic mystification which suffered a heavy blow in the debacle of the 2000 election.
2) It needs to adjust the capitalist political division of labor between the major political parties, making sure that the team formally in power is best suited to carry out the strategic requirements necessary to defend effectively the needs of the ruling class in the period ahead. These needs include a) the implementation of the ruling class's agreed-upon imperialist strategy designed to block the rise of any rival superpower in Europe or Asia, and b) the continued implementation of austerity, attacking the standard of living of the proletariat, making it bear the brunt of capitalism's global economic crisis.
Readers are of course well aware that in 2000 the outcome of the US election wasn't resolved for 36 days - determined only by a controversial Supreme Court decision, decided along narrowly divided partisan political lines, which deeply eroded political confidence in the court and the Bush presidency. For the first time in the modern era, the candidate who lost the popular vote won the presidency by gaining a majority in the antiquated Electoral College, based on the chaotic mess in Florida, the state controlled by George Bush's brother (Governor Jeb Bush). The whole thing was more reminiscent of what one would expect of a third world banana republic rather than the most powerful democracy in the world. The 2000 debacle was a reflection of the effects of social decomposition on the ruling class electoral process, which has made it increasingly difficult for the bourgeoisie to control its own sham electoral circus. In fact, the political strategy of the bourgeoisie in 2000, which was to keep the Democrats in office actually worked. Gore received 500,000 more votes in the popular balloting. His loss by 500 votes in Florida was attributable to a variety of miscues, ranging from confusing ballots, disenfranchisement of voters who typically voted for Democratic candidates (African Americans), and outright fraud. Once the recount process began, the capitalist politicians lost all sense of self-control and propriety. Each side adopted an irrational attitude to win at any cost, with no-holds barred squabbling. This loss of ruling class discipline and decorum stood in sharp contrast to the more mature and responsible comportment of Richard Nixon in 1960, for example, when he decided not to initiate a court challenge against Kennedy's election due to voting fraud in Chicago. Nixon understood better his role in the electoral circus and put the interests of the nation above his own partisan desires to win the White House.
This year the bourgeoisie needs to restore confidence in elections. To do so, it needs a decisive victory at the polls in order to avoid any repeat of the ugliness of four years ago. The media has been very successful in spreading propaganda about the importance of each citizen's vote - the idea that every vote counts is crucial in getting as many people as possible to participate in the electoral sham. To keep the pressure on for people to go to the polls, the media incessantly portrays the contest as too close to call, even though their public opinion survey results make no sense. Beginning with the first debate, the polls showed that Kerry had gained ground and that 'momentum' was with the Democrats, yet suddenly all the polls show Bush is slightly ahead. At the same time, the Bush campaign has gotten increasingly desperate in its tactics, a clear indication that they don't think they're winning. The propaganda about the supposed dead heat keeps the tension alive and serves the purpose of making sure that no one loses interest in the race, assuring that as many people as possible actually come out to vote. The campaign has been incredibly effective. In the battleground state of Iowa, the media reports that every eligible voter has been registered to vote. In Ohio, another swing state, the campaign has been so successful that there are an estimated 120,000 more people registered to vote than are eligible - either some people have registered more than once or the ghosts of citizens past are lining up to vote.
Because of the proletariat's continuing difficulties in breaking free of the disorientation that has characterized the reflux in class consciousness since the collapse of the Russian bloc, the bourgeoisie has considerable flexibility in deciding whether to put its left team (Democrats) or right team (Republicans) in power. In times of intense class struggle, the bourgeoisie often prefers to keep the left in opposition, as a means of controlling and derailing working class discontent. But today this is not a necessity - the left is equally capable of implementing austerity, beefing up the repressive apparatus, and waging imperialist war without jeopardizing its ability to control the working class. The Clinton administration demonstrated that amply.
The central consideration for the bourgeoisie today in the US, as it has been for more than a decade now, is not how to contain the class struggle, but rather the defense of its imperialist interests in a drastically changed international arena in the post-cold war period.
While there is a general agreement within the dominant factions of the American capitalist class on the strategic goal of maintaining US imperialist hegemony and preventing the emergence of any new imperialist rival, there are significant controversies over the tactical implementation of that strategy. Most notably this dispute has focused on the war in Iraq for the past year. In the winter of 2003, the ruling class was united on invading Iraq as a reminder of American supremacy aimed at potential rivals, as a reinforcement of direct American military presence in a strategically important zone of imperialist competition, and as a means to put pressure on Europe by establishing a growing American control of Mideast oil supplies. As the ICC has said on numerous occasions, this strategy was doomed to failure because in the phase of capitalist decomposition the dominant characteristic is the tendency for each nation state to play its own card on the inter-imperialist terrain, which results inevitably in growing chaos on the international level. In this period, every venture that US imperialism undertakes ultimately aggravates the very circumstances that it aimed to combat, increasing rather than decreasing the level of chaos in the world and the challenges to US hegemony.
The divergences on Iraq within the American bourgeoisie emerged only after the abject failure of the Iraq invasion. There are today three positions within the American ruling class on Iraq: 1) the situation is going well, and the US needs only to stay the course, a position defended by the Bush administration, and one that seems to contradict blatantly the reality on the ground; 2) the situation is a mess, and the US should withdraw immediately - an extreme position defended by a few elements on the left and others on the right; 3) the situation is a mess, and the US must find a way to minimize the damage of the Iraq quagmire in order to be able to respond effectively to new challenges to its hegemony, a position increasingly defended by the dominant factions of the ruling class.
The utter failure of the Bush administration's propaganda justifications for the Iraq invasion raised concern for the ruling class not because they were lies (the bourgeoisie, left or right, is united on the necessity to lie), but because their exposure has made it increasingly difficult to prepare popular acceptance for future military adventures, particularly within the proletariat. Bush's ineptness squandered the considerable political capital gained from the 9/11 attacks, which had given the bourgeoisie an opportunity to use patriotism to manipulate the population at large. But now patriotism has once again become increasingly identified with the political right, as Kerry noted in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party Convention when he promised to reclaim patriotism for the left as well.
As we pointed out in Internationalism 131, the controversy over Bush's unilateralism versus Kerry's alleged multilateralism "is a gross distortion. Ever since World War II, US imperialism has always acted unilaterally in the defense of its imperialist interests as a superpower�As the head of the bloc, the US was easily able to oblige its subordinates in the bloc to go along with their decisions�" While Kerry proposes to be more patient in pressuring European powers to go along with American imperialist military operations, he is committed to the same doctrine of taking unilateral action, not allowing any foreign power or authority (i.e., the UN) dictate American policy and, as he pointed out in the October presidential debates, he is committed to Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive military action - in fact he insists that the doctrine of pre-emptive strike is a longstanding American policy orientation.
This year it has been especially difficult for the bourgeoisie to reach a consensus on the preferred division of labor. In part this reflects the same effects of decomposition that made 2000 such a shambles. It is clear, however, that the election of John Kerry will best serve the needs of the bourgeoisie in the immediate period ahead. As we have pointed out previously in Internationalism, Kerry is not an anti-war candidate. He promises to be more sensitive to how he takes the US into war, to win in Iraq, to expand the American military, to increase the size of American Special Forces units, and modernize weapons systems. This is not the political program of a dove. Kerry's program coincides with the view of a growing majority within the bourgeoisie that recognizes the seriousness of the mess in Iraq. The Bush administration's refusal to face reality increasingly makes Bush's continuance in office untenable. From the bourgeoisie's perspective, Kerry offers the possibility of being able to convince the population to accept further military excursions in the future, in contrast to Bush's loss of credibility.
If Kerry's campaign appeared to falter during the summer after the Democratic Convention, it was because he did not clearly assert a critique of the Bush administration on the war, implausibly insisting he would have still supported the invasion of Iraq even if he known that all the reasons justifying the invasion were wrong. He was criticized for this inconsistency in the editorial pages of the New York Times for example. It was only after Kerry's speech at New York University in September in which he changed position and embraced the view that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time that his support within the bourgeoisie began to solidify. Already at the convention in July, a dozen retired admirals and generals had endorsed him, including three former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs. In September, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, the chair of the Foreign Relations committee, openly criticized the Bush administration for incompetence in Iraq. Another Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel, the second ranking Republican on the same committee, also lashed out at Bush's handling of Iraq. And even, Republican Sen. John McCain, while still avowing support for Bush's candidacy, also criticized the administration for not leveling with the nation on Iraq. When leading Republicans openly attack their own candidate on the central foreign policy issue of the day just five weeks before the presidential election, it gives a real glimpse of the thinking of the bourgeoisie. The Democrats of course quickly took out a full page campaign in major newspapers featuring photographs of these leading Republicans and excerpts from their anti-Bush statements.
The media quickly followed suit, its coverage shifting on balance to support of the Kerry candidacy, as could be seen in the coverage of the debates and their aftermath, which portrayed Kerry as the winner. At the same time, an ABC News policy memo surfaced, which argued that while both candidates were distorting and stretching the truth in their campaign speeches and political commercials, Kerry's distortion tended to involve only peripheral issues, but Bush's dealt with issues at the heart of the campaign. The memo instructed ABC journalists to highlight these gross distortions in their coverage. One media commentator even noted a shift in coverage by the pro-Bush media controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp - Fox News and New York Post.
If 2000 demonstrated one thing, it was that the even in the US, the most powerful and sophisticated state capitalist regime in the world, decomposition means that the ruling class has an increasing difficulty to control the outcome of its own electoral circus. The win-at-any-cost attitude that was so devastating in 2000 has not been expunged. While capitalism has always been characterized by official dishonesty, the rampant increase in corruption, cronyism, and outright greed has escalated in the last four years, to a degree that represents an erosion of state capitalism's role in safeguarding the interests of the national capital at the expense of this or that sector of the capitalist class. Blatant efforts to steal votes and distort the election are reported in the media everyday. These include incredible stories like a company hired by the Republicans in Washington state to register voters on street corners, which then threw out all the registration cards for those who registered as Democrats, the casting of absentee ballots by nursing home owners for elderly alzheimer patients, the Republican party's attempt to block blacks from voting on election day, and the Democratic party's lining up of 10,000 volunteer lawyers to launch legal challenges across the country on election day. This scenario of vicious scheming and conspiring does not reflect a mature state capitalist bourgeoisie but rather a decomposing bourgeoisie that has reverted to the more primitive political gangsterism of bygone eras. In this sense, while the election of John Kerry best coincides with the political strategy and needs of the American ruling class at this conjuncture, there is no guarantee that the bourgeoisie can actually deliver this result.
If victory again goes to a candidate who loses the popular vote, it will be an even more serious blow to the democratic mystification, undermining any talk about the 'will of the people' in democratic America, and will lead to divisive fights over amending the Constitution and challenges to the validity of the winner's authority. If Bush wins, political divisions will continue to be exacerbated, opposition to the war in Iraq will not only become more difficult to contain, but it will be even more difficult to mobilize support for future military operations abroad, which will be necessary to respond to continuing challenges. The economic crisis will worsen, giving impetus to a further revival of class struggle.
On the other hand, if Kerry wins, the honeymoon will be exceedingly short. His promised attempts to revive multilateralism are doomed. Whatever the diplomatic clumsiness of the Bush administration, the situation the US faces internationally is not a crisis of the Bush administration, but a crisis of US imperialism. It may be more difficult initially for the French and the Germans to say 'no' to Kerry, but their imperialist interests are still in fundamental contradiction to those of the US, and there is no way that Kerry can be successful in the long run. On the domestic level, Kerry's promises to fund all manner of domestic spending programs by rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the top 2 percent of American income-earners are also doomed to failure. Austerity is caused by capitalism's global economic crisis, not by the greed of the wealthy friends of George Bush. For the working class, the 2004 election is truly a no-win situation. The only defense for the workers is the class struggle, not the ballot box.
JG, October 25, 2004.
The British government's announcement of the need to 'reform' the pensions system is not unique. Every national bourgeoisie is adopting the same measures: redundancy plans which don't leave any economic sector untouched; relocation of plant and investment; increasing hours of work; dismantling of social protection (pensions, health, unemployment benefits); wage cuts; the growing insecurity of employment and housing; deterioration of working and living conditions. All workers, whether at work or on the dole, whether still active or retired, whether they are in the private sector or the public sector, will from now on be confronted with these attacks on a permanent basis.
In Italy, following attacks on pensions similar to those in France and a wave of redundancies in the FIAT factories, there have been 3700 job cuts (over a sixth of the workforce) at the Alitalia airline.
In Germany, the Socialist and Green government led by Schröder, with an austerity programme baptised 'Agenda 2010', has begun to cut health insurance, increase the policing of work stoppages, increase sickness contributions for all employees, increase pension contributions and raise the retirement age which is already set at 65. At Siemens, with the agreement of the IG-Metall union and under the threat of relocating to Hungary, it is making the workers work between 40 and 48 hours instead of the previous 35 without any wage increase. Other big enterprises are negotiating similar agreements: DeutscheBahn (the German railways), Bosch, Thyssen-Krupp, Continental, as well as the entire car industry (BMW, Opel, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Daimler-Chrysler). It's the same in the Netherlands, where the minister of the economy has announced that the return to the 40 hour week (with no compensatory payments) would be a good way of re-launching the national economy.
The 'Harz IV plan', which is due to come into effect at the beginning of 2005 in Germany, shows the direction that all bourgeoisies, and first and foremost those in Europe, have begun to take: reducing the length and amount of unemployment benefits and making it harder to obtain them, notably by forcing people to accept offers of employment which pay a lot less than the jobs they have lost.
These attacks are not limited to Europe but are taking place on a world scale. While the Canadian aircraft builder Bombardier Aerospace intends to cut between 2000 and 2500 jobs, the US telecommunications firm AT&T has announced 12,300 lay-offs, General Motors 10,000 more, posing a threat to its Swedish and German plants, and the Bank of America has announced 4500 lay-offs in addition to the 12,500 from last April. In the USA, where unemployment is reaching record levels, more than 36 million people, 12.5% of the population, live below the poverty line. In 2003 1.5 million more people had precarious jobs while 45 million are deprived of any social protection.
And all this without mentioning the terrible conditions of exploitation facing workers in the 'third world', where there is a race to lower wages as a result of frenzied competition on the world market.
Most of these attacks are presented as indispensable 'reforms'. The capitalist state and each national bourgeoisie claim that it is acting in the general interest, for the good of the people. In order to get workers to accept sacrifices, it claims that these 'reforms' are all about 'solidarity' between 'citizens', that they will make society fairer and more equal, as opposed to any defence of egoistic privileges. When the ruling class talks about greater equality, its real aim is to reduce the living standards of the working class. In the 19th century, when capitalism was expanding, the reforms carried out by the bourgeoisie really did tend to raise the living standards of the working class; today capitalism can't offer any real reforms. All these pseudo-reforms are not the sign of capitalism's prosperity, but of its irreversible bankruptcy.
Despite the strength of union control over the struggles, despite workers' hesitation to enter into the fray, it has become clear that the working class is beginning to respond to these attacks of the bourgeoisie, even if this revival is still a long way below the level of the attacks themselves. The mobilisation of the Italian tram drivers and the British postal workers and firefighters in the winter of 2003, then the movements of the FIAT workers at Melfi in the south of Italy in the spring against redundancy plans were already signs of a revival of class militancy. The wide-scale movements in France and Austria against pension 'reforms' in the spring of 2003 provided definite proof that there is a real change of mood in the class; and today there are many more examples to be added.
In Germany last July, more than 60,000 workers at Mercedes-Daimler-Chrysler took part in strikes and demonstrations against threats and ultimatums by the bosses. The latter demanded that workers either accept certain 'sacrifices' regarding their working conditions, increase productivity, and accept job-cuts or face the relocation of the plants to other sites. Not only did the workers of Siemens, Porsche, Bosch and Alcatel, who all faced similar attacks, take part in these mobilisations; at the same time, when the bosses tried to stir up divisions between the workers of different factories, many workers from Bremen, where the jobs were to be relocated, associated themselves with the demonstrations. This is a very significant embryo of workers' solidarity.
In Spain, the workers at the shipyards of Puerto Real and San Fernando in Andalusia, as well as Ferrol in Galicia, launched a very determined movement against privatisation plans that involved thousands of job-cuts. The unions, which had already prepared a 'calendar of mobilisations', were taken aback by the workers' militancy. On 17 September, the workers of Ferrol decided in a general assembly, against the advise of the unions, to demonstrate outside the headquarters of the ruling Socialist Party. In San Fernando the workers spontaneously decided to march through the town. Part time workers and workers on insecure contracts often joined the movement. To keep control of the movement, the unions changed strategy, leaving the programme of mobilisations 'open' to such initiatives and allowing the base unionists to take them over. Even though the movement was dominated by traditional union actions aimed at derailing workers' anger into dead ends (such as blockading motorways and railways as at Sestao, often resulting in futile confrontations with the police), the newest and most significant aspect of these struggles was a push towards seeking the solidarity of workers in other sectors. Again at San Fernando, the unions were forced to organise a one-day general strike and demonstration which was the biggest in the town's history.
More recently, a demonstration organised by the unions and 'alternative worldists' in Berlin on 2 October, which was supposed to 'close' a series of 'Monday protests' against the government's Hartz IV plan, attracted 45,000 people. On the same day, a gigantic demonstration took place in Amsterdam against the government's plans, and it had been preceded by important regional mobilisations. Officially there were 200,000 participants, constituting the biggest demonstration in the country for ten years. Despite the main slogan of the demo, "No to the government, yes to the unions", the most spontaneous reaction of the participants themselves was surprise and astonishment at the size of the demo. It should also be remembered that the Netherlands, alongside Belgium, was one of the first countries to see a revival of workers' struggles in the autumn of 1983.
On October 14, 9400 workers from the Opel factory in Bochum, in the industrial heart of the Ruhr, came out on strike as soon as General Motors had announced its plans for massive redundancies across Europe (see our leaflet on this situation [89]), and during union-led strikes in General Motors plants in other countries workers expressed real sentiments of class solidarity. Opel workers at Zaragosa in Spain stopped production in support of "comrades in Germany". In Silesia in Poland workers said "today it's the Germans' turn, tomorrow it will be ours", while German workers were quoted as saying "the policy of the bosses is to set the wage earners of Europe against each other". However, we have to remember that these Europe-wide union mobilisations also have the aim of diverting class solidarity into nationalist anti-Americanism (GM being a US-owned multinational).
Conscious of its responsibility in the slow maturation of consciousness going on in the class, the ICC has intervened very actively in these struggles. It produced leaflets and distributed them widely in Germany in July and in Spain in September. On 2 October, both in Berlin and Amsterdam, the ICC achieved record sales for its press, as it did during the struggles of spring 2003 in France
This situation opens up new perspectives. Even though these struggles are sporadic, the fact that they have involved large numbers of workers in important proletarian concentrations, and the fact that they have followed one after the other, show that they are not a flash in the plan. Each of these movements is a sign of the reflection going on in the working class. The accumulation of attacks by the bourgeoisie is bound to sap illusions that the ruling class is trying to spread. Workers are becoming increasingly anxious about the future which this system of exploitation has in store for their children, for the future generations. Above all, the recent struggles reveal the beginnings of an awareness that workers everywhere are facing the same attacks, and that they can only fight back as a class pitted against capitalism in all countries.
Wim 30.10.04
The ICC's section in Britain recently held its 16th Congress. One of the responsibilities of any territorial section is to discuss the national situation. It has to look at the economic crisis, the struggle between the classes, and the national capital in the framework of inter-imperialist antagonisms. The following article is based on part of a report presented to the Congress and concerns the current position of British imperialism. As a marxist analysis it looks at the situation with a historical perspective rather than taking a quick snapshot of the latest events. We will publish further material from the Congress in future issues.
In 1998, in World Revolution 216 and 217, we published a text on the history of British imperialism...
"While the long term retreat of British imperialism from its 19th century position of pre-eminence is incomparable, it can't be understood in its own terms. It has to be seen in the context of the ascendance and decadence of capitalism and the different phases within that overall framework.
Specifically, in the period up to 1914, as Britain's main competitors were beginning to catch up and overtake her, we can identify a period in which the imperialist powers began to form alliances with a view to the re-division of the world market.
From 1914 to 1945 we see the emergence of the US and Germany as the main powers, in relation to which Britain could only have a secondary role.
From 1945 to 1989 there is the period of the blocs with British imperialism under the domination of the US, while still not abandoning the attempt to defend its specific interests.
Since 1989 we have seen the end of the blocs and a period of growing instability where alliances are constantly changing and where the main orientation of the British bourgeoisie is for an independent imperialist policy based on a pragmatic appreciation of how best to achieve its interests" (WR 216).
The second part went into more detail on the situation of British imperialism in the period since the collapse of the Blocs and on the development of its strategy:
"The collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989 took the bourgeoisie, in Britain as elsewhere, by surprise...The Thatcher government of the 1980s clearly represented the interests of British imperialism in the period of the relative certainties of its place in the US bloc against the 'Evil Empire' of the Russian bloc. But the new realities at the level of global imperialism that derived from the events of 1989 forced the British bourgeoisie to adapt to the uncertainties and dangers of the period of 'every man for himself' [...]
The conservative government of Major could not survive the tensions within itself... The new orientation caused difficulties for a bourgeoisie used to the certainties of the Cold War period... In this framework it is possible to see how the British bourgeoisie is divided over the appropriate imperialist orientation. There is still a minority fraction that is more emphatically anti-German and therefore more likely to see the benefits in resurrecting the 'alliance' with the US. Often described as 'Eurosceptics', they have a particular weight in the divided Conservative party [...].
But the main faction of the British bourgeoisie has appreciated that the best defence of its imperialist interests lies in pursuing an independent policy. There will be times when this necessitates alliances with other powers, but these will tend to be short-lived and unstable... The Labour government of Tony Blair will speak of its 'ethical' arms policy and insist on its desire for 'peace' throughout the world, but above all it will seek to pursue an independent course for British imperialism" (WR 217).
The Resolution on the National Situation adopted at the 14th Congress of World Revolution in 2000 reaffirmed this framework and examined the way the independent policy had been implemented in the preceding period...even though the resolution acknowledges that a temporary alliance with the US is possible, going so far as to argue that "there are areas where Britain has particular influence, and the US can see it needs to draw on this", the independent policy is presented as one that must necessarily challenge the US...
The attack on the World Trade Centre marked a qualitative change in the imperialist situation that had developed since 1989. "After 11th September 2001 - almost certainly carried out with the complicity of the US state - the USA's global strategy shifted onto a higher level. The 'war against terrorism' was immediately announced as a permanent and planet-wide military offensive. Faced with an increasing challenge from its principal imperialist rivals...the USA opted for a policy of much more massive and direct military intervention, with the strategic goal of the encirclement of Europe and Russia by gaining control of Central Asia and the Middle East. In the Far East, by including North Korea in the 'axis of evil', and by renewing its interest in the 'struggle against terrorism' in Indonesia following the Bali bombing, US imperialism has also declared its intention to intervene in the backyard of China and Japan" (15th Congress of the ICC, Resolution on the international situation, IR 113). [...] The attack on New York gave the US the pretext to assert itself forcefully around the globe, momentarily silencing even its most determined opponents and allowing it to escalate its global strategy.
British imperialism, like every other power, was put under pressure by the US offensive and found that its attempt to pursue an independent line was rapidly turning into a serious dilemma: "The crisis of US leadership has placed British imperialism in an increasingly contradictory position. With the end of the 'special relationship', the defence of Britain's interests requires it to play a 'mediating' role between America and the main European powers, and between the latter powers themselves [...] (IR 113, p.18).
In the immediate aftermath of the attack in New York, we argued that the British bourgeoisie was seeking to advance its own interests through its display of support for the US: "The British bourgeoisie is hoping, by running alongside the American military juggernaut, to limit the scope of the latter's impact on its own imperialist prestige and grab for itself more of the kudos out of the coming carnage than its rivals like France and Germany" (WR 248 "Britain defends its own imperialist interests"). This argument was developed in the analysis of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Concerning, the first, we wrote in November 2001: "Today, as in the Gulf War, the British bourgeoisie has every interest in positioning itself as the best ally of the United States, with an armed force of 25,000 stationed close to the military theatre. This closeness to the United States is explained by a convergence of imperialist interests as well as by antagonistic interests to France in this region. The region of Afghanistan, like Iraq, is part of the traditional zone of domination by British imperialism... It believes it has a better chance to preserve its part of the spoils than at the time of the Gulf War, where its aid to the US brought it nothing. The resentment that resulted from this contributes to the UK distancing itself from the US in the following years. But the British bourgeoisie is lucid enough to see that today its interests lie in the game of 'loyal co-operation' with the American bourgeoisie" (WR 249, "The anti-terrorist crusade will worsen global chaos"). In fact, the US had no interest in British 'help' and seized the opportunity to teach its loyal ally a lesson, ignoring its diplomatic offensive and spoiling its attempt to take the military initiative... The British bourgeoisie had no option but to swallow its pride and keep up the pretence of being the faithful ally in order to continue in the game.
The British bourgeoisie's response to the war in Iraq was to continue to talk of the importance of using international bodies while ensuring it remained close to the US: "As the likelihood of a new war against Iraq has grown, differences have appeared within the British government. Blair and his senior colleagues have maintained the line that Iraq and Saddam Hussein pose a major threat, although they have downplayed Washington's central argument that Iraq is at the centre of the 'axis of evil'. Junior ministers and leftwing backbenchers have been more openly critical... Such critical voices have long been part of Britain's overall strategy, allowing it to face two ways at once, but this time such voices extend beyond the left-wingers into the centre of the Labour Party, the Liberals and even the Tories who talked of their 'concern' and the 'foolhardy' nature of the proposed attacks. This is not a clash over policy - the pro-US faction formerly led by Margaret Thatcher is largely marginalised - but a difference over tactics in this period. In the military storm being whipped up by the US, every state has to run with the wind to some extent. The question for British imperialism is how best to ride out the storm, it is never a question of abandoning its interests" (WR 253, "Is Britain America's poodle?"). This is a fundamental point that helps to explain both the form taken by British imperialist policy since the 11th September 2001 and the nature of the differences within the ruling class that found expression in the Hutton and Butler inquiries.
Faced with the US offensive, Britain was pushed to move towards either the US or Europe and, in doing so antagonising one or the other. In making its decision, a number of factors had to be considered. Firstly, the US, as the greatest power in the world, was quite capable of punishing Britain, as it had in Ireland in the early and mid 1990s and in Afghanistan a few months earlier. Europe, in contrast, did not have that capacity for the simple reason that there is no such thing as 'Europe' at the imperialist and military level but merely a number of lesser powers pursuing their own interests under a fictitious unity. While moving towards the US might increase tensions with France and Germany, it could reinforce relations with others, such as Spain (at the time) and Poland and so allow Britain to maintain influence in Europe. It also gave Britain more room to manoeuvre, both diplomatically through its attempts to 'influence' the US towards international bodies such as the UN, and militarily through its involvement, whether in reality or just rhetorically, in initiatives such as the European Rapid Reaction force. In short, British policy has continued to be to position itself between the US and the European powers but, today, the point of equilibrium has moved... The tack to the US is the adaptation of the existing policy to new conditions. This is evident if we consider other areas of British policy.
At the start of 2002, during his sixth international mission since September 11th Blair affirmed the determination of the British ruling class to continue to defend its interests: "We do not have an empire, we are not a superpower but we do have a role and in playing it properly we benefit Britain and the wider world...That role is to be a pivotal player. It is to use the strengths of our history, our geography, our language, the unique set of links with the US, Europe, the Commonwealth, our position within the UN, the skill and reputation of our armed forces, our contribution to debt and development issues...to be a force for good for our own nation and the wider world" (quoted in WR 251 "British imperialism is not a 'force for good'")... In pursuing this policy Britain has found itself under intense pressure for much of the time, but it continues to pursue its aims, putting up with insults and humiliations.
In Iran Britain sided with Europe against the US over the question of Iran's non-compliance with the UN. Washington's proposal to refer Iran to UN Security Council was opposed by Britain, Germany and France... Following the US election, when speculation about a military offensive against Iran surfaced, the British bourgeoisie was quick to distance itself from such talk.
In the Middle East Britain's efforts to pursue its own interests have come up against both the determination of the US to maintain its dominant influence in the region and the capacity of Israel to manipulate the situation to its advantage. In the summer of 2002 Britain defended the right of Palestinians to choose their own leaders when the US was calling for the replacement of Arafat... However, in April 2004 Blair was confronted with Bush's backing for Sharon: "As for the question of Palestine, Bush's declaration of support for Sharon's proposals to withdraw from the Gaza strip whilst maintaining settlements in the West Bank, basically tears up the 'road map' for peace in the Middle East, which Blair used as one of the main arguments in the war" (WR 274 "Contradictions pile up for British imperialism"). His public agreement with the US led to a protest by 52 former diplomats who published an open letter to Blair in which they wrote "We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related matters (Iraq and Palestine), and exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure". This was an expression of the unease within the major faction of the bourgeoisie.
In the dispute between India and Pakistan Britain tried to maintain influence with both, not least by selling them arms...
In Africa in early 2002 Britain took part in a joint initiative with France to the countries involved in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, despite the fact that their rivalry had helped to fuel the war in the first place. Elsewhere the erstwhile allies went in different directions; in Zimbabwe Britain gave its support to the Movement for Democratic Change while France was better disposed towards Mugabe.
In early 2004 Britain launched its own initiative in North Africa, Blair visiting Libya to renew relations with Gadaffi after the latter renounced his nuclear ambitions...This was part of the effort by Blair to "win back the confidence of those who defend the main orientations of the British bourgeoisie" following the Madrid bombings and the withdrawal of the new Spanish government from the 'coalition' in Iraq (WR 273 'The Madrid bombs and the response of the British bourgeoisie').
In Ireland Britain has used its alliance with the US to try and regain the initiative it was forced to surrender with the Good Friday agreement. In October 2002 the Stormont power-sharing government was suspended following raids of Sinn Fein offices that found material 'likely to be useful to terrorists'...In May 2003 the new elections were postponed, supposedly because of lack of progress in decommissioning IRA weapons.
Even in Iraq, where it is frequently suggested that Britain is just doing the US' bidding, Britain has not given up the defence of its interests for one moment and, consequently, there have been repeated strains in the 'special relationship'. In the period leading to the war Britain adopted a two-faced policy:
"It hopes that getting rid of Saddam will allow it to regain some of the influence it used to have in the region and thereby counter the complete domination of the US. It is similar to the strategy in Kosovo, where, through a display of overt loyalty to the US, it was able to occupy important strategic positions, implicitly denying them to the US. In Afghanistan the US replied by humiliating Britain, sending their soldiers on a wild goose chase to find bin Laden in various unlikely nooks and crannies. This is the background to the decision to send a major part of Britain's armed forces to the region and to be so vocal in support of the war: London is determined to play a role and thereby stake a claim. (WR 262 "Imperialist rivalries between the great powers are coming into the open")
The efforts to draw the US into the UN were ignored by Washington and led to attacks on the 'old Europe'. When the war started the criticism was maintained: "There are reports of Americans killing 'our boys' in 'friendly fire' incidents, the US killing more 'Brits' than Iraq was able to do. There are all the comparisons between the incompetent, trigger-happy, ignorant yanks with the professional, disciplined 'Brits'...It has also not gone unnoticed that US orders meant that British troops were tied down in Basra...and were allocated thankless tasks such as the supervision of prisoners of war" (WR 263 "British imperialism - caught between Germany and the US"). [...]
In April 2004 there was criticism from the military at the suggestion that more troops might be sent to compensate for the withdrawal of Spain after the Madrid bombings. This criticism has recently been renewed following the dispatch of troops to replace US forces required for the assault on Fallugah. Despite the protestations that the request was a purely 'military' one it is clear that it is another riposte by the US, determined to draw Britain into the worst of the fighting, principally in order to maintain the alliance but also to punish the pretence of the greater 'professionalism' of British forces, who, it is suggested never engage in the sort of atrocities exposed at the Abu Ghraib prison
This analysis makes it possible to understand the real nature of the divisions in the ruling class...the dispute is within the main faction of the ruling class. Neither the more overtly anti or pro-American factions, embodied in the likes of Cook and Short on the one hand and the dominant part of the Tories on the other, currently have any great weight. This is why the two inquiries after much posturing ended up firing blanks. Their purpose was never to directly oppose or humiliate Blair but to raise concerns about the tactics he was following and to nudge him back on course. One aspect we have not emphasised is the uniqueness of the situation the British bourgeoisie finds itself in. Certainly there is a continuity in its efforts to play Europe off against the US but it is also a requirement newly imposed by the situation that has developed over the last few years. The period of 'every man for himself' presents a situation to the bourgeoisie that it is still working to understand...
What this suggests is a future of even greater instability and even greater pressure on the bourgeoisie of middling powers like Britain. There is, at this point, no apparent release from this, only a more or less successful adaptation and, despite all of the pressure, the British bourgeoisie is showing an ability to do this.
WR, 8/11/04.The re-election of George Bush in the USA has led many commentators, especially in Europe, to warn about the danger of new military adventures by the US superpower. And it's quite true that while the ruins of Fallujah are still smoking, the mouthpieces of the Bush administration are already making threatening noises about Iran. The replacement of the 'moderate' Colin Powell as Secretary of State by the 'hawk' Condoleeza Rice is another indication that the US war machine is going to grind forward remorselessly in the period ahead.
We are also told, usually by the same commentators, that if only Kerry had won the election, the world would be a much safer place, and that there would be some hope of healing the rift between the USA and its former allies in Europe. This is not true.
The ultra-aggressive policies of the US state today are not the product of one man or a particular administration. Bush's attack on Afghanistan, for example, was prepared by Clinton's Democratic administration, which only two years before had rained bombs on Serbia. Kerry had no criticisms of these imperialist onslaughts and claimed only that he would be better at waging the war on terrorism than Bush. Neither did his election campaign offer any alternative to the current US policy in Iraq.
Had Kerry been elected, his rhetoric would have been a little different. He may have dealt with the UN or the European powers less crudely than Bush. He may have used different pretexts for defending US interests, replacing Bush's overt use of religious imagery with appeals to 'humanitarian' causes. This is why substantial sectors of the US bourgeoisie would have preferred Kerry to Bush. The final result is the same because US imperialism has no alternative but to throw its weight about on the world arena.
This is not because America is a particularly 'evil' empire. It is simply the world's leading empire, and it is compelled to defend its dominant world position against the challenge from other empires, other imperialist powers. For over forty years it confronted a second superpower, the USSR, for control of the world. The collapse of its opponent in 1989 led some to proclaim the End of History and a New World Order of peace and prosperity. Instead we have had a world of growing instability marked by endless and increasingly chaotic wars. Released from their fear of the Russian bear, the USA's former allies - France, Germany, Japan, the UK - immediately began to assert their own imperialist interests against their former master. The US responded with its first major demonstration of power in the new situation: the Gulf War of 1991, which was aimed not so much at Saddam Hussein but at America's great power rivals, who were forced to march behind it. But they didn't stay in line for long. Within a year German imperialism's eastward push had provoked the Balkans war and to this day the US has not succeeded in maintaining a firm foothold in this region. And while Germany and France were press-ganged into supporting the 1991 attack on Iraq, by 2003 they were openly opposing the second one, along with Russia and numerous other states.
In sum: faced with a growing challenge to its authority, the US has again and again resorted to its military might to reimpose it. But each time it has only magnified its problems by provoking further hostility and resistance to its domination. And no faction of the American ruling class has an alternative to this increasingly irrational spiral.
The present situation in Iraq symbolises the impasse facing the US. Following 9/11 (carried out in all likelihood with the complicity of the American state), the USA stepped up its global offensive, aiming not only at full control of the Middle East with its huge oil reserves, but also at encircling its imperialist rivals in Europe and Russia. But far from achieving what the neo-con theorists call 'Full Spectrum Dominance', the US has plunged Iraq into chaos. Far from laying the bases for a stable Middle Eastern democracy, the US invasion has turned Iraq into a theatre for international terrorism, where each military 'victory' (such as the flattening of Fallujah) only serves to deepen the USA's political discredit and recruit more 'martyrs' to the anti-US jihad. Not only is it now questionable whether the January 30 elections will take place; whether they do or don't, there is now a real danger that Iraq will start to disintegrate as various bourgeois gangs - Shia, Sunni, pro-and anti-US, Kurdish nationalists, etc - battle for control of their respective spheres of influence. And having reduced Iraq to the status of 'failed state', US imperialism's answer is to debate where the next Iraq will be: Iran, Sudan, North Korea....?
All this is increasingly obvious and America's rivals don't miss a chance to whip up anti-American prejudices, blaming the slide into war on the USA and presenting themselves as lovers of peace and international cooperation. These are also lies, as a brief recall of the events of the last decade will soon establish: France stood behind the Rwanda genocide of 1994 and is now being pulled into a quagmire of its own on the Ivory Coast; Germany sparked off the Balkans war by backing the separatist claims of Croatia and Slovenia; Russia is conducting a murderous war in Chechnya and has ambitions to control all the countries of the former USSR, such as Georgia and Ukraine. As for Britain, it supports the USA in the Gulf, but opposes it in the Balkans and in Ireland, and no less than the other great powers, it acts only to defend its sordid imperialist interests (see the report on British imperialism, also in this issue).
The problem facing humanity is not George Bush, nor US imperialism on its own. The problem is a social system that has outlived its usefulness to humanity, and which, in its senility, has nothing to offer but growing military competition and war. Two world wars, the Cold War, the 'war of each against all' which followed the break-up of the eastern and western blocs - this catalogue of destruction cannot be blamed on particular countries, still less on this or that 'madman' in power. It would be much more accurate to say that the entire social system has become mad. In its youth, capitalism made use of wars to spread the profit system across the world; in its period of dementia, war has become an end in itself, bringing not profits but economic ruin and the potential destruction of humanity.
But humanity, as Marx said, does not pose itself problems which it cannot solve. There is an alternative to capitalism: a communist society founded on solidarity, not exploitation. There is an alternative to war: a world commune without national frontiers. And there is a social force which has an objective interest in creating such a world: the exploited class in capitalism, the proletariat.
Capitalism today is providing a mounting body of evidence that it is historically bankrupt, whether through the economic crisis which leads it to attack proletarian living standards, or through the march to war which demands the ultimate sacrifice from the exploited. The more the evidence piles up in the eyes of those who are the principal victims of capitalism's decline, the more the possibility grows of a conscious revolt against the very logic of this system.
Faced with the collapse of this system, with the barbarism of war, the proletariat in every country will need to rediscover the methods of struggle that halted the first imperialist world war and terrified the bourgeoisie with the threat of world revolution: the mass strike, the workers' councils, the formation of a world communist party. We still have a very long way to go before this can take place, but the signs are that workers in many countries are more and more willing to return to the struggle in defence of their living standards; and this is the only starting point for a struggle that, in the future, will have to confront the ruling class in every country of the world.
WR, 4/12/04.The announcement by Ford in September that it intends to close the Jaguar factory in Coventry by September 2005, with the loss of some 1,150 jobs, has once again posed the question of how workers can respond to such attacks and defend their working and living conditions. The logic of capital continues to impose itself. The chairman of Jaguar was quite blunt: "The fact is despite significant sales growth and excellent levels of quality in recent years, we have not been able to keep pace with significantly larger competitors. We have too much capacity and this is our underlying structural problem." ('Plan Announced to Put Jaguar Back on Track', www.jaguar.co.uk [90], 17/9/04). The Ford motor company is not unique in facing such a chronic problem. In September GM Europe announced plans to cut 12,000 jobs because of overcapacity, which led to a 6-day walkout at its Bochum plant in Germany (see below). Indeed, the Austrian automotive analysts Autopolis estimate that "The world as a whole has about 30% more [car] factories than it needs. That's about 170 factories around the world, and most of these, quite frankly, are surplus to requirements" (BBC Online, 14/10/04).
These problems are not just restricted to the car industry in Europe. Swathes of jobs are being cut across Europe and the US: 2,000 at Deutsche Bank; train maker Bombardier axes 2,200 jobs in Canada, Germany and the UK; mobile phone operator Cingular announces 7,000 job cuts in the US; school watchdog OFSTED cuts 500 jobs - part of the Labour government's plans to axe more than 104,000 civil service jobs across the UK; 15,000 Kodak jobs cut worldwide, with 1,150 in the UK going in the past two months; Marsh & McLennan, the troubled US insurance broker cuts 3,000 jobs. Finally, the attacks are not just limited to employment, but also the 'social wage': unemployment benefits, pensions, health care etc. As the ICC has stressed, "All workers, whether at work or on the dole, whether still active or retired, whether they are in the private sector or the public sector, will from now on be confronted with these attacks on a permanent basis." ('A turning point in the class struggle [91]', International Review 119).
In response to their growing anger and combativity workers are now regularly faced with the increasingly militant language of the trade unions - who are openly encouraging a vote in favour of strike action in the case of the Jaguar workers in Coventry. The unions - Amicus and the TGWU - were quick to respond to Ford's plans. According to the T&G, "Following Ford's betrayal of Jaguar's West Midlands plants with this announcement to effectively sack 1,150 workers, the joint unions have today called for an organised and co-ordinated fight back, beginning with a ballot for industrial action!" (www.tgwu.org.uk [92]). Likewise, the leadership of the Amicus union claimed that "[the] decision could lead to further closures in the future and that they intend to draw a line in the sand. In a strong message to the company Tony Woodley, General Secretary of the T&G, and Amicus General Secretary Derek Simpson said they would provide leadership to workers to fight for their plants and jobs" ('Jaguar unions to fight factory closures', www.amicustheunion.org [93]).
The unions then announced a demonstration in Coventry and a strike ballot, which has begun this week. However, the demo was six weeks after the initial announcement of job losses! Clearly enough time to allow the workers' anger to dissipate. In fact, of the 1,500 workers at the plant, 425 are being offered jobs in Birmingham, with a pay rise; 400 are being offered voluntary redundancy, and according to the company the severance package will be Jaguar's most generous ever; 310 jobs will be retained at the Coventry plant making wood veneer finishes for Jaguar and Aston Martin; the remainder are largely white collar agency workers whose contracts will expire 'naturally'. The company has done a good hatchet job, and although the unions have claimed that they knew nothing of the decision to close the plant, it had been mooted a year earlier in the Sunday Times according to a report on the BBC News website ('Jaguar dismisses closure talk', 20/10/03). Derek Simpson of Amicus said in this article that the unions meet with 'very senior management' every fortnight. Can we really be sure the management never mentioned the possibility of job losses?
The demonstration in Coventry on 27th November was much smaller than had been forecast - or more likely 'hyped up' by the unions and media - with at most 500 people present. The media have continued to play up the numbers present: one report on the BBC website begins by saying "Hundreds of people have marched through Coventry" and then three paragraphs later states that "It is estimated 1,500 people attended". The video of the protest on the same page then has an introduction saying that "Thousands of people have attended a rally in Coventry" ('March to support Jaguar workers', BBC Online, 27/11/04). The last sentence is lifted virtually word for word from the T&G's website... Then the SWP wade in with a claim that "The TGWU union said up to 5,000 joined the protest." (Socialist Worker, 4/12/04)! Clear evidence that the media are complicit in helping the unions get over their 'militant' message. Furthermore, the early start time of 9.30am probably also worked against encouraging workers from other towns and plants to join in.
Contrary to what the bosses and the unions say, there is an alternative to the logic of capitalism. As the ICC's section in Germany pointed out in their leaflet on the disputes at Karstadt and Opel, "If you approach things, not as the problem of Opel or of Karstadt, or of Germany, but as a problem of society as a whole, completely different perspectives emerge. If you consider the world, not from the point of view of a single plant or company, but from the point of view of society, from the point of view of human well being, the victims no longer appear as belonging to Opel or Karstadt, but as part of a social class of wage labourers, who are the main victims of the capitalist crisis. Seen from this perspective, it then becomes clear that [all workers] share a common fate and interest - not with their exploiters, but with each other" (Karstadt, Opel, Volkswagen: the need for workers' solidarity [89], web supplement to International Review 119).
In the face of these mass attacks the proletariat has historically unleashed its own weapon: the mass strike of all workers. And while such actions are not yet possible, "Such a defensive action of the whole working class would give the class the self confidence it needs to counter the arrogance of the ruling class. Moreover, such massive mobilisations would be able to change the social climate, promoting the recognition that human needs have to become the guideline of society. This putting in question of capitalism would in turn increase the determination of the employees and the unemployed to defend their interests in the here and now." (ibid.) The walkouts at Bochum, where several thousand workers downed tools for six days, and to a similar extent the recent walkout by workers at Vauxhall's Ellesmere Port plant in Liverpool over the sacking of 47 workers, demonstrate that at one level workers are increasingly willing to show solidarity with those under attack because they know that it could be their jobs to go next.
In the long term the proletariat will come to understand that their sacrifices for the company are in vain: that there is no way out of capitalism's vicious circle. This system is historically bankrupt, not just economically, but at the level of holding any perspective whatsoever for the future of humanity. It is at this point, when the proletariat raises its struggle from the defence of its immediate economic interests to the posing of its political dictatorship over society that it truly begins to reveal its true nature as the only revolutionary class.
Spencer, 3/12/04.
In early November, Ivorian president Ghagbo, impatient to escape the French restrictions which limited his government's authority to the south of the country, bombarded rebel-controlled towns in the north. The French government had for months turned a blind eye to Ghagbo's war plans, until the Ivorian state bombarded positions held by French forces, killing nine French soldiers and one US civilian, and wounding 22 others. French president Chirac ordered the immediate destruction of the 'Ivorian airforce' - two planes and five combat helicopters.
Ghagbo then unleashed a pogrom against the French, inciting patriotic mobs to attack French homes, schools and other buildings in an orgy of rape, arson and pillage. The French army had no hesitation in firing on the crowds. This has further worsened the climate of chaos, violence and terror which now reigns in the capital Abidjan. Hundreds of people have died.
With more than 5200 troops at its disposal, reinforced since July 2004 by 6200 'Blue Helmets' from the UN, France was already in military control of the country, posing as a 'peacekeeping force' standing between the government in the south and the northern rebels. France had pretended that it was playing this role with a mandate from the UN, but the mask has dropped to show France's real aims: the strategic maintenance of its military presence in the Ivory Coast and the attempt to safeguard its imperialist interests in Africa.
As for the UN, the Blue Helmets just serve as a legal cover for the crimes of the great imperialist powers. The UN forces did the same during the slaughter in Rwanda in 1994, in the interests of France. 5000 UN Blue Helmets did the same in May 2003, when they stayed on the sidelines when 60,000 people were massacred in the north east of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
From the Gaullist period, France maintained its imperialist domination of the Ivory Coast by giving unbroken support to the dictator Houphouet between 1960 and 1993. Since Ghagbo was installed, the new president has waged a number of xenophobic campaigns about 'Ivority', aimed at eliminating his main rivals. These resulted in a number of massacres, the best known being in March 2004 when Ghagbo sent tanks and death squads into parts of Abidjan, attacking areas accused of being on the rebels' side. These killings took place with the direct complicity of France, under the eyes of more than 4000 French troops, who didn't raise a finger to help the victims.
Over the last 15 years France has lost a lot of its influence, prestige and strategic advantages in Africa, suffering various set-backs, in particular with the revelations about its involvement in the massacres in Burundi and Rwanda in 1993/4, and with the loss of Zaire from its sphere of influence in 1997. It has also encountered growing opposition from American imperialism.
Since the strategic reorganisation of its military bases in Africa, France has decided to reinforce its military presence in the Ivory Coast and to stay whatever the cost. Along with Senegal, the Ivory Coast is one of the key countries for holding onto its positions in Africa. The confrontations between the rebel forces and the government, and the attempted coup d'etat in 2002, gave France the pretext for implanting a massive military presence and trying to take control at the diplomatic level with the Marcoussis accords of January 2003. Since then, France has posed as an arbitrator and guarantor of peace. But today's climate of instability makes this 'peacemaking' strategy no longer tenable. In fact it has led to a growing loss of control. French imperialism has not been able to impose its orientations either militarily or diplomatically. Both sides have rearmed and prepared their forces for new conflicts. France is in an impasse, obliged it to plunge into an openly military option in order to defend its interests.
France will not allow its military presence to be put into question. It is condemned to the same fate as the USA, throwing aside its hypocritical excuses about 'acting as a peacekeeping force' it has revealed its true imperialist intentions, imposing its authority through brutal military actions. The French bourgeoisie cannot allow itself to give up the Ivory Coast without the risk of being totally ejected from the African continent.
The break between Ghagbo and France, sealed by the destruction of the Ivorian airforce, is now quite deep. Since the beginning of hostilities, a number of Ivorian leaders, such as the president of the National Assembly Koulibaly, have made open declarations of war against France. Since 2002, Ghagbo whipped up the worst kind of xenophobia against the French occupiers and against 'foreign' African ethnic groups like those from Burkina Faso.
The French bourgeoisie has tried to pull together in defence of its interests. The Socialist Party has given unreserved support to Chirac's 'firm' response, going so far as to break publicly with their 'comrade' in the Socialist International, Laurent Ghagbo.
The latter however has found other allies and forged links with Mauritania, Guinea and Togo, countries trying to move away from Burkina Faso which has been accused of destabilising their regimes. The Ivorian president can also count on the more discrete support of Ghana. He also has a lot of capital to pay for professional killers, like the mercenaries who pilot his planes.
As for the rebels, although they have been weakened by bloody internal conflicts, they have been increasing their warlike declarations and have refused to follow UN calls to disarm. They can also rely on support from Burkina Faso, not to mention Libya.
Certain sectors of the French bourgeoisie have pointed out it's no accident that Ghagbo's offensive was carried out just after the re-election of Bush, underlining Ghagbo's attraction to the US and Washington's desire to extend its influence in Africa..
The US has several irons in the fire because while it has let itself be courted by Ghagbo, it also armed the rebels in 2002 and continued to aid them discretely for some time. While officially welcoming France's tough response, several American newspapers close to the Bush government have intensified their anti-French rhetoric, pointing at the incoherence of its policies and its inability to manage 'African affairs'. They can only be pleased to see France getting sucked into a mess and only too willing to push it in deeper. All the conditions are coming together for the situation to slide further towards bloody chaos, with a strong probability of direct French military involvement. This will show the falsity of all the claims that America is the only warmonger in the world.
There is a real risk not only of the 'Iraqisation' of the Ivory Coast, but also of the extension of the conflict to neighbouring states, spreading a civil war to the region as a whole.
The Ivory Coast shows the terrible future that capitalism offers to the African. The population of this country is now being exposed to permanent poverty, famine and war. This is what capitalism has in store for the whole of humanity if its criminal rule is allowed to continue.
W, 14/11/04.
In the last few weeks much has been made of the arrest and trial of Sir Mark Thatcher, son of the former Tory Prime Minister. His involvement was discovered through the arrest of his neighbour and business partner Simon Mann. According to Mann's confession, he held a series of meetings in January with 'potential investors' on how they would benefit from replacing Equatorial Guinea's 'President for Life' Obiang with Spanish-based exiled opposition leader Severo Moto.
The full story of this affair has yet to come to light, but Thatcher and co. aren't just a bunch of maverick mercenaries acting for their own financial gain, and Equatorial Guinea isn't an entirely insignificant country for the major imperialist powers. It has the third largest oil reserves in Africa, and its position, off the coast of Cameroon and Nigeria, makes it important for control over the major oil shipping routes, as well as for future struggles between the major powers.
In August the British government denied having any prior knowledge of an attempted coup. However, recent reports in the media show that the government knew back in January that an attempted coup was being planned in and had begun to draw up plans for the evacuation of British citizens. The fact that it had been informed, and that one of the plotters met with a high ranking US State Department official around the same time, implies that their permission had been sought and given. At this time Spain, under the Popular Party government of Aznar, which was aligned with Britain and the U.S. over the Iraq war, is alleged to have sent two naval warships to provide support for the coup. Now the Zapatero government, which has aligned itself with France and Germany, denies sending any ships, and insists that 'no documents exist' on such a policy.
While the capitalist media are full of propaganda about 'human rights' and the 'instilling of democratic values' throughout the world, these leaks reveal the sordid and nefarious ways in which foreign policy is conducted by all imperialist powers, not least Britain.
Graham, 4/12/04.Our recent 4-part survey of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on the occasion of this small group's centenary (WR 272 [94], 273 [95], 274 [96], 276 [97]) did not call for a celebration.
We concluded that although this marginal political tendency split from the British part of the Second International in 1904 decrying 'reformism', its outlook and spirit has remained that of the opportunist wing of the workers' movement at that time which tried to revise marxism into a spineless doctrine of peaceful social change. The SPGB has retained the same anti-revolutionary mentality as the majority of the Social Democratic Parties which finally passed in to the camp of capital during the First World War, and proved their reactionary credentials in the revolutionary period that followed it.
The SPGB claims that the working class can develop and realise its socialist consciousness through voting for 'their' parliamentary candidates who can, once in a majority, 'convert' ([1]) the capitalist state into the means for the socialist transformation of society. Because of the peaceful nature of this 'conversion' there will be no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat that Marx and Engels insisted was an essential weapon of the working class struggle, nor would there be a need for a transitional period during which humanity will evolve toward a classless, stateless communist society. Consequently the SPGB, despite some initial enthusiasm, became vehemently opposed to the October Revolution of 1917, where the working class, organised in soviets, overthrew instead of 'converting' the bourgeois state and swept aside its rotten parliamentary facade.
During the First World War the SPGB, along with the opportunists and centrists in Social Democracy, rejected the international, revolutionary position of the marxist left that the working class must seize the occasion to destroy world capitalism. It took a centrist attitude, similar to Karl Kautsky's, of platonically opposing the war and waiting for a return to 'normal'.
However the distinguishing feature of the SPGB is that although it believes that capitalism can overcome its crises and that therefore reforms are still possible, it refuses to fight for them, and consequently refuses to adopt a political programme of reforming capitalism, and denies that socialism can evolve gradually in this way. Nor will it fight for bourgeois democracy even though it thinks this form of government remains an important gain for the working class ([2]). Politically the SPGB envisages a conversion of capitalism to socialism through the election of its own party to a position of power with a maximum socialist programme.
In the August 2004 Socialist Standard, the monthly magazine of the SPGB ([3]), issued a reply to our survey entitled 'A criticism answered':
"Indeed, since the ICC is rabidly anti-union, sees no difference between political democracy and political dictatorship, and espouses an anarchist stance on elections and parliament, as well as having a penchant for conspiracy theories, we suggest that they are not in a position to give other groups any lessons in how to spread socialist ideas while avoiding the dangers of sectarianism".
This retort is something of an own goal since it does reveal that the SPGB effectively defines non-sectarianism in the same way as the capitalist left as a whole: servility to the sacred agencies of the bourgeois state like the trade unions ([4]), and (attempted) participation in the parliamentary circus that disguises the dictatorship of capital over the working class. Like the entire capitalist left, it defines as sectarian anyone outside the 'broad church' of support for bourgeois democracy. In fact the rejection of this religious belief in the state is an essential precondition for an organisation that wants to be considered part of the revolutionary marxist tradition.
Everybody knows that anarchism, in theory at least, has always in every historical period rejected the state. But the SPGB are wrong to imply that the marxist position is the symmetrical opposite: participation in elections and parliament at all times and proposing the conversion of the capitalist state to socialism. The distinguishing point between marxism and anarchism on the state is not, as the opportunists of the Second International pretended, that marxism is for it, and anarchism against it. Marxism wants the smashing of the state, but unlike anarchism, believes this destruction cannot take place at any time as a result of pure will but only as the consequence of the historic struggle of the working class.
But the SPGB haven't abandoned the 'superstitious reverence' for the state, for which Engels repeatedly castigated the opportunist Social Democracy. And when they discuss "democracy and dictatorship" they have not abandoned the debating tricks and distortions that opportunism used to attack the arguments of the marxist left.
"Whereas the ICC is all in favour of elections, parliaments and 'bourgeois democracy' before 1914, after then all these became anathema to them. In fact, our refusal to denounce political democracy seems to be our worst failing in their eyes.
'Through its defence of the democratic principle', they say of us ' it actually reinforces one of the greatest obstacles facing the working class'.
Excuse us if we disagree, but we don't regard universal suffrage and political democracy within capitalism as 'one of the greatest obstacles facing the working class' The vote is a gain, a potential class weapon, a potential 'instrument of emancipation' as Marx put it. Despite Lenin's distortions quoted by the ICC, Marx and Engels always held that the bourgeois democratic republic was the best political framework for the development and triumph of the socialist movement. This is another pre-1914 socialist position we see no reason to abandon.
Certainly, political democracy under capitalism is not all that it is purported to be by many supporters of the system and it is severely limited, from the point of view of democratic theory, by the very nature of capitalism as an unequal, class-divided society. Certainly 'democracy' has become an ideology used to give capitalist rule a spurious legitimacy and to mobilise working class support for wars.
But it is still sufficient to allow the working class to organise politically and economically without too much state interference and also, we would argue, to allow a future socialist majority to gain control of political power."
It is completely false to say that the ICC was all for bourgeois democracy before 1914 and all against it afterwards. Why allege something that they must know isn't true? The SPGB want to give the impression that they are preserving the traditional marxist attitude to the state against revisionists, when the reverse is true. The SPGB want to fool people that Marx and Engels thought that the working class could achieve political power only in a peaceful way using the mechanisms of the bourgeois democratic republic. They pretend that Marx and Engels believed, as the SPGB does, that socialism could be achieved without overthrowing the bourgeois state and its fraudulent democratic mechanisms.
As Marx and Engels said, and which the SPGB don't say, the most democratic bourgeois republic can only be a dictatorship of capital over the working class. Whatever political form capitalist rule takes, however democratic, it will always be a dictatorship of the capitalist class to hold down the exploited. Authentic marxism has always shown that democracy and dictatorship are not exclusive opposites but complementary, interconnected, weapons of the ruling class to impose its will on the ruled.
The SPGB present the questions of political democracy and dictatorship, in themselves, without reference to their class characteristics in a given society, or to the historic period in which they develop. By presenting democracy and dictatorship as independent forms of government, without reference to their material origins and function in class society, the SPGB play the same game as the bourgeoisie when it tells stories about the superiority of democracy to dictatorship.
It's clear that for the SPGB, despite a few mild criticisms of the shortcomings of democracy within capitalism, this political form can somehow exist separately from its actual class character, that the state can exist independently of the capitalist class. It's not surprising that the SPGB, living in this political la-la land, believe that even today the state can be converted peacefully to the socialist cause.
The SPGB completely undermines the marxist theory of the state. Engels showed in Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, that the state arises historically when human society becomes divided into classes. Whatever form the state takes it is needed to hold down the exploited class in the interests of a given mode of production and in the interests of the exploiting class - using whatever force it can mobilise. The state therefore becomes a parasite on the body of society. This is as true of ancient Greek democracy, which excluded the majority of the population (slaves, women and foreigners) from its deliberations, as it is of modern bourgeois democracy.
Marxism has always approached the question of the state with a method that is concrete, historical and materialist, in order to understand how the working class struggles against the bourgeoisie and its state, and how ultimately it will overthrow it, assume political power and begin the transition to communist society.
This understanding developed according to the historical experience of the working class and was always animated by revolutionary rather than legal or parliamentary considerations. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848 Marx and Engels defined the revolutionary soul of the proletariat:
"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."
In The Class Struggles in France 1848-50 Marx made this outlook more precise. He completely identified with the Parisian proletariat that took up arms in the June insurrection against the Legislative Assembly and "in place of its demands, exuberant in form, but petty and even bourgeois in content, the concession of which it wanted to wring from the February republic, there appeared the bold slogan of revolutionary struggle: Overthrow of the bourgeoisie! Dictatorship of the working class!". And in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte published in 1852 Marx first established that the successful proletarian revolution could not be effected by redividing the spoils of the state as all previous revolutions had done, but only by concentrating "all its forces of destruction" against the state power.
The Paris Commune of 1871 fully confirmed this lesson and led Marx and Engels to reiterate the need to smash the state and made the famous correction to the Communist Manifesto: "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'"(Preface to the German Edition of 1872).
In the period from the defeat of the Paris Commune to the death of Engels in 1894, both he and Marx had to wage a permanent struggle (in the Critique of the Gotha Programme of 1875, in the critique by Engels of the Erfurt Programme of 1891, as well as much correspondence) to preserve this lesson against the development of opportunism on this question in the German workers' movement and in the Second International as a whole. But the opportunist leadership of the latter did a good job in delaying or suppressing or distorting these texts and articles. It was only the marxist left in the Second International, exemplified by revolutionaries like Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, Amadeo Bordiga and of course Lenin (in State and Revolution) who unearthed these critiques and preserved the authentically revolutionary marxist tradition on the state. It is from this revolutionary tradition that the Communist Left and the ICC descends.
Far from being "all in favour" of bourgeois democracy before 1914 and treating it as "anathema" after, the ICC preserves the authentic revolutionary thread within marxism, clearly expressed in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 on the need for "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie". Against this the SPGB draws its inspiration from opportunists like Bernstein and Kautsky.
The marxist left, during the First World War and the revolutionary wave after it, had to separate from and fundamentally change the political programme of Social Democracy in order to return, in a changed historical period, to the genuinely revolutionary tradition of marxism that opportunism had tried to suppress, first in words and then in blood.
Como, 1/12/04.
1. "The working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic." SPGB Declaration of Principles.
2. "Our position is that political democracy is a gain for the working class but that this does not justify socialists allying themselves with capitalist parties to get it or supporting one side in a war to supposedly defend it." Socialist Standard August 2004.
3. There have been two SPGBs since a split in the early 1990s. There is now a Clapham party which publishes Socialist Standard, and an Ashbourne Grove Party which publishes Socialist Studies . Both defend the SPGB's original Declaration of Principles. The Ashbourne Grovists have yet to comment on our survey. However, an ex-SPGB member has written a 15000 word attack on this survey posted on a web discussion forum, entitled 'Social Democracy versus Left-Wing Communism'. Subsequently he has written to us disavowing some of this critique, in particular its title, because the latter implies, wrongly according to him, that the two are incompatible. In doing so he has abandoned one of the few correct statements in his first critique. Engels criticised, as did the Bolsheviks, the entire Communist International and the Communist Left the name of 'Social Democracy' because it was a theoretically false description of the goal of the proletariat. The ex-SPGBer also makes confused accusations about the ICC making concessions to Blanquism, Bordigism and minority action, which we will return to in a future issue.
4. The SPGB's respect for the trade unions is even more brazen than the 'critical' support of the leftists for these organs of capital against the working class. In the September 2004 Socialist Standard, the 'Acting General Secretary' of the SPGB addressed an open letter to the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union congratulating the union on disaffiliating from the Labour Party. As might be guessed, the letter contains no criticism of the sabotage by the FBU of the recent firefighters' strikes. No doubt the SPGB thinks it can excuse such grovelling to trade union bureaucrats by labelling the ICC's consistent denunciation of the unions as 'rabid'.
The demonstrations that followed November's presidential election in Ukraine have been acclaimed as the latest example of 'people power'. Following the Czech 'velvet revolution' of 1989, and last year's 'rose revolution' in Georgia, the protests in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have been marketed as a new 'chestnut revolution', against a rigged election and Russian influence. Meanwhile, support for Prime Minister Yanukovich is described in the western media as being 'bussed in' from the east of the country, with people provided with free accommodation, food, generous spending money and supplies of vodka.
In reality, whether intoxicated by free alcohol or Ukrainian nationalism and democracy, the people participating in the spectacles in Kiev and elsewhere, whether workers, students or petit-bourgeois, have been drawn into a dispute between factions of the Ukrainian ruling class, each backed by powerful imperialist powers. This is not 'people power' but a conflict over what direction Ukrainian capitalism should go.
The EU, NATO, leaders of European countries, and senior figures in the US all found that the election results that gave an initial victory for Yanukovich were unacceptable and marked by massive fraud. There were no inhibitions about 'interfering in the internal affairs' of another country, although the Russian ambassador in the US was summoned to be told off for Putin's open support for Yanukovich.
The opposition lodged 11,000 complaints about electoral practices that didn't favour them. A team of 563 observers that had been sent by various international and European bodies produced a catalogue of electoral practices that it didn't approve of. These included the role of the media, intimidation, mysterious extra votes appearing so that more than 100% voted in some areas, and votes open to tampering after the election.
The divisions within the Ukrainian ruling class, and its lack of experience in running elections, do seem to have lead to rather inept attempts to ensure a favourable result for Yanukovich. But, for the working class, all capitalist elections are frauds. They can only offer the continuation of exploitation, impoverishment and war, while claiming that bourgeois domination of our lives is given validity through the electoral charade. In the US, for example, we have just witnessed an election where millions of workers (and others) voted for Bush, who has presided over a decline in employment and living standards, while millions others voted for Kerry, despite his clear commitment to advancing the interests of American imperialism. Of course the US election was played as the 'most important of a generation', but that's the sort of spiel you'd expect from any huckster selling you something dodgy.
In Ukraine the hype round Yushchenko is also part of the fraud. Trained as an accountant he made his way to senior posts in the banking system of Ukraine when still part of the USSR. Not long after 1991's Ukrainian independence, he became head of the national bank in 1993, directing monetary policy and having a major role in economic policy until 1999 when President Kuchma made him Prime Minister.
The testimony of a pro-Yanukovich demonstrator is possibly of limited value, but The Times (26/11/04) reported a miner as asking "What did Yushchenko do for us when he was Prime Minister? I'll tell you what - he tried to cut our salaries and pensions, to close the mines, to destroy our lives". It's widely believed that Kuchma was grooming Yushchenko as his successor, and no one doubted the then Prime Minister's loyalty.
In addition to Yushchenko's past, his current backers include a handful of millionaires, even billionaires. They have acquired their fortunes and influence in the period since 1991, but were clearly well placed before the break-up of the USSR. Yuschenko has a 'sweep out corruption' slogan that draws attention to the infighting, corruption and dubious dealing throughout the ruling class. This is only for public consumption as he has every reason to turn a blind eye to the business habits of his friends and allies. Far more important are those outside Ukraine who back his presidency.
The French paper Liberation (2/12/04) described events in the Ukraine as "a new illustration of the power of the European dream of liberty and prosperity". But beyond the platitudes about democracy and freedom, Liberation sees a Cold War by proxy between Putin's Russia and Europe. In fact, even the less sophisticated press in Britain has had no problem in seeing the big power vultures circling over Ukraine.
They paint a crude picture of Ukraine divided between a pro-Russian south and east with a pro-European west, based on certain material particularities. The east has heavy industry and mineral resources, and, while Russia has the ports of Taganrog and Novorosiisk, guaranteed access to Black Sea ports such as Odessa and the Crimea is still important. The oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the heart of Europe goes from Odessa to Brody in northwest Ukraine.
However, these details do not explain the insistence from the US and European powers that they can't accept the November election or Russia's complaints about others interfering with its neighbour.
If you look at the actual state of the Ukrainian economy and social infrastructure there is little to covet. In the words of Le Monde Diplomatique (October 04) "The past decade has been disastrous for Ukraine. Between 1990-2000 per capita income dropped by 42%, life expectancy shortened by two and a half years, and the population fell from 51.6 million to 48.2 million." Many serious accidents show the run-down state of the industrial infrastructure. In 1996 Ukraine meekly agreed to hand over its nuclear arsenal to Russia, although in March the Defence Minister had to place an ad in a local newspaper saying "We are looking for several hundred missiles. They have already been decommissioned, but we cannot find them." To get a clear idea of the state of the Ukrainian infrastructure, just recall the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl reactors, 60 miles north of Kiev, and then add on the years of subsequent decline.
The fundamental reason that Russia, the US and various European powers have explicitly stated their positions on Ukraine can only be understood as part of the period that opened up with the end of the two big imperialist blocs dominated by Russia and the US. Since the break up of the American bloc the US has been trying to ensure that no European power emerges as a rival. One of its strategic concerns is the encirclement of Europe. If the US gains a position in Ukraine, as it did last year in Georgia, it will not only have an important piece in its array against Europe, it also has a forward position toward Russia. For the major powers of Europe, as well as Russia, the struggle for the Ukraine is against US attempts to advance its interests. The difficulty for the different imperialist powers promoting Yushchenko is that they use the same democratic propaganda, so the post-election battle is only one step in a conflict that will not be over if the opposition's man becomes president.
The moves toward a breakaway Crimea, which already has a certain amount of autonomy, or the splitting off of south and east Ukraine, maybe with a linkup with Russia, might turn out to be empty threats from elements backed by Putin, but they do show the dominant tendencies in decomposing capitalism. We have, after all, already seen the break-up of Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Yugoslavia. Russia is desperate to combat any threat to its own territorial integrity - most clearly seen in the war in Chechnya - but is implicitly posing the break-up of Ukraine if it can't guarantee the domination of a pro-Russian faction in the country.
There is no 'revolution' in Ukraine. Whoever wins the December 26 election, the bourgeoisie can only offer the perspective of exploitation, disaster and war.
Car, 5/12/04.Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/32/decomposition
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/anti-globalisation
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/social-forums
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/28/336/perspective-communism
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/34/communism
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/historic-events/world-war-ii
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/28/306/struggle-britain-against-imperialist-war
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/trotskyism
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/135/internationalism
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/greece
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/terrorism
[12] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/260/iran
[13] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/war-iraq
[14] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/britain
[15] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/61/india
[16] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/spgb
[17] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/class-struggle
[18] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/france
[19] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/131/religion
[20] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_new_york.html
[21] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/108_machiavel.htm
[22] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/spain
[23] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/south-and-central-america
[24] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_poc_03.html#_ftn1
[25] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_poc_03.html#_ftn2
[26] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_poc_03.html#_ftnref1
[27] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_poc_03.html#_ftnref2
[28] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/186/imperialism
[29] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/rwanda
[30] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/australasia
[31] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/communist-left-influenced
[32] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/northern-ireland
[33] https://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/liqe/liqemcicee.html
[34] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/28/revolutionary-organisation
[35] https://www.whitehouse.gov
[36] https://en.internationalism.org/internationalismusa/200412/764/remembering-greatest-generation
[37] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/113_pianist.html
[38] https://en.internationalism.org/227_1939.htm
[39] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/war
[40] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/20/parliamentary-sham
[41] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/historic-events/collapse-eastern-bloc
[42] https://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR072_stinas.htm
[43] https://en.internationalism.org/213_castoriadis.htm
[44] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/councilism
[45] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/elections
[46] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/european-union
[47] http://www.icg.org
[48] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/africa
[49] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/22/national-question
[50] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/18/proletarian-struggle
[51] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/19/union-question
[52] http://www.worldsocialism.org
[53] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/congress-resolutions
[54] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/russia-caucasus-central-asia
[55] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/germany
[56] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/56/middle-east-and-caucasus
[57] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/readers-letters
[58] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/15/decadence-capitalism
[59] https://de.internationalism.org/content/894/diskussionsveranstaltung-des-ibrp-berlin-fuer-die-offene-debatte-unter-revolutionaeren
[60] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/international-bureau-revolutionary-party
[61] https://zabalaza.net/
[62] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/south-africa
[63] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/internationalist-anarchism
[64] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/economic-crisis
[65] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/venezuela
[66] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/17/189/us-presidential-elections-2004
[67] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/14/proletarian-revolution
[68] http://www.wombles.org.uk
[69] https://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR016_auto_operaia.htm
[70] https://en.internationalism.org/icc/200412/618/13-counter-revolutionary-character-workers-parties
[71] https://en.internationalism.org/internationalismusa/200412/1016/mexico-zapatistas-are-weapon-ruling-class
[72] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/china
[73] https://en.internationalism.org/273_haiti.htm
[74] https://en.internationalism.org/277_flood.htm
[75] http://www.ibrp.org
[76] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/118_decadence_i.html
[77] https://en.internationalism.org/inter/130_fahrenheit_911.htm
[78] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/263/culture
[79] http://www.usaid.gov
[80] https://en.internationalism.org/inter/123_lawv.html
[81] https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm
[82] https://en.internationalism.org/260_pci.htm
[83] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_ibrp.htm
[84] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/public-meetings
[85] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/maoism
[86] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/58/palestine
[87] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/50/united-states
[88] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/17/253/us-elections
[89] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/119_germany.html
[90] http://www.jaguar.co.uk
[91] https://en.internationalism.org/ir/119_turnpoint.html
[92] http://www.tgwu.org.uk
[93] http://www.amicustheunion.org
[94] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/272_spgb_01.htm
[95] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_spgb.htm
[96] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/274_spgb.htm
[97] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/276_spgb_part4.htm
[98] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/correspondance-other-groups