The following text was written for a meeting of the No War But The Class War group in London on November 1st. The group has a continuity with groups under the same name formed during the Gulf war and the Kosovo war, but it has attracted new energies and, in our opinion, can serve as a focus for serious discussion about the meaning of the current war, and for proletarian intervention against it. The ICC’s contribution was thus put forward in a spirit of constructive criticism. On the whole the contribution was received in the same spirit: after it was presented, a number of comrades voiced unease at the lack of political discussion in recent meetings. It was decided that the next meeting would concentrate on a discussion about the effects of the war on the international working class - which for us is an absolutely key issue because an effective intervention in the real movement of the class can only be based on a lucid analysis of where that movement is to be found.

No War But The Class War meets every Thursday at 7.30, at the Sebbon Street Community Centre, Islington, London NI (behind Islington Town Hall)

As we did with its previous version, at the time of the Kosovo war, the ICC welcomes the reappearance of the ‘No War But The Class War’ group in response to the latest carnage. The leaflet that was distributed at the demonstration of 13 October essentially defended a proletarian position against the war and against pacifist illusions. We also think that the small section on the aims of the group is correct when it explains that the ideas in the leaflet are not the statement of a political programme, but “the basis of more discussion and action”.

The public meeting on 21 Oct was an excellent opportunity to discuss the significance of the September 11 attacks and the new Afghan war, which for us mark a very important step in capitalism’s ‘progress’ towards barbarism, and pose considerable difficulties for the working class and its struggle in all countries. We also welcome the fact that the meeting was open to the contribution of groups of the communist left.

The presentation at the public meeting raised many issues which needed a thorough discussion - particularly with regard to the current capacity of the working class to respond to the situation, the degree to which workers have been affected by the patriotic hysteria in the USA and the ‘Muslim’ frenzy in the east. In our view these difficulties were seriously underestimated in the presentation; but at any rate this was surely a matter for discussion. There is still a need to define what is meant by class opposition to war, and we are still convinced that this cannot be taken for granted. However, the impression we have got from the two meetings we have attended (it may have been different in the previous ones) is that within the group there is a strong resistance to really discussing the issues posed by the war, and a very strong leaning towards ‘activism’, ie the desire to ‘do things’ without really thinking them through. This could be seen in:

- the decision (which a lot of comrades seem to recognise was a mistake) to break up the public meeting into small groups around discussions on what to do, making it virtually impossible to have any coherent discussion about the presentation;

- the decision on Thursday to rush off to an army recruitment fair without any thought about the real aim of such an action, the security considerations in today’s heavy atmosphere of anti-terrorism, etc;

- the growing influence of what might be called the ‘anti-capitalist lobby’ within the group, who have not defined their politics but are extremely keen to get NWBTCW involved in forming an ‘anti-capitalist bloc’ within the next pacifist demo, or in music benefits with no indication about which political forces are benefiting; they have also proposed that NWBTCW should get on the podium at Trafalgar Square through some sort of deal with the Stop the War coalition.

As already mentioned, the ICC has more than once emphasised the need to discuss the most basic question posed by the war: what is meant by a class response to war in this period. To us it appears that this is almost taken for granted, but it would be extremely dangerous to do so. What happened in Brighton surely confirms this. As we understand it from the account by the comrade from Brighton, the NWBTCW group there was simply swamped by an arrival of elements from the Stop the War campaign; and even those who call themselves ‘autonomists’ and ‘communists’ simply went along with the idea of creating a broad front of all those ‘opposed’ to the war, which is precisely the approach of the SWP, CND, etc.

The SWP is also proclaiming that the best hope of opposing the war is to turn the ‘anti-capitalist’ movement into the anti-war movement, and to some extent this has been what has happened. Although in America some of the more openly bourgeois organisations like the greens and the AFL-CIO withdrew from the anti-war demonstrations after 11 September, the majority of the ‘anti-capitalist’, or more accurately, anti-globalisation groups have formed the basis for the pacifist pseudo-opposition typified by the Stop the War Coalition. In our opinion, we have to be very clear that just as the anti-globalisation jamboree is by no means a proletarian movement against capital, so the present ‘Stop the War movement’ has nothing to do with a working class, internationalist response to capitalist war.

We think that unless there is a real discussion in ‘NWBTCW’ about the nature both of the ‘anti-capitalist movement’ (which for us is to a large extent controlled by the bourgeoisie, even if there are undoubtedly some positive elements within or around it) and of the current ‘anti-war movement’, there is a danger that it could be dragged into functioning as a radical wing of pacifism.

There are times when decisive action is required and further discussion becomes a hindrance. But there are also times when the priority of the moment is to reflect, to understand, to analyse, to clarify. We are living through a descent into an era of unprecedented irrationality, where mythologies once thought forgotten have risen to the surface with swords in their hands. To resist these mythologies, and all the more familiar ones maintained by capitalism, we must not hesitate to defend the necessity for thought, debate, and theory.

We thus think the most important function for a ‘NWBTCW’ group is

- to act as a focus for all who want to understand how to fight the war on a proletarian terrain. It should be an open, non-membership circle of discussion, organised on a more or less local basis; there should be no distinction between internal and external meetings, unless specifically decided;

- to be a centre for activities and interventions which would as much as possible reflect the discussions within the circle. This may mean that some interventions would be done in the name of the circle as a whole, some by particular groupings within the circle.

Particular proposals

- publication of a bulletin with contributions from all the various groups, currents and individuals involved; perhaps the bulletin could be called Against Capitalist War (and perhaps the name of the bulletin could serve as the name of the group or network of groups). The first one could report on the story of the group so far and publish all the internationalist leaflets and statements which have circulated in and around the group;

- the eventual organisation of a national conference, where more time can be devoted both to political discussion and the coordination of activities;

- for Nov 18: we repeat our proposal for an autonomous meeting at Trafalgar Square. The only real moment that an alternative to the pacifists, leftists and nationalists can be posed is at the end of the demo; that’s the most favourable time for polarising questioning and dissatisfaction with the official opposition. At one level or another, this means not ‘joining’ the official platform but confronting it, although we mean confronting it politically, not provoking a punch up. Whether or not people are ‘in’ the march, our energies would be best employed in preparing to make a stand at this point in the demonstration. And we should discuss both the dangers and the advantages of such a course of action.

WR, November 2001

In the name of ‘fighting terrorism’, a deluge of bombs is raining on the impoverished population of Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of men, women and children are fleeing the horror, but what awaits them at the end of their flight is more horror: a beast-like existence in refugee camps, a slow death from hunger, cold and disease as winter sets in.

Once again we are witnessing the true face of the ‘humanitarian’ actions undertaken by the great powers. The barbarism they have unleashed will certainly outstrip the barbarism of bin Laden and his network of petty imperialist gangsters.

We have been told over and over again by the ‘civilised democracies’ of the USA and Britain that they are only targeting the terrorists, that they are doing all they can to minimise civilian casualties. This lie is already wearing thin: ‘accidental’ or not, the number of ‘smart’ bombs that have destroyed homes, schools or hospitals is mounting daily. As for the gesture of ‘humanitarian aid packages’ being dropped from the skies, this is just a sick joke when everyone knows that the bombing is not only creating a growing exodus of desperate people, but is also obstructing the transport of food and supplies to the hungry. And let’s not forget the mass of conscripts press-ganged into the Taliban army. Here there isn’t even any pretence: they are being ‘carpet bombed’ without mercy. And this also is a form of mass murder.

As for the ‘war aims’ of the ‘anti-terrorist coalition’, what are we to make of the announcement that it may after all be impossible to catch bin Laden, or that the ‘war against terrorism’ may last 4, 10, even 50 years? Is it that the great powers, and the US in particular, don’t know what they are doing � or is it that they are using the September 11 massacre as a mere pretext to pursue military and strategic aims that correspond to their own imperialist interests? Since an imperialist power can only act to defend its imperialist interests, we know what our answer is! (see the article on the back page for more analysis of the real agenda behind this war).

Meanwhile, back home, the fear of terrorist attack is being kept alive by the massive campaign about bio-terrorism and the anthrax alert. Whoever is actually addressing the envelopes of white powder, they are certainly a gift to the ruling class. Those who have died from anthrax infection have all been workers: what better way of proving that the working class has no choice but to rely on the state for protection against the sinister terrorists, and to rally behind the ‘just’ war against terrorism.

Workers: this is not our war!

‘Those who are not with us are against us’: this is how Bush demanded that all the USA’s imperialist rivals have to line up behind the world cop in its latest military adventure, its latest attempt to ensure it remains the world’s only superpower. But the same false choice is offered to the workers, to the exploited and the oppressed of the world. We must either support the ‘war against terrorism’ or line up behind bin Laden and the Taliban. Or we must support bin Laden and the Taliban because they are fighting the ‘Great Satan’, the US and its allies.

No! Bush, Blair, bin Laden all belong to the same class of gangsters. The capitalist class which exploits us, which profits from our labour power, and which throws us onto the dole, is the same class which regularly massacres us in its sordid imperialist squabbles. Useless to choose between individual leaders or states, because they can only embody the needs of this rotting social system.

Workers: we cannot afford any illusions. Capitalism is faced with an insurmountable economic crisis and war has been its method of survival for about a 100 years. After the two world wars and the ‘cold war’, the ‘new world order’ of peace and prosperity promised by Bush Senior has been a dark decade of war � in the Gulf, in the Balkans, in Africa, in the ex-USSR ... and in Afghanistan, which has not seen a day of peace for over 20 years. The fact that the ruling class is now telling us that the ‘war on terror’ will run and run is already an admission that we have nothing to look forward to but an endless spiral of wars and devastation. Peace is impossible as long as capitalism lasts.

The only alternative, the only perspective for the human race, is the destruction of this system before it destroys the planet bit by bit. And only the exploited class, the proletariat, the first victim of capitalist war, can make this perspective a reality. This above all is why workers must refuse to make any common cause with their exploiters; this is why they must refuse to be paralysed by the atmosphere of fear and terror which the ruling class is trying to perpetuate; this is why they must stick to their own class interests and fight against the degradation of their living and working conditions.

No to ‘sacrifices’ in the name of the national interest or the war!

No to collaboration with the capitalist state in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’!

No to support for the Taliban or bin Laden in the name of Islam or ‘anti-imperialism’!

Against the imperialist war of the exploiters, for the class war of the international proletariat!

Every day there’s another voice added to the chorus of criticisms of the bombing of Afghanistan. Not only is there CND, the Stop The War coalition, various MPs and left-wingers, but also major newspapers. “THIS WAR IS A FRAUD” read the front page of the Mirror (29/10/1). The Guardian has queried the objectives of military action, asked what the bombing has achieved so far, and if food deliveries can be increased, maybe with a pause in the bombing. There is opposition to the use of cluster bombs, calls for a greater role for the UN and concern for ‘innocent victims’ and ‘non-military targets’ such as hospitals, old peoples’ homes, Red Cross warehouses and UN facilities.

Many individuals want to do something against the war on Afghanistan, against the spread of the ‘war against terrorism’ - even if it’s not yet clear to them what would actually be effective against the insatiable appetites of the militarists.

But it would be wrong to have any illusions in any MP, editorial writer or those who dominate the ‘anti-war’ movement and insist on their ‘humanitarianism’ or ‘socialism’ when they add their few words of reservation on British foreign policy, as they are all just outpourings from a class of warmongers.

‘Criticisms’ of war that suit the ruling class

It is, for example, taken for granted by ‘critical’ MPs (and others) that the UN should take a significant role in the ‘war against terrorism’. It is also an assumption of US policy that any eventual post-war (post-Taliban?) regime in Afghanistan will be enforced by the UN, rather than having blatant US puppets in power. The UN will continue to be a tool of the major imperialisms, as it has been ever since its foundation.

Labour ‘critics’ say they’re worried about ‘innocent victims’, pretending to be shocked at discovering the capitalist war machine functions with indiscriminate brutality - as well as justifying the murder of anyone they deem ‘guilty’. All the fuss about ‘cluster bombs’ rather implies that death by other means would somehow be preferable. Paul Foot (Guardian 30/10/1) refers, in passing, to “daily military blunders in Afghanistan” - but fewer ‘blunders’ can only mean greater ‘efficiency’ in the process of destruction.

Foot was defending MP Paul Marsden from accusations of being like those who ‘appeased’ Hitler in the 1930s. They were both upset that anyone could suggest there was anything suspect in their anti-fascist credentials. Anti-fascism was one of the main ideologies used by the ruling class in Britain to mobilise the population to die in the service of British imperialism in the Second World War - a ‘just’ war in Foot’s view.

Marsden himself, in his own report of the interview with Hilary Armstrong, showed no reluctance in supporting the war: “the UN should take charge of the military action, not the US. It would be much more effective. By all means send in the SAS, but lets get the UN onside first”. His difference with the Labour leadership is only a matter of emphasis, a quibble over tactics.

There are other MPs who say they are concerned that US action is gradually spreading beyond the initial focus on bin Laden. This is hardly controversial within the British ruling class as Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, for example, has just been in Washington saying exactly that. One of the reasons that Britain has been running with the US is to try and influence the extent of US imperialism’s campaign - in the interests of British imperialism of course.

Whenever you scratch the noted ‘critics’ of the government you find a warmonger. In 1991 George Galloway got a lot of publicity for his thoughts on Iraq. This time round he has suggested that “if military action was seen as unavoidable, the target should have been the Arab legions in the mountains” (Guardian 20/10/1). On a historical note Galloway identifies with Aneurin Bevan and his criticisms of government policy during the Second World War. Bevan, like his latter-day followers, had no quarrel with British imperialism’s war aims, just the means to achieve them.

Meanwhile, the Mirror (29/10/1), answered the stock ‘what’s the alternative to bombing?’ question, with the example of Northern Ireland, and how brilliant it was that Britain “did not react by sending fighter jets to Belfast”. Their praise for British strategy, the use of MI5, MI6, the SAS and other regiments will not impress those who have lived in Northern Ireland during the last 30 years and witnessed the extensive militarisation of society. Paul Foot as well, “can suggest to Bush, Blair and the rest of them a whole series of policies” (Socialist Review November 2001). There’s this alternative for British imperialism to consider, for example: “Should not the entire diplomatic and political efforts of our government be directed instead to solving the crisis in the Middle East?” (Mirror 18/10/1)

Against all the lies which make out that somehow US militarism is an exception to the pattern of imperialist strategies, that capitalism can exist without war, that wars can take place without casualties, communists defend one essential truth. Only the international revolution of the working class is capable of destroying the economic system that gives rise to wars, and creating a society based on relations of solidarity, a human community. Bev 1/11/1

Imperialist war always puts revolutionaries to the test. Against the propaganda of the ruling class, which aims to win over the working class, or at least to silence it, the first duty of a revolutionary organisation is to denounce the war: to say as loudly and as clearly as it can that imperialist war is never in the interests of the working class.

Revolutionaries oppose the war

All of the groups of the proletarian political milieu in Britain have taken a class stand against the war in Afghanistan.

The proletarian political milieu is composed of those organisations that are part of the communist left, that is of those groups who trace their origins to the minorities that opposed the degeneration of the revolution in Russia, defended class positions against the rise of Stalinism and fascism and denounced the Second World War as being every bit as imperialist as the first. In Britain there are three organisations of the proletarian milieu: the Communist Workers Organisation1 (CWO), which is part of the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (IBRP); the International Communist Party that publishes Communist Left2; and the International Communist Current, whose section in Britain is World Revolution. Following the barbaric acts of September 11, all of these organisations published leaflets and/or statements on the web denouncing the attacks and opposing the imperialist war that was immediately promised. They have all called on the working class to oppose the massacres of their fellow workers and other oppressed strata, and to join the class war against capitalism.

Immediately after the attack on the World Trade Centre, the ICC issued a statement for the web which was also distributed as a leaflet at meetings, paper sales and elsewhere (‘Bush, Blair and Bin Laden are all terrorist gangsters’). Once the USA launched its first air strikes on Afghanistan, we put out an international leaflet (‘Only one answer to imperialist war � the international class struggle’) which was distributed in more countries and in bigger numbers � at demonstrations and workplaces as well as smaller meetings and street sales. Both texts are available from our address.

The IBRP’s initial statement was entitled ‘USA Coalition Declares War on the World’. It is direct and unequivocal in its denunciation of the war and in its recognition that capitalism is the real cause:

“The devastating suicide attacks on key symbols of US capitalism’s financial and military might may have shaken the complacency of the most powerful state in the world but in no sense is it a victory for the exploited working class. Not only are ordinary wage workers amongst the thousands killed, but the assaults are being used to legitimise heightened state repression. The ‘war against terrorism’ will be used within the metropolitan countries as a weapon against internal oppositions and particularly against the working class, and any emerging proletarian political organisations. In that sense, organised state terror has already preceded September 11th’s events, with its police attacks on anti-globalisation protesters. However, the events of September 11th have increased the prospect of humanity being thrown back into barbarism.

This is not a rhetorical flourish or a question of mysterious ‘forces of evil’ leading the planet to Armageddon. On the contrary, it is the concrete calculated policies stemming from the rivalry between the very material interests of the capitalist powers which makes the 21st century just as dangerous and warlike as the last”.

There is nothing here of the hypocrisy of the ‘left’ and the ‘peace’ movement who say ‘yes, the attacks were terrible, but�the US had it coming to it’ and so excuse the slaughter of innocent people in America. The attacks and the US response are acts of barbarism; their cause is not simply US imperialism � as if no other country were imperialist - but capitalism itself. To say that the US is to blame is to let capitalism off the hook. Those who say such things become accomplices of imperialist war.

At the ‘peace’ demonstration of October 13, where the ICC distributed its international leaflet, the CWO comrades gave out their broadsheet Aurora which also made a clear distinction between class struggle against war and “the saccharine sweet sirens of pacifism�”, which calls for “prayer, candlelit vigils, e-mailing George Bush or Tony Blair or writing to the local MP”. Against these false solutions Aurora calls for the defence of workers’ living standards by struggling outside and against the unions, for the paralysis of capitalism’s economic and military apparatus, for reviving the perspective of the revolutionary overthrow of world capitalism. Or, again, from the IBRP statement: “Only the international working class, once aware of its own interests, is capable of changing the world. We have no interest in supporting either side in this ‘new war’ � if the ruling class has its way our only role will be as victims and cannon-fodder. All the bourgeois factions whether US-led, national liberationist or Islamist are equally against the working class. Only by paralysing these forces and politically defeating all the irrational ruling class ideologies will we be able to create a world without war, exploitation and terror. Socialism or Barbarism. There is no third road.” .

The ICP are equally clear in their denunciation of the way the ruling class has cynically used the attacks to try and get the working class to support war:

“Following the terrifying massacres in the United States, the regime’s spokesmen, both Right and Left, are loudly proclaiming that the war which is about to happen, or rather which has already begun, is between the North and South, between us � the rich, and them � the poor. A war to protect our civilisation, capital’s civilisation. [�]

“Whoever hijacked the Boeings it was certainly the right moment in terms of propping up capitalism, just as the choice of targets � a military building and buildings full of workers � will make it easier to weld together the opposed classes of American society. Bearded priests are playing their part in tricking the disinherited masses of the poor countries by channelling their class rebellion into nationalism and religious fanaticism.

“But the working class in the North of the World has nothing to gain from supporting this war either. Rather than safeguarding its miserable, non-existent privileges as citizens of the rich West, all it can really expect from the war is death and increasing poverty; as they should already know from the experience of two terrible world wars and two no less terrible post-war periods” (‘The capitalist regime uses Terrorism and Anti-terrorism to force the proletariat into the Imperialist War’).

Like the IBRP, the ICP is clear that war is an inevitable consequence of capitalism and that the only way to oppose imperialist war is to wage the class war: “Workers have to oppose this war, but neither cursing it nor relying on the pressure of public opinion is enough; what is needed is to oppose bourgeois power with the power of a mobilised working class”.

*************************************

In a second article we will look at the analyses the proletarian organisations make of the motives behind this war and the perspectives it opens up. Here we will find, alongside points of convergence, a number of disagreements. But these differences, significant though they are, do not diminish the importance of the fundamental class positions examined above. These positions are the product of many decades of political struggle and they are essentially what marks revolutionaries off from the world of bourgeois politics. They form the basis of proletarian solidarity against the derision, lies and outright repression which the bourgeoisie has above all aimed at communists in times of war. It is from this starting point alone that we can embark upon a fraternal debate about the areas that separate us. North

1 PO Box 338, Sheffield, S3 9YX. https://www.ibrp.org [4].

2 PO Box 52, Liverpool, L69 7AL.