Believing what the "IFICC" says in connection with the "Stalinist methods of the ICC" (and having apparently forgotten the sentence of Lenin: "Whoever believes the word of another is an incorrigible idiot"), the PCI continues on this topic: "It is inevitable that the climate which is created in the ICC is reflected on the outside. Thus, one of our comrades who had had the misfortune to criticise such methods in a public meeting of this organisation (while reaffirming that he did not in any way defend the Fraction), saw himself consequently informed of the 'rupture of any political relations' with himself. The significance of this curious declaration appeared a few days later, when he was insulted and jostled during a sale by an ICC militant. We do not want to attach a disproportionate importance to this incident, which is perhaps due to the excitement of local militants. But it must be clear that we do not intend to let the limits of our criticism be dictated to by anyone, and by any measures of intimidation, including physical. 'Learn from what we say, it shall not be repeated!'"(note 1) [1].

Just as the PCI should have obtained better information before blowing the same trumpets as the "Fraction", it would have done better not to believe the word of its Toulouse militant, W, in connection with the incidents which occurred between him and our militants. One thing first of all: we have always and in all places expressed a fraternal attitude towards the militants of the PCI. And this for the good reason that we consider that this organisation, in spite of its Programmatic errors, belongs to the camp of the working class. The reciprocal case was not always true. Thus, in 1979, when the militants of the PCI were involved in supporting the movement of the residents of immigrants' homes, SONACOTRA, and were acting as stewards at street gatherings and demonstrations alongside Maoist militants of the UCFML, they used physical threats to prevent militants of the ICC from speaking and distributing our press. It is true that, at that time, the PCI was dominated, in particular in France, by a leftist and third-worldist current which was going to split a few years later by taking with it the cash box and other material means. The current militants of the PCI criticised this third-worldist tendency, but to our knowledge they never condemned the behaviour of the members of the PCI of the time who had prevented the expression of internationalist positions within a working class struggle, to the great satisfaction of the UCFML Stalinists.

Concerning W, a member of the PCI in Toulouse whom we have known for a long time, we expressed the same fraternal attitude towards him as to other members of the PCI when he returned to this city after several years of absence. We proposed that he should exhibit the press of the PCI in our public meetings and always invited him to speak at them. In the same way, we encouraged the members of a discussion circle in which we participate to also invite the PCI, i.e. W, so that he could present its positions to it. For a whole period, moreover, his own attitude with regard to our militants was also cordial and he was always determined to engage in long discussions with them.

Since the beginning of this year W's attitude has changed completely:

• At the 12 January 2002 meeting of the discussion circle, he accused our two militants present of being anti-Semites (note 2) [2].
• A few days after, when one of our militants had sought explanations from him during a press sale at a market, he reiterated the same charges, more particularly towards one of our comrades, putting forward during this discussion only the "argument" that he "knew what he was talking about since he has known him for a long time" (indeed they went to college together); he equally accused the militants of PCI-Programma Comunista of being not very commendable people.
• At the meeting on 16 February, the members of the discussion circle again asked him for explanations of his charges and he then left the meeting, after having again uttered insults affirming that we were "all in the same bag".
• Just before our public meeting of 1 June which was to proceed in the back room of a cafe, he started by making a scandal in the main room by claiming that we owed him some money - and in front of the customers and with the risk of us being prohibited from meeting by the owner of the cafe.
• During the public meeting itself he read a statement which he proposed to also circulate within the other groups of the communist left as well as within the Trotskyist group Lutte Ouvri�re (!), in which he accused the ICC of "Stalinism" for having excluded "as usual" the "experienced comrades". He referred to the "IFICC" as well as the booklet What Is Not To be Done- a collection of calumnies against our organisation published at the end of the nineties by the "Circle de Paris", a parasitic regrouping of former militants of the ICC, none of whom was excluded but whose organisational anarchism had made their presence in a centralised communist organisation "unbearable" to them.
• At the end of this meeting, he launched a new slander, claiming one of our sympathisers "had stolen a booklet of the PCI". (!)
• >On 9 June a delegation of our organisation went to find him to say that, taking into account the attitude which he had adopted in the cafe back room, endangering the meeting place, (note 3) [3] and the insults which he would not cease using against our militants, we no longer want to have relations with him.
• On 7 July when our comrades took out publications in order to begin a sale at a market, he came to insult them, regaling them as "Stalinist" and as "fascists"; one of our comrades asked him to keep silent but he simply voiced his insults more and more extremely, obviously provoking a crowd; our comrade then asked him to leave, in a very firm tone but without "jostling him" as the le Prol�taire article claims.
• At our public meeting of 14 September, a sympathiser of the PCI asked us whether he could exhibit the press of this organisation in the conference room; we answered that not only could he do so but that we encourage it; this is truly proof that our attitude of firmness towards W results only from his unacceptable behaviour and by no means out of hostility towards the PCI as such.
• On 13 October, at the market where he sold the PCI's press, W insulted two of our sympathisers by assailing them as "bitches" at the moment when they passed in front of him. In spite of the policy of openness that we apply towards the other groups of the communist left, it can happen that one or other of our militants loses their calm and makes provocative remarks.(note 4) [4]. However, in this precise case, there were neither provocative remarks, nor "excitement" from our militants and if anybody made provocative remarks, and indeed on more than one occasion, it is certainly this PCI militant. We do not know what explains his attitude during the last year: is it the result of the tonality of the discussions within the PCI or rather of a certain "excitement" (according to the terms of le Prol�taire) specific to W?(note 5) [5].

In the same way, we regard as probable that W gave a version of the facts to his organisation different from that which we have just revealed. It is thus the word of our militants (and our sympathisers) against that of the militant of the PCI. However, we are sure of what we put forward and we can prove it because most of W's intrigues which we reported took place in the presence of several people external to the ICC, who will be able to testify. We think that there should be a confrontation in front of the other militants of the PCI, between their militant W and our comrades as well as the people external to the ICC who witnessed incidents that we have described. We are prepared, if necessary, to call for the constitution of a special commission of militants of the communist left charged to shed light on these facts. We are particularly determined that the truth is clarified on this question because our organisation is today the target of a campaign of unprecedented slander by the small group of former militants who constitute the "IFICC", animated by an element whose behaviour is disturbing and dangerous for the groups of the communist left. And most lamentable, in this business, it is that a group such as the PCI is contributing its share to this campaign, in spite of its stated wish "not to take sides", in particular by describing incidents of which it clearly it has an erroneous knowledge. The use of the PCI's article by the "Fraction"

We did not have to wait long for the effects of the PCI's article; immediately after its publication, it was reprinted on the Internet site of the IFICC, accompanied by a statement where we can read: "First of all, we condemn the current attitude of the ICC and make a point of dissociating ourselves completely from its present methods. We solidarise ourselves with the PCI militant who is the victim of this aggression. Independently of the political support that we bring to the PCI comrades, we feel a painful shock vis-�-vis this new episode: it says much indeed, on the state of disarray and disorientation of the members of the ICC; it is significant of the profundity of the sectarian drift which has seized hold of the ICC so quickly � One would be wrong to trivialise this incident or to analyse it as the unhappy provocative remarks of a militant. Indeed, it is only the latest illustration of an opportunist and sectarian dynamic, which openly developed initially within the ICC the day after its 14th congress (May 2001), and after the open explosion of its organisational crisis, then publicly with respect to the members of the ICC who were opposed to this new policy, and today with respect to the whole political milieu which is seen as a class enemies � we welcome this article which denounces the bureaucratic measures and intimidation which were established inside the ICC. These were never the attitude and the practices of Marx, nor of Lenin, nor of any proletarian organisation."

We will not make additional comments on the prose of the IFICC, which is quite in line with its preceding writings. We would like simply to point out the immense hypocrisy of the sentence "we feel a painful shock vis-�-vis this new episode". Actually, the attitude of members of the "IFICC" that we encountered a few days after the publication of the le Prol�taire article speaks for itself: it was not "pain" which one could read on their face, but open jubilation.

If the PCI militants sincerely did not wish "to take sides", it must be said that they singularly failed to achieve their aim.

In our official statement on the exclusion of Jonas, we wrote, as we already stated above: "what we are sure of is that he (Jonas) represents a danger to the proletarian political milieu". This assertion has been fully confirmed by the political manoeuvres that Jonas and his "Fraction" have carried out towards the groups of the communist left. After having refused to defend himself by appealing in front of a jury of honour, Jonas used his "Fraction" to try "to implicate" the IBRP and to push it to take part in the campaign of slanders against the ICC. As we wrote it in WR 255 [6], "publishing the discussion between the IBRP and the 'Fraction' can only have the aim of discrediting the IBRP in the proletarian political milieu. And this is indeed Mr Jonas' aim: to lure the IBRP into a trap and to discredit it while spreading all kinds of suspicion between the groups of the communist left."

Today, it is the turn of the PCI to let itself be enrolled in Mr Jonas' "fraction" war against the ICC. By involving the groups of the communist left in its campaigns against the ICC, Jonas, with the support of his faithful, does nothing but continue the wretched policy outside - a perfectly conscious, deliberate and planned policy - that he carried out inside the ICC when he tried to sow suspicion among militants, to line them up against each other. (note 6) [7] Why does the PCI play the "Fraction's" game?

The questions remains: why the did PCI show such kindness towards the "Fraction"? Why was it in a rush to publish a time-consuming article taking the side of the "fraction" and carrying serious charges against the ICC, without asking us for more details as we proposed to them in our letter of 6 February 2002, which finished as follows: "We are obviously at your disposal to give you more elements on this business if you wish it." Why did it believe the word of its Toulouse militant and report his statements publicly, without even asking us for explanations?

We understand that the "IFICC", as soon as it noted the le Prol�taire article, and without knowing any of what had gone on, rushed like a flock of vultures to "solidarise ourselves with the PCI militant who is the victim of this aggression" and to conclude that this incident was "the latest illustration of an opportunist and sectarian dynamic which openly developed initially within the ICC � and today with respect to the whole political milieu, seen as class enemies". For Jonas and his acolytes, anything that throws mud on the ICC is good. But what happened to the PCI?

Has this organisation been influenced by the seduction campaigns that the "IFICC" launched in the direction of the groups of the communist left in order to "put them in its pocket" against the ICC? Several militants of the PCI can certainly bear witness to the existence of such a campaign, following the readers' meeting held by this organisation on 28 September in Paris. In this meeting devoted to the Palestinian question, a militant of the PCI started by presenting the traditional position of his organisation (which one can find in a long article of le Prol�taire No. 463, "Aux prol�taires Isra�liens, Aux prol�taires Palestiniens, Aux prol�taires d'Europe et d'Am�rique" [To the Israeli proletarians, the Palestinian proletarians, the proletarians of Europe and America"]). The ICC militants present had, in their turn, presented their own position, criticising that of the PCI. And it was precisely during an intervention of one of our comrades, that Sarah, representing the "IFICC", interrupted twice, saying in substance to him "but it's not what the PCI says", to which our comrade answered, twice, that the PCI was big enough to correct itself if it were necessary. On the other hand, it did not at any time say one word to defend the ICC's position on the national and colonial question (which the "IFICC" still claims to defend). It was only at the end of the meeting, and after doffing her cap to the PCI's presentation on the Palestinian question (even if she did pay lip service to the idea that she had some disagreements with it), that Sarah made an intervention, but on a subject that was not directly on the agenda: the situation in Argentina. And this intervention was devoted to vehemently denouncing "the indifference" of the ICC in connection with the movements which had occurred in this country at the end of 2001. It should besides be noted that she did not say a word of criticism on the article published in le Prol�taire No. 460 ("Les cacerolazos ont pu renverser les pr�sidents, Pour combattre le capitalisme, il faut la Lutte Ouvri�re"/"The cacerolazos could overthrow presidents. To fight capitalism, workers' struggle is necessary") - an article which presents an analysis very close to ours (see "Argentine, Une manifestation de la faillite du capitalisme", in R�volution Internationale No. 319). The reference to "the indifference" of the ICC was obviously a bait, since this exactly how the PCI often qualifies our position on the national question. Truly, Sarah's seduction manoeuvres were so crude and demagogic that we can hardly believe that they could have an impact on PCI militants. A serious communist militant is not like a crow in his tree and when someone tries to flatter him - like Reynard the fox in the fable - as did the IFICC's representative, his normal reaction would surely be scepticism and prudence, not to release his cheese to the first parasite that comes along!

For this reason, there surely exist other causes of the benevolence expressed by the PCI towards the "IFICC". One of these causes is perhaps that the militants of the PCI, traumatised by the internal functioning which has existed in the past in the Bordigist organisations where "monolithism" was the official rule, are now tending spontaneously to take the side of those who are presented as "oppressed by the Stalinist methods of the ICC", without seeking to know any more. In fact, their reaction would be a little on the same model as that of the councilists who, because the Communist Parties became the enemies of the proletariat, deduce from this that every party is doomed to betray and that it is thus necessary to reject in principle every proposal to constitute a revolutionary party. But there is probably another reason, more fundamental, for the method of the PCI. This is that, like all the other PCIs (Programma and il Partito) it considers that it is The Party, all the other groups of the current of the communist left being only usurpers. The Bordigist conception, contrary to that of the ICC and the Italian Left of the period of Bilan, considers that only one revolutionary organisation can exist in the world. The logical consequence of this vision is to place the ICC and the "Fraction", which officially defend the same position, on the same level. And this is what the PCI claims to be doing in its article. But if it actually takes the sides of the "Fraction", as we saw, it is because the conception of "the PCI alone in the world" leads to the vision that the only relationship able to exist between two organisations claiming to be of the communist left are relations of competition. This leads to the idea that anything that can discredit the other organisations is positive, since this "makes room" for its own organisation. If the "IFICC" can create problems for the ICC, considered by the PCI as a competitor, and discredit it, it is all to the good. Such is probably the logic, even if it is not completely conscious of it, which explains the spontaneous access of sympathy towards the "IFICC" by PCI militants.

In 1978, when the PCI had been invited to take part in the second conference of the groups of the communist left, it announced its refusal with an article published in Programma Comunista (note 7) [8] under the elegant title of "The fight between fottenti and fottuti" (literally, between "fuckers and fucked"). For the PCI, this conference did not have any another significance than to allow each group to try "to kiss" the others. That's the vision which this organisation had of the relationship between groups of the communist left.

The PCI of today does not use this same language and it has criticised some of its past errors. However, we think that there still remains an effort for it to make, to free itself completely from the logic of "fottenti" and "fottuti" knowing that, until now, it has never made the least criticism of the conception expressed by the not very glorious article of Programma Comunista. In any case, even if the PCI did not intend to be the "fottento" of the ICC, it is certainly going the right way about becoming the "fottuto" of Jonas and his "fraction"!

ICC (21 October 2002).

Notes

1. This is an updated version of a French expression of archaic origin, clearly indicating a threat. [Translator's note]. Back [9]

2. It is necessary to measure the gravity of such a charge against communist militants, especially after the campaigns orchestrated by the bourgeoisie assimilating the communist left, which refused to go into anti-fascism during the second world war, to the "revisionist" schools who call into question the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and feed the propaganda of the extreme right. A few years ago, when the PCI had undergone an attack on this question (owing to the fact that it had published the excellent booklet Auschwitz or the Grand Alibi), we obviously gave it our full solidarity. Back [10]

3. In Toulouse, since the explosion of the AZF last year, it is extremely difficult to find conference rooms.Back [11]

4. Thus, at the time of the Lutte Ouvri�re f�te of Spring 2000, one of our militants, Juan, today an eminent member of the "Fraction", was shown to be very aggressive (and, moreover, publicly in the eyes of the militants of LO who attended the "spectacle"), towards an old comrade who wanted to leave our organisation with the prospect of integrating into the IBRP. We had asked him to calm down and thereafter we criticised his inadmissible behaviour. At the same time, we apologised to the comrade who had been insulted and who assumed that Juan's aggressive behaviour reflected a certain "sectarianism" on our part towards the IBRP. It is also the same Juan who threw himself furiously onto one of our comrades and kicked him when a delegation of the ICC presented itself at the home of a member of the "Fraction", to make an inventory of the documents belonging to the ICC which were stored at his place. This physical aggression towards our militant followed upon a provocation by Jonas. Indeed, although he had no need to take part in this inventory, Jonas was present (to our great surprise!) and openly took notes of the discussion between our comrades and the members of the IFICC. It was after one of our comrades had taken the bit of paper on which he had written from the hands of Jonas (without even touching him) that Juan threw himself violently on our militant. Back [12]

5. In support of this assumption, there is in particular his obsession, without trace of proof, about the alleged "the anti-Semitism" of some of our militants and the crude insults which he addresses to our militants and sympathisers. Back [13]

6. Moreover, as if by chance, it was after the publication of this article of le Prol�taire, that Jonas finally left the shadows, as witness the fact that he that he found the audacity to sign a "contribution" (on the elections in Germany) published on the Internet site of the IFICC (whereas during the three decades that he was in the ICC, he never made the least written contribution to debates). Convinced that he now has "allies" among the groups of the communist left, the �minence grise of the IFICC can from now on give himself respectability by making his first "public" appearance through this article (even if he remains comfortably installed in his slippers and prefers to send his friends of the IFICC to public meetings of the PCI). For our part, we still demand that Jonas call upon a jury of honour. As long as such a jury has not ruled on his case, we consider that this individual does not have any speaking rights in the proletarian political milieu. Back [14]

7. Which was its newspaper in Italy before the split between Il Comunista and Programma. Back [15]

George Bush Senior promised a New World Order. At the start of the 1990s, with the Berlin Wall down, there were no longer two great military blocs facing each other, and we were told that the threat of war had faded. That was a lie. The reality has been a proliferation of military conflicts across the face of the planet.

We have seen the massive destruction in the Gulf War of 1991, and the subsequent bombings of Iraq by the US and Britain that have continued ever since. In Europe the great powers came into conflict in the wars in ex-Yugoslavia. Across the Caucasus big and small powers committed their atrocities, still continuing to this day in Chechnya. In Afghanistan, the terror bombing started by the US at the end of 2001 was just the latest stage of a series of armed conflicts underway since the 1970s. There has been no interruption in the exchange of fatal blows in Israel/Palestine. Throughout Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Sudan to cite only the ten most familiar areas) devastating wars between various factions and states have worsened the desperate situation in debt-ridden countries already scarred by poverty, famine, disease. Between India and Pakistan there is a stand-off between nuclear powers. The New World Order has turned out to be one of growing military confrontations. Justifications for war

With the increasing threat of war on Iraq all sorts of false ideas are being put forward again on what is responsible for the growth of military barbarism. For Bush and Blair there are wars which are justified and necessary. The ruling class in the US, with its 'war against terrorism', says it is mounting a defence of freedom against 'rogue states'. In Britain, the government says it will not shrink from the use of nuclear weapons against countries that don't respect international conventions and illegally manufacture 'weapons of mass destruction.'

On the other hand, there are countries such as France and Germany, which support humanitarian wars or wars for the liberation of oppressed peoples, but not, of course, for oil or for sordid financial profits. Such countries are major imperialist rivals of the US, and it should be expected that they would want to hold Bush and Co responsible for the plunge into war - and to be critical of wars that serve the interests of US imperialism against the major European powers.

In reality wars are neither 'decent' nor 'dirty'. Every country and every war is imperialist, regardless of the hypocritical justifications that the ruling capitalist class can dig up for their military adventures (or to condemn their rivals). Against Iraq, for example, there is an insistence that war will be justified because of Saddam's possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Yet those who condemn Iraq are countries such as Britain and the US, which not only maintain the biggest arsenals of such weaponry, but also spent years helping Iraq acquire the same technology during its 1980s war with Iran. The lies of pacifism

The fact that capitalist states are more and more compelled to use force of arms to defend their interests, as has been so clearly shown over the last ten years or so, is an illustration of a fundamental aspect of the decadence of the capitalist system. As the world economic crisis gets an ever tighter grip, each national capital is driven into more and more irrational military adventures. It's not 'evil' in the hearts of the ruling class that drives them to take up arms in conflict with their rivals; it is the very nature of capitalism. It is not because of a crisis in particular industries, or the appetites of investors in certain sectors. Imperialist wars are bred by the historic crisis of a system that has nothing else left to offer humanity.

Many people are deeply concerned about the drive to war, but the 'anti-war' propaganda they come up against conceals the nature of a society in which war has become endemic. This has always been the way with pacifism, trying as it does to convince us that there can be peace within capitalism, that imperialist war can be avoided or, at least, kept within civilised boundaries.

Typical of the mystifications put forward by pacifism is that it's the US which is the main problem, the most dangerous force on the international scene. It is definitely the greatest military power by far, but that shouldn't for one moment be used to detract from the threat posed by any and every other country and capitalist faction in the world today. Anti-Americanism always has a basis in the nationalism of other powers. The leading rivals of the US are the first to point to the chaos it leaves in its wake, while pursuing their own imperialist interests with every political, diplomatic and military means at their disposal. At a lesser level, there have been a heap of very minor powers fighting over the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but that hasn't lessened the suffering of people there. It is the decadence of capitalism that lies behind imperialist conflicts, not the difference in military capacity between different powers.

A further weapon in the pacifist armoury is the myth of the United Nations. If only the UN could exert its authority, we are told, then wars could be avoided, or at least kept under control. Surely no one needs to be reminded of the many occasions when countries just take unilateral action regardless of the view of the other countries of the UN. But, more importantly, the UN has never been anything more than an arena in which the major imperialist powers continue their conflicts. If the UN ever takes action it's going to be in the interests of one of the big powers. Importance of the working class struggle

What all the pacifist illusions have in common is the idea that somehow the good will of decent people can triumph over increasingly pervasive militarism. The drive to war is inherent in the capitalist system, not just the product of grasping leaders or immoral regimes, and so it can only be stopped by the overthrow of that system. This is the task of the working class, which is the only force in society capable of really opposing the drive to imperialist war.

Even when the working class is not involved in widespread struggles the ruling class cannot afford to forget its potential. This was clearly shown by the international wave of workers' struggles - strikes, demonstrations, mutinies and insurrections, and the revolutions in Russia and Germany - that brought an end to the First World War and put the whole capitalist social order in question. The working class remains the only international class with no national interests to defend. To understand this means resisting all the propaganda of the ruling class. Only the struggles of the working class have the potential to develop into a force that can destroy capitalism!

Against the open militarism that calls for workers to sacrifice themselves in imperialist wars!

Against the pacifist illusions that undermine the capacity of the working class to understand the true nature of capitalism!

Against the humanitarian lies that are used as so many justifications for war ('the war to end war', 'against terror', 'against militarism', 'against weapons of mass destruction')!

Workers have no country!

WR 1.2.03

We offered this text as a contribution to the discussions at an Anti-War Day School organised by Disobedience in January, in which we participated. It is an appeal for a discussion based on the historical experience of the working class, in particular its revolutionary minorities. The issues raised were similar to those at the Zero War conference held in Australia in December.

With dozens of wars taking place across the world and the growing mobilisation by the US and the UK for an attack on Iraq, there is a greater need than ever to be clear about what "revolutionary opposition to war" actually means. In Disobedience's proposal for an Anti-War Day School there is the suggestion that "theory should inform our practice". There is only one way that practice can be informed by theory: by drawing on the lessons of proletarian history. Against pacifism and protest stunts

Revolutionaries have always opposed pacifist ideology. Against sentimental appeals for universal harmony, they insisted on an internationalism that was based on the common struggle of the working class against the ruling class and all its governments.

At the beginning of the 20th century, against attempts to smuggle pacifist conceptions into resolutions of the Second International, revolutionaries such as Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin insisted that the workers' struggle was not just against the outbreak of war but should "profit in any way possible from the economic and political crisis to rouse the people and in this way hasten the collapse of capitalist domination". War was not only to be denounced, but also to be seen as a factor that could provoke proletarian revolution.

Today, there is no mass, permanently organised workers' movement. Instead, revolutionaries are confronted with a 'Labour Movement' which is really the left wing of capitalism. In the face of war, the capitalist left is given the job of organising pacifist fronts like the Stop the War Coalition (STWC). The STWC's main function is to prevent the development of a revolutionary opposition to war:

• by spreading illusions in a "peaceful" and "legal" capitalism
• by selling "alternative" ways of supporting war (war is OK if the UN backs it, war is OK if it's an anti-US war by "oppressed nations", etc).
• by providing a falsely "practical" method of opposing war which can mobilise hundreds of thousands and make any class opposition look puny and insignificant.

The problem with many who are critical of the STWC is that too often they still buy the argument that "at least it's doing something" and end up either tailing along in its demonstrations, or trying to devise radical-looking "protest" stunts which substitute themselves for the real development of the proletarian movement.

However unfashionable it may sound, the fact remains that the bourgeoisie's drive towards war can only be blocked and ultimately stopped by the massive struggles of the working class. Working class resistance and the overthrow of capitalism

The experience of the First World War, which was brought to an end by a wave of revolutionary working class struggles, is still profoundly relevant today. The working class went from being divided and mobilised in the massive slaughter between nations to fighting against the governments that had mobilised it. Capitalism everywhere was under threat. In 1919 Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, was moved to write that "The whole existing order in its political social and economic aspects is questioned by the masses of Europe from one end of Europe to the other."

Today the situation is different. The working class in Europe is not enlisted in capitalism's armies, but also there are no widespread workers' struggles. However, it is only on the basis of defensive struggles, resistance against the attacks of the ruling class today, that we can see the possibilities of a struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie tomorrow. The essential role of revolutionary organisations

While it is necessary to reject forms of activity that link up with leftist campaigns such as the STWC and stunts that are just a more "radical" form of pacifism, it is also possible to show the very positive role that revolutionaries can play, even if they are a tiny minority.

In the First World War, for example, the Spartakusbund in Germany insisted that only a world proletarian revolution could put an end to world war, and in Russia the Bolsheviks called for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war. Along with the propaganda and agitation in the working class there were also attempts to bring together the very small numbers defending a revolutionary position.

The conferences of Zimmerwald (1915) and Kienthal (1916) involved very few people and only a small Left minority which defended the positions which would eventually form the bases for the foundation of the Communist International. For the most far-sighted elements what was necessary was the defence of internationalist, class positions against the imperialist war. Above all, revolutionaries tried to ensure that their voice could be distinguished from others, in particular those social democratic, anarchist and trade unionist organisations who now served the war effort. Today, while the situation is different there is a similar need for revolutionaries to ensure that they have a distinct presence.

Revolutionaries, for example, have no part to play on pacifist demonstrations, which have more and more shown themselves to be not anti-war but pro-war rallies. But they do have a responsibility to ensure that a position for class war and against imperialist war is made as loudly as their limited forces allow at such gatherings. Where leftism and pacifism are mobilising for the ruling class, revolutionaries have to put forward the need for workers to defend their own class interests, to discuss among themselves, reflect on what's at stake in their struggles and prepare for the massive movements that will be necessary if capitalism is to be overthrown. Necessity for proletarian debate

The revolutionary opposition to the First World War was led not by loose associations of individuals but by revolutionary political organisations that were formed around a clear communist platform. The same is true for the much smaller minorities who continued to defend internationalism during the second imperialist slaughter. Today it remains the case that revolutionary clarity - on war or on any other issue - requires a revolutionary organisation to defend and develop it. At the same time, in Britain, as elsewhere we are seeing the emergence of a large number of groups and circles which have been seeking to discuss the question of war from a working class position. Such groupings can make an important contribution to the development of revolutionary consciousness but they are also subject to all kinds of dangers:

• discussing without perspective and without reference to the historical experience of the working class
• falling into activism and offering themselves as an easy option to the difficult task of building a communist organisation.

For any group that wants to discuss the question of war (or, for that matter, anything else that affects the working class) certain points should be taken as fundamental:

• groups should be open to all those interested in the fight against war on a working class basis;
• there should be no exclusions on the basis of secondary political differences, personal antagonisms, or the reluctance to engage in debate with existing revolutionary political organisations.

Discussion is the life-blood of the working class, and anything that is an obstacle to its development should be condemned. The ruling class is organising for war; the least that revolutionaries can do is organise discussions that can play a part in the development of workers' struggles.

WR, January 2003.

As the US and Britain send massive military forces to the Gulf, police in London have arrested people alleged to have handled the chemical weapon ricin. This is part of the British state’s participation in the ‘war against terrorism’. They whip up fear and anxiety over the existence of previously little known substances, and present the capitalist state as a protector against ‘alien forces’ that have insinuated themselves into British society. Against the scare stories of the media, the following article sets out the marxist framework for understanding what terrorism really is.

Since the end of the 1980s, terrorism has regularly been at the forefront of the international situation; and for the bourgeoisie of the big powers it has become “Public Enemy No.1”. In the name of the fight against the barbarity of terrorism, the two main powers which were at the head of the Western and Eastern blocs, the United States and Russia, have unleashed war in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Terrorism is not a method of the working class

Generally speaking, classical terrorism could be defined as the violent action of small minorities in revolt against the overwhelming domination of the existing social order and its state. It is not a new phenomenon in history. Thus, at the end of the 19th century, the Russian Populists made terrorism their main instrument in the combat against Tsarism. A little later, in countries like France and Spain for example, it was taken up by certain sectors of anarchism. Throughout the 20th century, terrorism continued to develop and frequently accompanied movements for national independence, as we saw with the IRA, the ETA of the Basque country, the FLN during the war in Algeria, the Palestinian PLO, etc. It was even used following the Second World War by certain sectors of the Zionist movement who were seeking to set up the state of Israel (Menachem Begin, one of the most celebrated Prime Ministers of Israel - and a signatory to the Camp David accords of 1979 - had, in his youth, been one of the founders of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group which shot to fame through its attacks against the British).

Thus terrorism has not only been able to present itself (above all at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries) as a means for the struggle of the oppressed against the domination of the state; it has also been (principally in the 20th century) a favourite instrument of nationalist movements aiming to set up new states. It is clear that there is nothing in common between these latter forms of terrorism and the struggle of the proletariat, since the proletariat, whose very essence is internationalist, has no reason to participate in the creation of the bourgeois entities that are national states.

This said, is it still possible to resort to acts of terrorism in order to carry out the struggle against the bourgeois state? The question is worth posing since, as well as certain anarchist movements which say they are fighting for the emancipation of the working class, some groups laying claim to the communist revolution have taken up terrorism, claiming that it can be an arm of combat of the working class; and as a result they have sometimes drawn groups of sincere workers behind them. This was notably the case during the 1970’s with the Red Brigades in Italy.

In reality this terrain of violent struggle by armed minorities is not that of the working class. It is the terrain of the desperate petty-bourgeoisie, that’s to say a class without a historic future which can never raise itself to mass actions. Such actions are the emanation of individual will and not of the generalised action of a revolutionary class. In this sense, terrorism can only remain on an individualist level. “Its action is not directed against capitalist society and its institutions, but only against individuals [or symbols such as the Twin Towers, a symbol of the economic power of the United States] who represent this society. It inevitably takes on the aspect of a settling of scores, of revenge, of a vendetta, of person against person and not a revolutionary confrontation of class against class. On a general level, terrorism turns its back on the revolution which can only be the work of a definite class, which draws in the broad masses in an open and frontal struggle against the existing order and for the transformation of society” (International Review no.15, “Resolution on Terror, Terrorism and Class Violence”)

Thus, the proletariat can never develop its struggle against capitalism through the conspiratorial and individualist methods of terrorism. As a practice terrorism reflects its content perfectly: when it is not an instrument of certain sectors of the bourgeoisie itself, it is the emanation of layers of the petty bourgeoisie. It is the sterile practice of impotent social layers without a future.

Terrorism: an instrument of manipulation by the bourgeois state

The ruling class has always used terrorism as an instrument of manipulation, as much against the working class as in its own settling of internal accounts.

From the fact that terrorism is an action which is prepared in the shadows of a tight conspiracy, it thus offers “a favourite hunting ground for the underhand activities of agents of the police and the state and for all sorts of manipulations and intrigues” (ibid.). Already last century, the terrorist actions of the anarchists were used by the bourgeoisie to strengthen its state terror against the working class. There is the example of the “Villainy law” voted by the French bourgeoisie following the terrorist attack by the anarchist Auguste Vaillant who, on December 9 1893, threw a bomb into the Chamber of Deputies, wounding forty people. This attack had been manipulated by the state itself. In fact, Vaillant had been contacted by an agent of the Ministry of the Interior who, passing himself off as an anarchist, had lent him money and explained how to make a home-made bomb (with explosives and nails) – one which would be both ear-shattering and not too murderous. [1] [21] Given that the left wing of the bourgeoisie (notably the radicals, spurred on by the Socialist group represented in Parliament by Jaures), inevitably opposed restrictions on the right of association, the most reactionary sectors of the bourgeoisie, acting with an incredible machiavellianism, got around the rules of the democratic parliament in order to get measures adopted against the working class. The attack by Auguste Vaillant thus served as a pretext for the ruling class to immediately vote for exceptional measures against the socialists, repressing the freedom of association and of the press.

Similarly, in the 1970’s, the massive anti-terrorist campaigns orchestrated by the bourgeoisie following the Schleyer affair in Germany and the Aldo Moro affair in Italy served as a pretext for the state to strengthen its apparatus for the control and repression of the working class.

It was subsequently demonstrated that the Baader Gang and the Red Brigades had been infiltrated by, respectively, the secret services of East Germany, the Stasi, and the secret services of the Italian state. These terrorist grouplets were in reality nothing other than the instruments of rivalry between bourgeois cliques.

The kidnapping of Aldo Moro by a raid of military efficiency and his assassination on May 9 1978 (after the Italian government had refused to negotiate his freedom) wasn’t the work of some terrorist fanatics. Behind the action of the Red Brigades, there were political stakes implicating not only the Italian state itself, but also the big powers. In fact, Aldo Moro represented a faction of the Italian bourgeoisie favourable to the entry of the Communist Party into the governmental majority, an option to which the United States was firmly opposed. The Red Brigades shared this opposition to the policy of the “historic compromise” between Christian Democrats and the CP defended by Aldo Moro and thus openly played the game of the American state. Moreover, the fact that the Red Brigades had been directly infiltrated by the Gladio network (a creation of NATO whose mission was to set up networks of resistance should the USSR invade Western Europe) revealed that from the end of the 1970’s, terrorism had begun to become an instrument of manipulation in imperialist conflicts.

Terrorism: an arm of imperialist war

During the 1980’s, the multiplication of terrorist attacks (such as those of 1986 in Paris) executed by fanatical grouplets commanded by Iran, brought forward a new phenomenon in history. No longer, as at the beginning of the 20th century, were terrorist actions limited to those led by minority groups, aiming for the constitution or the national independence of a state. Now it was states themselves which took control and used terrorism as an arm of war against other states.

The fact that terrorism has become an instrument of the state for carrying out war marked a qualitative change in the evolution of imperialism.

In the recent period, we can see that it is major powers, in particular the United States and Russia, which have used terrorism as a means of manipulation in order to justify their military interventions. Thus, the media itself has revealed that the bombings in Moscow of summer 1999 were perpetrated with explosives made by the military and that Putin, the boss of the FSB (ex-KGB) at the time, was probably in command of them. These attacks were a pretext to justify the invasion of Chechnya by Russian troops.

Similarly, as we have fully analysed in our press, the September 11 attack against the Twin Towers in New York, served as a pretext for the American bourgeoisie to launch its bombs on Afghanistan in the name of the fight against terrorism and against “rogue states”.

Even if the American state didn’t directly organise this attack, it is inconceivable to imagine that the secret services of the leading world power were taken by surprise, just like any banana republic. It is more than likely that the American state let it happen, sacrificing its Twin Towers and close to 3000 human lives.

This was the price that American imperialism was ready to pay in order to be able to reaffirm its world leadership by unleashing the “Unlimited Justice” operation in Afghanistan. What’s more, this deliberate policy of the American bourgeoisie is not new. It was already used in December 1941 at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor [2] [22] to justify the USA’s entry into the Second World War; and, more recently, at the time of the invasion of Kuwait by the troops of Saddam Hussein in August 1990 [3] [23] in order to unleash the Gulf War under the aegis of Uncle Sam.

But this policy of “non-interference” no longer consists, as in 1941 or in 1990, of letting the enemy attack first according to the classic laws of war between states.

It is no longer the war between rival states, with its own rules, its flags, its preparations, its troops, its battlefields and armaments, which serve as the pretext for the massive intervention of the big powers.

Now it is blind terrorist attacks, with their fanatic, kamikaze commandos directly striking the civil population, which are then utilised by the big powers in order to justify letting loose imperialist barbarity.

The use and the manipulation of terrorism is not only the work of small states such as Libya, Iran or others in the Middle East. By sweeping away the classic rules of war, it has become the common practice of all nations, big and small; and terrorism as a means of war between states has now become one of the most crying manifestations of a capitalist system rotting on its feet.

Terrorism, an expression of the decomposition of capitalism

Today, terrorism is inseparable from imperialism.  The form that imperialist war is taking now is the result of the world disorder which capitalism entered with the collapse of the eastern bloc and the dislocation of the western bloc. This event, as we have showed, spectacularly marked the entry of capitalism into the ultimate phase of its decadence, that of decomposition. [4] [24]

Since we developed this analysis in the middle of the 1980’s, [5] [25] this phenomenon has only widened and intensified. It is characterised by the development of terrorism on a scale unprecedented in history.

The fact that this “arm of the poor” is now utilised by the big powers in defence of their imperialist interests on the world chessboard is a particularly significant expression of the decomposition of society.

Up to now the ruling class has succeeded in pushing obvious manifestations of the decadence of its system to the peripheries of capitalism. Thus the most brutal manifestations of the economic crisis of capitalism had first of all affected the countries of the periphery. In the same way that this insoluble crisis has now begun to come back home with force, hitting with full strength the very heart of capitalism, the most barbaric forms of imperialist war now make their appearance in the great metropoles such as New York and Moscow.

Moreover, this new expression of imperialist war reveals the suicidal dynamic of a bourgeois society in full putrefaction. In fact, the use of terrorism as an arm of war is accompanied by the acceptance of sacrifices. Thus it is not only the kamikazes who sacrifice lives in the image of a world which is killing itself, but equally the ruling class of the states struck by terrorist attacks, such as the American bourgeoisie. Doesn’t the broadcasting on all the screens of the world of the images of the Twin Towers collapsing like a house of cards convey to us the vision of a world heading towards the apocalypse? By allowing the September 11 attacks to happen, the first world power deliberately decided to sacrifice the Twin Towers, a symbol of its economic supremacy. It deliberately sacrificed close to 3000 American citizens on its own national soil. In this sense, the dead of New York have not only been massacred by the barbarity of Al Qaida; the deed was also done with the cold and cynical complicity of the American state itself.

Beyond the human lives involved, something that the bourgeoisie has never worried about, it is above all on the economic level that we can measure the sacrifice that the American state was ready to make in order to justify its enormous demonstration of force in Afghanistan. For that, Uncle Sam was ready to pay (and above all to make the working class pay) for the reconstruction of the World Trade Centre and for all the economic and social disorganisation caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers.

The use of terrorism as an arm of imperialist war in the present historic period of the decomposition of capitalism, reveals that all states are “renegade states” led by imperialist gangsters. The sole difference which distinguishes the big gang leaders, such as the American Godfather, and the second-rate gangsters who set off the bombs, lies in the means of destruction they have at their disposal.

In New York, Moscow, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, Bali, it is the civil populations that are today terrorised by the murderous madness of capitalism.

This situation constitutes an appeal to the responsibility of the world proletariat. The latter is the sole force in society capable, through its revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, to put an end to war, massacres, and to capitalist terror in all its forms.

Louise, December 2002.

The looming war against Iraq, coming after the wars in ex-Yugoslavia and Afghanistan is causing great concern, particularly in the working class. Young men and women, dragooned into the armed forces by economic conscription, are being sent to the Gulf, while the rest of the working class pays the cost of the war through increased taxes and exploitation. Much of the concern and unease is focused on the aims of the war, particularly the idea that the US is going to war in order to gain control of Iraq's oil supplies. This is an idea encouraged by the Left, particularly in the Daily Mirror, which has consistently linked the war to oil: through TV advertisements, on its front pages etc. Left-wing groups such as the Socialist Workers Party, also say the same thing, in more 'radical' language.

The Daily Mirror (25/1/03) report that Exxon Mobil was to have pole position for control of the Iraq oilfields after the war, and it's report that the British army is to 'take' the oilfields to mask the fact that the US will control them, certainly suggest this. We heard the same arguments during the 1991 Gulf war. That war saw the destruction of the Kuwaiti oil fields, and Iraqi oil production being curtailed by sanctions. This time the US will certainly occupy Iraq and gain control over its oil production, and US oil companies will certainly cream off a nice profit. But this short term profit is overshadowed by the overall cost to US capitalism of the war, its preparation - which includes billions of dollars in 'aid'/bribes to countries in the region to either stay out of the war or support the US - the billions used to reduce Iraq to rubble, and the hundreds of billions that the US spends on armaments each year.

Oil is certainly an important element in this war, but not because of the involvement of US oil companies. Its importance lies in geopolitical strategic significance. Oil is "a strategic material the lack of which is a fatal blow to an economy, or leaves it incapable of waging war" (Why Wars? Jeremy Black, 1996). Whoever controls the world's oil supplies will have a major strategic advantage over its imperialist rivals. US imperialism's occupation of Iraq will not only give it direct control over its oil supplies but will enable it to apply direct military pressure on all the major producers in the region, as well as control the supply of oil to the rest of the world from this region. For example, Japan depends on the Middle East for 95% of its oil, Asia as a whole has a 75% dependency, and Europe though less dependent still gets 25% from there. The US, in contrast, meets 82% of its own energy needs.

This would appear to back up the 'war for oil' arguments, because the US will control oil production, supply and reserves. Iraq has 11% (15 billion tons) of the world oil reserves. This begs the question of why the US didn't capture Iraq in 1991, when it had much more international support than now. In fact oil was only part of the wider strategic game that was being played out in the Gulf. As the ICC said at the time: "By flaunting its military might, the US demonstrates the others' relative weakness. Right from the start, the US sent troops without waiting for its 'allies'' agreement; the latter were forced to rally round under pressure rather than out of conviction. As long as the action against Iraq takes the form of an embargo or diplomatic isolation they can pretend to play minor roles, and so insist on their own minor individual interests. By contrast, a military offensive can only emphasize the enormous superiority of the US, and its allies' impotence" (International Review 64, 1991).

The 1991 war enabled the US to strengthen its military presence in the region under the justification of 'containing' Saddam. This also increased their control over oil supplies, while it imposed a physical barrier to its major rivals. Not only could the US shut off the oil supplies needed for the German, French, British, Russian and Japanese economies (and war machines), but it also exposed their military puniness compared to the US, and severely limited others' access to this vital strategic region (along with its markets).

In the 12 years since, these rivals have not meekly submitted to the Pax Americana but have increasingly opposed the US - in ex-Yugoslavia, Africa, the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world. German, French and Russian imperialisms have all established commercial links with Iraq in defiance of the US. These links include access to Iraqi oil and markets. Faced with this undermining of their global leadership the US has had to resort to increasing use of military power to slap down its rivals: 1999 in Kosovo, 2001/2 in Afghanistan and now the prospect of the occupation of Iraq, followed by who knows where next. Iran?

The Mirror, the SWP and the array of 'intellectuals' such as Gore Vidal and George Monbiot, that put forward the 'war for oil' argument, all hide the depth of the imperialist conflict between the great powers. They all present US policy as being due to Bush and his administration's links to the oil industry. They say that the imperialist policy of the US, the world's superpower, is determined by the needs of one industry. Underlying this argument is the idea that Bush is somehow more of a hawk than Clinton ever was.

The fact that Bush and his team have strong links to the oil industry does give US imperialism's rivals something to attack them with. But the Bush administration's imperialist policy is fundamentally no different from that pursued by the Clinton administration or, indeed that of Bush Senior. In the 1992 Defence Planning Guidance, written by Donald Rumsfeld when he was in the State Department, there is a stark statement of US imperialist strategy. "To prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat of the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union�These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia � the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests � in the non- defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order�we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". The same strategy was defended by the Clinton administration in the 1997 National Military Strategy. "The United States will remain the world's only global power for the near-term, but will operate in a strategic environment characterized by rising regional powers, asymmetric challenges including WMD, transnational dangers, and the likelihood of wild cards that cannot be specifically predicted". This has been continued by the Bush administration "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States" (National Security Strategy, 2002). Bush is thus not defending the oil industry but the continuity of US imperialist strategy.

Strategic role of oil

During World War Two Britain and America fought a bitter diplomatic and commercial struggle over control of the Middle East oil fields. The US plan to control the oilfields deprived British imperialism of an essential part of its war machine. As Churchill complained to Roosevelt (in 1944) "There is apprehension here in some quarters that the United States has a desire to deprive us of our oil assets in the Middle East on which among other things, the whole supply of our navy depends" (quoted in The Politics of War, Gabriel Kolko 1968). Despite the 'special relationship' of the time the US used oil to help reduce British imperialism to a secondary power.

The occupation of Iraq is part of a similar strategy. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, elder statesmen of US imperialism, "A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent" (The Great Chess Board, 1997). Thus, through controlling Iraq the US can tighten the belt that is encircling its major rivals, especially the European powers. It has already established a military presence in the Central Asian republics, in Afghanistan, in the Caucasus, the Far East and the Balkans, in the 1990s through such interventions as the war in ex-Yugoslavia and, more recently, through the 'war on terrorism'. This encirclement by the US is placing great obstacles in the way of the other major powers. It is preventing their exploitation of the oil supplies and other raw materials and markets in many of these regions, as well as hindering the access to oil supplies that are vital to the war machines they are trying to develop in competition with the US. But above all, this encirclement is undermining the capacity of the US's rivals to pursue their overall imperialist ambitions in vital strategic regions of the globe, driving them behind their own frontiers. This is just what the US did to the British Empire and to the USSR.

Confronted with the US's offensive the other major powers will not meekly submit, but will be forced to do all they can to stop or undermine the assertion of US dominance. This resistance can only further destabilise the world. The US bourgeoisie recognises this. The National Defense University's Strategic Assessment 1997 warned that the use of military power to maintain US world leadership "may lead others to believe that their interests are at risk, in which case they may decide they have no choice other than the use of force" (quoted in Foreign Policy in Focus Vol. 4, No. 3, January 1999).

The Left's presentation of the war on Iraq as being for the profits of the US oil industry acts as a smokescreen to hide the real depth of imperialist tensions. This lie is used to push pacifist illusion that capitalism would be peaceful if it was not for the nasty Americans and their oil companies. This lie disarms the working class when it is faced with a worsening spiral into military barbarism.

Phil, 30/01/03.