In order to mount a real opposition to imperialist war, revolutionaries have to be able to look beneath all the false explanations for this or that conflict. The media and the politicians from left to right have certainly provided enough of these in the war in Iraq: it's all down to the evil Saddam, or to the no less evil George Bush and his cronies in the oil business, and so on and so forth. Our article 'What is imperialism?' in this issue shows why imperialist wars are the inevitable product not of this or that state or leader, but of the entire capitalist system at a certain stage of its development. But the revolutionary analysis of war does not only provide a general theoretical understanding of the drive to war. Like Rosa Luxemburg in her Junius Pamphlet, written during the First World War, it is also necessary to examine in depth the particular strategies of the various imperialist powers engaged in a conflict. In the article that follows we are therefore putting forward a broad framework for uncovering the real aims and policies that lie behind the actions and phoney justifications of the competing imperialist powers today.
From Gulf War One to Gulf War Two
Faced with the collapse of the rival Russian bloc at the end of the 1980s, and with the rapid unravelling of its own western bloc, US imperialism formulated a strategic plan which has, in the ensuing decade, revealed itself more and more openly. Confirmed as the only remaining superpower, the USA would do everything in its power to ensure that no new superpower - in reality, no new imperialist bloc - could arise to challenge its 'New World Order'. The principal methods of this strategy were demonstrated forcefully by the first Gulf war of 1991:
But if the Gulf war's primary aim was to issue an effective warning to all who would challenge US hegemony, it must be judged a failure. Within a year, Germany had provoked the war in the Balkans, with the aim of extending its influence to a key strategic crossroads of Europe and the Middle East. It would take the best part of the decade before the US - through the war in Kosovo - could impose its authority in this region, having been opposed not only by Germany (which gave underhand support to Croatia) but also by France and its supposedly loyal ally Britain, who secretly backed Serbia. The chaos in the Balkans was a clear expression of the contradictions faced by the US: the more it sought to discipline its former allies, the more it provoked resistance and hostility, and the less able it was to recruit them for military operations which they knew were ultimately aimed against them. Thus the phenomenon of the US being increasingly obliged to 'go it alone' in its adventures, relying less and less on 'legal' international structures such as the UN and NATO, which have more and more functioned as obstacles to the US's plans.
After September 11 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 (expressed in rows over the Kyoto agreement, the European military force, manoeuvres over the policing of Kosovo, etc), 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 directly in the backyard of China and Japan.
The aims of this intervention are by no means limited to the question of oil considered uniquely as a source of capitalist profits. Control of the Middle East and central Asia for geo-strategic reasons was a matter of intense inter-imperialist rivalry long before oil became a vital element in the capitalist economy. And while there is a clear necessity to control the huge oil-producing capacities of the Middle East and the Caucasus, US military action there is not carried out on behalf of the oil companies: the oil companies are only allowed to get their pay-off provided they fit in with the overall strategic plan, which includes the ability to shut off oil supplies to America's potential enemies and thus throttle any military challenge before it begins. Germany and Japan in particular are far more dependent on Middle East oil than the USA.
Imperialist rivalries come into the open
The USA's audacious project of building a ring of steel around its main imperialist rivals thus provides the real explanation for the war in Afghanistan, the assault on Iraq, and the declared intention to deal with Iran and North Korea. However, the upping of the stakes by the US has called forth a commensurate response from its main challengers. The resistance to the US plan for a second Gulf war was led by France, which threatened to use its veto on the UN Security Council; but even more significant is the explicit challenge issued by Germany, which hitherto has tended to work in the shadows, allowing France to play the role of declared opponent of US ambitions. Today however, Germany perceives the US adventure in Iraq as a real menace to its interests in an area which has been central to its imperialist ambitions since before the First World War. It has thus issued a far more open challenge to the US than ever before; furthermore, its resolute 'anti-war' stance has emboldened France, which until quite close to the outbreak of war was still hinting that it might change tack and take part in the military action. With the outbreak of the war, these powers are adopting a fairly low profile, but historically a real milestone has been marked. This crisis has pointed to the demise not only of NATO (whose irrelevance was shown over its inability to agree on the 'defence' of Turkey just before the war) but also of the UN. The American bourgeoisie is increasingly regarding this institution as an instrument of its principal rivals, and is openly saying that it will not play any real role in the 'reconstruction' of Iraq. The abandonment of such institutions of 'international law' represents a significant step in the development of chaos in international relations.
The resistance to US plans by an alliance between France, Germany, Russia and China shows that, faced with the massive superiority of the US, its main rivals have no choice but to band together against it. This confirms that the tendency towards the constitution of new imperialist blocs remains a real factor in the current situation. But it would be a mistake to confuse a tendency with an accomplished fact. This is mainly because in the phase of capitalist decomposition, which is marked by growing disorder in international relations, the movement towards the formation of new blocs is being constantly obstructed by the counter-tendency for each country to defend its own immediate national interests above all else - by the tendency towards every man for himself. The powerful divisions between the European countries over the war in Iraq has demonstrated that 'Europe' is very far from forming a coherent bloc, as some elements of the revolutionary movement have tended to argue. Furthermore, such arguments are based on a confusion between economic alliances and real imperialist blocs, which are above all military formations oriented towards world war. And here two other important factors come into play: first, the undeniable military dominance of the US, which still makes it impossible for any openly warlike challenge to be mounted against the US by its great power rivals; and secondly, the undefeated nature of the proletariat, which means that it is not yet possible to create the social and ideological conditions for new war blocs. Thus the war against Iraq, however much it has brought imperialist rivalries between the great powers into the open, still takes the same basic form as the other major wars of this phase: a 'deflected' war whose real target is hidden by the selection of a 'scapegoat' constituted by a third or fourth rate power, and in which the major powers take care to fight using only professional armies.
The Iraq war further undermines US authority
Although the USA's attack on Iraq demonstrates its crushing military superiority to all the other major powers, the increasingly open character of its imperialist ambitions is tending to weaken its overall political authority. In both world wars and in the conflict with the Russian bloc, the US was able to pose as the principal rampart of democracy and the rights of nations, the defender of the free world against totalitarianism and military aggression. But since the collapse of the Russian bloc the US has been obliged to itself play the role of aggressor; and while, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, the US was still able to some extent to present its action in Afghanistan as an act of legitimate self-defence, the justifications for the war in Iraq have shown themselves to be completely threadbare, while its rivals have come forward as the best defenders of democratic values in the face of US bullying.
The first weeks of the military action served mainly to create further difficulties for US political authority. Initially presented as a war that would be both quick and clean, it became clear that the war plan drawn up by the current administration seriously underestimated the degree to which the invasion would provoke a general reaction of hostility to the American invasion, even if this is not accompanied by any great enthusiasm for Saddam's regime. Even the Shiite organisations, who were being counted on to lead an 'uprising' against Saddam, declared that the first duty of all Iraqis was to resist the invader. Equally, the war plan underestimated the capacity of the regime to wage a kind of warfare that would profit from the political difficulties facing the coalition. To win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi population, and convince a more international public opinion that it is waging a humane war, the US coalition needed to make rapid progress and avoid too much civilian suffering. But by luring the invaders onto the terrain of urban sieges and guerrilla warfare, the Iraqi forces have threatened to turn the situation into a real quagmire. The prolongation of the war can only serve to aggravate the misery of the population, whether through the action of Saddam's terror squads aimed at inhibiting any attempts to flee or desert the battle front, through the intensification of coalition bombing which will cause more and more civilian deaths and damage to the infrastructure, or through the multiplication of 'tragic incidents' in which civilians are gunned down by coalition soldiers fearful about terrorist attacks.
At the time of writing (5/4/3), the 'coalition' appears to be gaining ground both militarily and ideologically. Key units of the Republican Guard seem to have been pulverised; Baghdad is being encircled and we are being shown scenes of Iraqi civilians waving at coalition forces as they advance. The Iraqi regime is making itself look more and more ridiculous with its fantasies about military victory, and we are being encouraged to believe that it could collapse without a real fight. The fact remains that it took an unexpectedly long time to take the port of Umm Qasr and that Basra has yet to fall; and the risk remains that the siege and capture of Baghdad could turn into a veritable bloodbath.
The US is thus experiencing considerable difficulty in portraying itself as the 'liberator' of the Iraqi people. And even if Baghdad falls fairly quickly, the Americans' plan to install a puppet regime directly controlled by the US military will tend to increase the bitterness that many Iraqis feel towards the invading force. Moreover, the war is already exacerbating the divisions within Iraqi society, in particular between those who have allied themselves with the USA (as in the Kurdish regions) and those who have fought against the invasion. These divisions can only serve to create disorder and instability in post-Saddam Iraq, further undermining the USA claim that it will be the bearer of peace and prosperity in the region. On the contrary, the war is already stoking up tensions throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The USA's inability to use Turkey as a base for opening its northern front was already a severe blow to its overall strategy; and since the war began Turkey has been threatening to move against the Kurds in northern Iraq, potentially opening up a war within the war; Syria's anti-American rhetoric (and covert aid to Iraq) has provoked Rumsfeld and Powell to make serious threats against Damascus; India and Pakistan have again begun rattling sabres at each other; and the war in Iraq cannot fail to pour oil on the fire in Israel/Palestine.
Thus, far from resolving the crisis of American leadership, the war in Iraq can only take it to new levels - and that means new levels of barbarism for a growing number of populations around the world.
WR, 5/4/03.
We are publishing a leaflet by the Moscow anarcho-syndicalist group KRAS in response to the massacre that took place when Chechen separatists took control of a Moscow theatre last October. We don't agree with all its formulations, especially the classical anarchist ones which seem to imply that the main problem facing the working class is not the capitalist mode of production but the principle of 'Authority', or that the system can be brought down by a general strike alone. But we want to express our solidarity with its basic internationalist spirit, its opposition to a war that is against the class interests of both the Russian and the Chechen workers. We have redrafted the English translation sent to us with the aim of making it more accessible, and hope that we have not altered any of its political content.
No war between the peoples - no peace between the classes!
The nightmare in Moscow, which is a prolongation of the tragedy in the northern Caucasus, is deeply symbolic. Nearly 200 innocent civilians were very calmly put to death by both of the warring sides - Russian imperialism and Chechen nationalism. Once again it is obvious: there is no 'just cause' in the struggle between states or would-be states (such as the 'national liberation' movements). There are only victims and butchers. And the butchers are the rulers and commanders on both sides! For them human life is nothing - only power and profit interest them. Putin (note 1) [4] needs popularity ratings. Russian politicians need a 'united and indivisible' empire. The oil kings need the northern Caucasus oil pipelines. Maskhadov (note 2) [5] needs a republic submissive to him (small, but his own). Basayev (note 3) [6] needs an Islamic republic state and the Islamic fundamentalists need a 'holy war'. But why is any of this in your interests - the interests of those who live in the asphalt jungles of Moscow, the slums of Grozny or the refugee camps of Ingushetia; the interests of the victims of the barbaric bombing and military 'cleansing' in Chechnya or of the fascist act in the Moscow House of Culture?
The workers of Russia and Chechnya have no reason to fight against each other. You have a common enemy: the rulers of Russia and Chechnya, the politicians and the bosses, the generals and the bankers. They are the ones who devised this war. They must answer for it. And we the common people must ask the questions in the name of the living and the dead.
We reject the call for negotiations between the 'legal' authorities of Russia and Chechnya (note 4) [7]. These authorities are criminals. Not only because every authority is criminal, based as it is on commands, fear and obedience, on ignoring human life. But also because they were the ones who stoked this fire. They are guilty! We shouldn't call on them to negotiate, but to disappear!
We say, categorically and unconditionally, NO to the Russian empire, to all prattle about 'united and indivisible' Russia. But we also say that all talk about the 'rights of nations' or 'national self-determination' is dangerous delirium (note 5) [8]. It benefits only the rich castes of the 'oppressed nations' who want to free themselves from the dictates of other bosses and be the undisputed rulers of their 'own' populations. And to this end these potential rulers use their future subjects as cannon fodder, using the pretext of 'national liberation' or the 'national interest'. The upper classes of different nations are responsible for the wars that kill each others' slaves. It is up to the exploited people of all countries and ethnic groups to get rid of all demagogy about 'national liberation', to realise that the enemy is not your neighbour, that the only answer is the struggle for authentic liberation, ie a social liberation.
It is time to stop looking for solutions in the habitual logic of nations and states. It is time to remember that TO ABOLISH WARS, IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH THE DOMINATION OF HUMAN BEINGS OVER OTHER HUMAN BEINGS - TO ABOLISH AUTHORITY! You must stop choosing between the plague and cholera, between the arrogant imperialism of the great powers and the rapacious authoritarianism of petty local chiefs, between the multinational corporations and the grasping 'national' bourgeoisies. There is only one way to stop wars: to subvert its organisers, the leaders and beneficiaries on both sides.
It makes no sense to beseech the ruling criminals for peace. It could be a step forward merely to obtain the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, although this would not eliminate the grounds of the conflict and the inevitability of a new war. But the authorities would not even grant that without pressure and the opponents of war don't yet have the strength to force such a move. So should we just be quiet and put up with it?
Of course not! Our slogan is: direct resistance by the working class against the economic and political system of the State and Capital. And we can all contribute towards this: don't join the army and exhort others not to join; hinder in all possible ways the normal functioning of the military machine, of the war industries and war institutions; agitate against militarism, nationalism and authority; unite with other people who think and act in the same way. We have to look for such people on the 'Chechen' side as well, to organise cooperation with them. We have to call for fraternisation between the Russian soldiers and the Chechen fighters, for disobeying the orders of our insane superiors. And when a movement from below develops from these 'small actions', then we can think about the next step - a general strike against war up to the fall of the system which breeds war!
RESISTANCE - SELF-ORGANISATION - SELF-ADMINISTRATION
Moscow anarcho-syndicalists
NOTES BY KRAS
(1) V Putin is the Russian president who won the elections on a wave of support for the Chechen war. Back [9]
(2) Maskhadov is the president of the Chechen Republic who has been leading the movement for independence from Russia. Back [10]
(3) Basayev is a Chechen warlord and leader of the Islamist faction of the Chechen independence movement. Back [11]
(4) 'Negotiations between Putin and Maskhadov' is the main slogan of the Russian 'anti-war' movement. This movement is organised by a coalition called the Committee for Anti-war Action (CAWA), which is dominated by bourgeois liberal groups and parties. The left-wing 'Campaign against the Chechen War' collaborates with the CAWA and also supports the call for negotiations. This 'Campaign' coincides more or less with the Praxis group around the Victor Serge Library in Moscow, which edits the newspaper Chelovechnost ('Humanity') and is composed of former or current Leninists and also some libertarians (including one former member of our organisation). Back [12]
(5) 'Self-determination for Chechnya' through a referendum under 'international control' is another demand raised by the Praxis group. Back [13]
Before the US and Britain started the bombardment and invasion of Iraq the 'peace' movement echoed with cries that this war was immoral, illegal and undemocratic. Clare Short, Glenda Jackson, Mo Mowlem and Charles Kennedy thought that, in the event of war, it was necessary to support the military effort. They were described as turncoats, but their views were shared by many, including such as the leader of the Australian Labor Party, Simon Crean, who supports the war while still describing it as wrong.
In contrast, there were already some Trotskyist groups who insisted on the need to 'defend Iraq' some months ago. When the current offensive started, the Socialist Workers Party, a central component of the Stop The War Coalition, added their voice to the support of Iraqi capitalism. In a Socialist Worker editorial ("What we think" 29/3/3) they insist, "It is right to fight the US empire".
"'I'm not fighting for Saddam, I'm fighting for Iraq.' Those were the words of Nasr Al Hussein, a former Iraqi special forces parachutist, on Monday. He was one of hundreds of Iraqi exiles in Jordan queuing to board coaches to take them back across the border to Iraq so they can fight US and British forces�Millions of Iraqi people, who have no time for Saddam Hussein, see this war for what it is - an invasion by the most powerful state on the planet killing for oil and global power�they do not want long-term US occupation whatever their feelings toward the current regime."
With people volunteering to die for Iraqi capitalism, it is the job of revolutionaries to show that 'fighting for Iraq,' or defending any 'national interest', means enrolling for the armies of the ruling capitalist class. The interests of the exploited and oppressed in Iraq are diametrically opposed to those of the capitalist state, whether it's dominated by Saddam now, by British imperialism in the 1920s, by the monarchy of King Faisal II, by the Qasim regime that preceded the Ba'athists, or by any of the alternatives of US imperialism or Iraqi oppositionists that might follow Saddam. Regimes change but it's only the class interests of the ruling bourgeoisie that are served by the capitalist state. The state serves the needs of capitalism for social control through its apparatus of repression, and is at the heart of capitalism's imperialist war drive.
Talk of "an invasion by the most powerful state on the planet" is very reminiscent of what the British bourgeoisie said in the First World War when they insisted on the need to defend 'brave little Belgium', and, in the Second World War, when they said it was necessary to take on the violators of Poland and Czechoslovakia. The bourgeoisie can always think of a reason why workers should forget their own class interests and sacrifice themselves for imperialism. Trotskyism's long history of military recruitment
It is worth noting that the SWP, like other Trotskyist groups, has not always been so loyal to the Iraqi state. Back in the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, they were against Iraq because it was backed by Britain and the US. This meant supporting the Iranian regime that had replaced the Shah, even though it equally represented the interests of Iranian capitalism. The SWP has changed sides, but their basic principle remains the same: workers must lay down their lives for their exploiters; even if they have no illusions in the current regime, they must retain their illusions in the 'national interest'.
The SWP talks the language of 'peace' and 'anti-imperialism', but that doesn't make them any less nationalistic than the promoters of 'patriot rallies' who explicitly mobilise to support the armed forces. An ideology that demands that workers put aside their class interests can only be used in the service of the bourgeoisie.
Attacking the Labour party is one of the tasks that the SWP prides itself on. In a recent article on "Labour and war. Never on our side" (29/3/03) they say that "at every key moment the party leadership has supported imperialism and war". Going through various events of the last century (the First World War, Vietnam, the Falklands, the 1991 Gulf War etc) they pass remarks on the behaviour of the Labour leadership. What they miss out is that the Labour party is not just a handful of leaders but a whole apparatus and ideology which has long been part of capitalism's political system.
They also miss out the Second World War. In 1939-45 the Labour party was an integral part of the coalition government at all levels, active in the recruitment for war and in the repression on the home front. It might seem strange for the SWP to overlook a conflict in which 60 million died, until you remember the role Trotskyists played for the war effort, in the name of anti-fascism, democracy and the defence of Russia. In Britain, for example, the Trotskyist groups wanted Labour to govern alone, despite there being no essential policy differences between Labour and Churchill's Conservatives (only a less warmongering image).
So, when we denounce Trotskyist support for Iraq, it is not an isolated instance, but one example from 60 years of military mobilisation. The SWP say that the only way to stop the war is to "get the troops out. In Iraq the only way is to resist the 'coalition' troops" (SW 5/4/03). In denying the struggle against the very bourgeoisie that exploits you, there is a clear echo here of Trotskyist support for the Resistance that was an arm of Allied imperialism against the Axis powers. The SWP themselves draw a comparison between now and then: "Crowds in Iraq are hunting for parachuting US pilots, like British crowds hunted for German pilots during the Second World War, because they see them as the main enemy, not Saddam" (SW 29/3/03). Endorsing Iraqi nationalism today, like the support for Allied imperialism in the past, is not altered by the leftists trying to give its current anti-Americanism a 'radical' tint (like supporting the Resistance because they were guerrillas rather than regular troops).
Against this inverted jingoism, communists insist that the old watchword of the workers' movement - workers have no fatherland - is more valid than ever. The capitalist drive towards war can only be stopped when the working class generalises its struggle against all states, in all countries. The Trotskyists ridicule such internationalist views by dubbing them 'abstract' and 'utopian'. But to tell the workers today to subordinate their interests to those of any national state is to work actively against the possibility of the international unification of the class struggle in the future.
Car, 2/4/03.
WR public forums on the question of 'War and proletarian consciousness'
The victory of ‘our’ imperialism is always a moment of terrible danger for proletarian consciousness. In 1918, the patriotic euphoria of victory was used to neutralise the massive discontent of the workers in Britain and France who had endured four years of butchery. And above all it was used to separate these sections of the proletariat from their class brothers in Russia and Germany - and thus, to isolate and ultimately destroy the main outposts of the proletarian revolution. The defeat of fascism in 1945 has been used ever since not only to justify the second imperialist holocaust, but also to bludgeon our minds with the idea that ‘democracy’ is the best of all possible worlds.
The collapse of Stalinism in 1989-91 was used to further reinforce this message, adding to it the definitive ‘proof’ that a communist society was at worst a nightmare of state terror, at best an unattainable ideal. Thus it is necessary to understand very clearly the scenes of rejoicing that have met the downfall of the Saddam regime.
The apparent refusal of a majority of the Iraqi masses to lay down their lives for the Saddam regime is certainly to be supported. Contrary to bin Laden and the Islamists, who have called for a jihad in defence of Iraq, and contrary to the Socialist Worker, which has called for exactly the same thing, the only internationalist position today is to reject the defence - tactical, critical or otherwise - of any nation state. The problem is that the ‘coalition’ is manipulating the feelings of relief sweeping the Iraqi population to trap them into supporting the fake liberation delivered by US and British tanks. The same forces which, in 1991, allowed Saddam just enough firepower to crush the revolts in the north and south of Iraq, have now presented themselves as the friends and allies of popular rebellion.
And in the victorious countries, especially America and Britain? The dazzling success of this military campaign will be presented not only as the justification for the war on Iraq - but above all as the best argument in favour of the next war in the strategy for ‘a new American century’.
It is urgent to discuss as widely and as deeply as possible the implications of what is now happening in Iraq. The ICC is organising a series of public meeting on this question. We strongly urge all organisations, groups and individuals who stand for a proletarian, internationalist opposition to war to use these meetings as a forum for debate and clarification.
LONDON Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London WC1 Saturday 26th April at 2.30pm,
BIRMINGHAM Friends of the Earth Centre 54A Allison Street Digbeth, B5 Saturday 10th May at 2.30pm
Supplement to World Revolution 263 BM Box 869 London WC1N 3XX
WR, 10/4/03.
When deputy prime minister Prescott announced legislation to impose a pay deal on the firefighters "particularly given the conflict in the Gulf and the heightened threat of terrorism" (BBC news website, 20.3.03), this was just the latest stage in the long-running campaign around the danger of keeping 19,000 troops on standby to cover industrial action at time of war. It is a campaign that started months ago with the first 48 hour firefighters' strike.
Tory spokesman David Davis joined his voice to the campaign by asking "What will you do in the event that the FBU continue to strike ... continue to undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces?"
And the unions were not to be left out of this patriotic chorus. Andy Gilchrist has not only called an offer that is worse than that originally offered by employers last year, the best that could be achieved "in the political situation they find themselves in" (BBC website, 19.3.03); he has also stated that "It would be foolhardy to reject this offer when British troops are about to go into battle" (quoted in Revolutionary Perspectives 28).
This comes after months of the FBU wearing down the firefighters. First they put in a 40% pay claim, justified by emphasising their professionalism, and calling for public sympathy rather than workers' solidarity. Workers were then kept to a demoralising routine of 24 and 48 hour strikes and the whole thing rounded off with a demonstration at the end of last year where firefighters marched in uniform. All in all they have been kept isolated from the rest of the working class, despite the widespread sympathy that greeted their claim last year.
In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that the government has already started imposing the deal before it is agreed: no more money will be available, and the pay increase of 16% over 3 years will have to be paid for by redundancies. Chief Fire Officers have been introducing the organisational structure necessary for this for several months. The fact that the FBU conference rejected the deal shows that there remains much discontent and anger, but the struggle has been contained. Nevertheless, Prescott's legislation will provide a welcome alibi for the FBU when they have to impose the deal (see WR 261). A campaign directed at the whole working class
We should not make the mistake of thinking this campaign is just about imposing a deal on the firefighters, or even primarily about 19,000 soldiers on standby for industrial action. It is above all a campaign aimed at the whole working class, aimed at discouraging struggles. The ruling class knows that it will have to continue attacks on the working class. The war will have to be paid for, and it comes at a time of economic slowdown.
The campaign to discourage the working class does not only include the calls to remain patriotic, to put up with lousy pay deals during the war, but also much more radical-sounding ideologies. So we heard, among many contradictory ideas on the huge 15 February 'Stop the War' demonstration, the call for strikes when the war started; and the firefighters' strikes in particular have been held up as the way to stop the war.
When representatives of the ruling class make such calls it shows that they are aware that the working class today does not pose an immediate threat of widespread strikes in response to the war. On the one hand the firefighters have already been isolated by the FBU; and on the other hand the opposition to the war has largely been mobilised behind bourgeois ideologies, such as pacifism or support for an alternative imperialist strategy more in line with that of Germany and France. But the use of this fake 'workerist' radicalism also shows that the ruling class understands that the working class remains a threat.
Our rulers know the potential for workers to put their class interest above the national interest. The strikes and mutinies during World War 1 culminated in the Russian and German revolutions, forcing them to end the slaughter. The ruling class will not forget this when calculating the risk of any future imperialist adventure.
The working class today, while undefeated, is nowhere near the level of posing such an immediate threat to the ruling class and its war effort. In fact it is still faced with the need to recover its sense of itself as a class, a sense that was very much to the fore during the large-scale struggles during the 1980s, such as the mass strike in Poland in 1980 or the miners' strike in Britain in 1984-5.
In spite of the fact that the working class does not have the self-confidence it had in the 80s, the succession of wars since the 1991 Gulf War is a powerful factor in showing the complete bankruptcy of the capitalist system, as each becomes harder to justify behind a humanitarian smokescreen. This is giving rise to a very important process of reflection on the question of war among a tiny minority of the working class. But this process can only be interrupted by the constant stream of easy answers, false choices and activist stunts being advocated by the bourgeoisie's more left wing spokesmen. The notion that a strike isolated in one sector, drawn out into on-off 24 and 48 hour actions over months and months - and whether or not troops are used to cover for the striking firefighters - can substitute for a whole development of struggles and class consciousness, is just such an easy answer. This ideological misuse of the firefighters' struggle can only increase their isolation from the rest of the working class and demoralise those who fall for the campaign.
Alex, 5/4/03.
“Whether or not you agree with this war, surely now our troops are involved we have to support them?”
In other words: the best way to support ‘our boys’ is to support them being used as cannon fodder in an imperialist war. Could there be a more idiotic argument than this?
And who, exactly, are ‘our boys’?
Although in the wake of the Vietnam experience the ruling classes of America and Britain are careful to use only professional soldiers for their military adventures, the majority of these troops are still economic conscripts, proletarians in uniform. The ‘us’ they belong to is therefore the working class. But the working class has no country. Therefore ‘our boys’ also include the Iraqi conscripts whom the US and British soldiers are being urged to slaughter.
And we - communists who defend the internationalist traditions of the working class – don’t think our boys should be killing each other for the sake of their exploiters, for the imperialist interests of the UK, America, or Iraq.
On the contrary: faced with the slaughter, we insist on reaffirming these traditions. In particular, we can recall that in the first world war, the proletarians in uniform – supported by strikes and uprisings on the home front - began to turn against the horrors of the war and took their fate into their own hands. They fraternised with the ‘enemy’ troops, mutinied, formed soldiers’ councils and joined forces with the revolutionary workers. The ruling class was so terrified of the spectre of revolution it brought the war to a rapid end.
Today the bourgeoisie is very vigilant about snuffing out even the merest hint of rebellion against war, as it was at the end of the first Gulf conflict. In 1991, the uprising in Basra began when mutinous soldiers fired at posters of Saddam. It seems that, at the beginning, the revolt had a popular and spontaneous character. But it was soon crushed by a sinister alliance of bourgeois forces. Columns of fleeing Iraqi soldiers, who might have joined the rebellion, were obliterated by the US and British forces on the Basra-Baghdad road.
Saddam, however, was allowed to keep his elite Republican Guards intact and they were used to put down the rebellion in blood. In the north Kurdish nationalist gangs, in the south the Iran-backed Shi’ite religious organisations, took control of the movement and tried to use it as a bargaining counter for their own petty imperialist claims. These claims would have led to the break-up of Iraq and this ran counter to US interests. So Saddam was permitted to stay in power as the sole guarantor of ‘order’.
Today both sides are even better equipped to put down any opposition. Saddam’s terror squads are implanted in all the cities and throughout the regular army, ready to deal with any reluctance to back the war-effort. At the same time the arrogance of the Coalition does Saddam’s work for him by driving many Iraqis into the patriotic mind-trap. Besides, memories of the ‘betrayal’ of the 91 revolt are still very fresh in peoples’ minds, and they don’t want to be caught out again.
And if any anti-Saddam revolt does occur, the Coalition forces and their media are on hand to hitch it to their imperialist bandwagon. We have even seen them making up revolts that didn’t really happen.
And yet, there is dissent in the armed forces. A US marine faces jail rather than go and fight in Iraq. Three British soldiers are sent home for criticising the killing of civilians. Desertion from the Iraqi army increases. There is no imminent mass revolt in Iraq, no immediate prospect of fraternisation across the national divide. On the other hand, neither have the ruling classes of the warring regimes succeeded in totally brainwashing their foot-soldiers.
This is a small indication that the bourgeoisie may not always be able to do what it wants with its own troops. If the class war hots up in the centres of world capitalism, the workers will once again be able to ‘support’ our boys by showing them the road to revolution.
Amos, 1/4/03
Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/50/united-states
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/186/imperialism
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/war-iraq
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_01
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_02
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_03
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_04
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#note_05
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_01
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_02
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_03
[12] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_04
[13] https://en.internationalism.org/wr/263_russia_int.htm#back_05
[14] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/chechnya
[15] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/internationalist-anarchism
[16] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/135/internationalism
[17] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/socialist-workers-party
[18] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/public-meetings
[19] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/britain
[20] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/class-struggle