The ideology of 'anti-globalisation' is an emanation of the bourgeoisie. Its role is to derail any attempt by the working class to understand the world and draw the necessary conclusions, to drag all those who begin to question the current system back into the fold of the defence of democracy, of the capitalist state. It is thus a real danger to the working class.

The anti-globalisation movement has recently begun to give itself a new name in some countries (for example in France). It is using the term 'altermondialisation' - the 'alternative' to globalisation - as though it represented a new and important alternative to the current world order. As we shall attempt to show, this is not at all the case. The brilliant discoveries of anti-globalisation

The basis of anti-globalisation ideology is the denunciation of the 'neo-liberal' policies adopted by the major powers since the 1980s, which have allegedly placed the entire world in the hands of the great multinational companies, subordinating all human activities - agriculture, natural resources, education, culture, etc - to the pursuit of profit. This is sometimes described as a process of commodification and standardisation of products - everything is up for sale, in short.

The world is run by the dictatorship of the market. This dictatorship has at the same time stolen political power from democratically controlled states, and thus from the citizens of the world.

Thus the anti-globalisation lobby raises the battle-cry: 'our world is not for sale'. They demand that the law of the market must not guide political policies. Political decision-making must be restored to the citizens, and democracy must be defended and extended against all financial diktats.

In sum, the anti-globalisers have reinvented the wheel. It's some revelation that capitalist enterprises only exist to make profit! That, under capitalism, all goods are turned into commodities! That the development of capitalism means the globalisation of exchange!

The workers' movement did not wait until the 1990s and the new wave of clever academics and radical thinkers who have come up with all this. All these ideas can be found in the Communist Manifesto, first published in 1848:

"The bourgeoisie has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single unconscionable freedom - Free Trade�The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers�

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood."

Thus, the anti-globalisers claim to be offering a new analysis and a new alternative while at the same time suppressing all reference to two centuries of struggles and of theoretical endeavours by the working class, aimed precisely at understanding the bases for a truly human future. And little wonder: the better world proposed by the anti-globalisers does not look forward, as the workers' movement has always done, but backwards, to a mythical rural past of happy little enterprises and local exchanges - or, more prosaically, to the period between the 1930s and the 1970s, which for them represents a lesser evil compared to the liberalisation which got underway in the '80s. After all, that was the period of 'Keynesianism' in which the state was a more obvious actor on the economic stage.

However, before rushing to choose the years 1930-70 over the last two decades, it's worth recalling a few of the characteristics of that period.

Let's not forget that Keynesian policies did not solve the crisis of 1929 and that massive unemployment had returned to most of the western economies by the end of the 30s; let's not forget the second world war; let's not forget the catastrophic situation of the working class during the world war and for some years after it; let's not forget that since 1945 not a single day has passed without war and that this has resulted in the loss of tens of millions of lives. And finally, let's not forget that at the end of the 1960s, capitalism plunged into an economic crisis which led to the inexorable growth of unemployment.

This is the 'better world' the anti-globalisers look back on so fondly, the lost paradise destroyed by the multinationals!

All this is the expression of a classic ideological manipulation by the bourgeoisie: to present two apparently opposed alternatives which turn out to be the two sides of the same coin.

One of the clearest examples of this false alternative is the argument that the state has withdrawn from the economy, leaving a free hand to the giant companies which are undermining democracy and the general interest. This is a total fraud. The state has never been more present in the economy than it is today. It's the state which regulates world trade and fixes the interest rates, customs tariffs, etc. The state is still the leading economic actor, with a public expenditure which makes up an increasing portion of GNP and of the ever-swelling budget deficit. This is the so-called 'powerless', 'absent' state in the model country of liberalism, the USA. It is virtually impossible to mention any economic, political or social sector in which the state doesn't have an important, if not preponderant role.

And the state is not the guarantor of a better world, where riches are more equally distributed: it's the state which ruins this world, through war, through attacks on workers' wages, pensions and social benefits. It's the state which bleeds the working class dry to stand up to the crisis of the system.

What the anti-globalisers are saying to all those who ask questions about the state of the world is this: the choice is between liberalism and state capitalism, when the real choice is between socialism or barbarism.

The source of wars, of poverty, of unemployment, is not the so-called liberal revolution imposed by super-powerful multinationals, but the mortal crisis of capitalism, which no policy of the bourgeoisie, whether Keynesianism or liberalism, can resolve. False alternatives

The anti-globalisers claim to be anti-capitalist. But all their policies boil down to a criticism of the 'excesses' of this world and to proposals aimed at safeguarding democracy. Behind the whole melange of issues and proposals they put forward lies the old left-wing reformism which the revolutionary movement has fought against for over a century.

Let's look first of all at the idea of a 'solidarity economy', in other words the global extension of all the experiences of cooperatives and self-management which have always meant no more than the self-exploitation of the workers. Linked to this is the notion of the citizen's initiative, according to which each individual can play his part in improving the state of the world. This approach ignores the division of society into classes and ties the proletariat to the bourgeoisie by pretending that everyone is an equal citizen as long as you have enough democracy.

The ideas of a more just management of the economy, of fair trade and all the rest, are also part of this warmed up version of the old reformism. For decades the social democrats have bleated on about the fairer distribution of the fruits of growth. Such conceptions deliberately hide the fact that capitalism is a system in crisis, and that the ruling class, far from sharing the benefits of growth, is compelled to make the working class pay for the crisis.

In any case, who is supposed to be in charge of this fairer distribution of wealth, if not the state? The fulminations of writers like Naomi Klein and George Monbiot against the policy of privatisation exposes what lies behind anti-globalisation ideology; the defence of the public sector, of the state.

But the anti-globalisers also claim to be internationalists. It's true that the various organisations who campaign for 'global justice' exist in many countries, are in contact with each other and repeat the same slogans. But this has nothing in common with working class internationalism. One of the key demands of the anti-globalisers is for protectionist measures to defend small countries or small farmers and traders against the multinationals. In other words, they want workers to identify with the national interest of small states - when the class struggle can only advance by breaking ties with all national interests and all nation states.

As a matter of fact, one of the main unifying themes of the anti-globalisers is opposition not just to the multinationals or the World Trade Organisation, but to the USA. What they denounce above all is US domination of the world market, not the world market as such. And when they call for a stronger democratic state, this is above all a plea for America's imperialist rivals to stand up to the USA's attempts to maintain its global hegemony. Again George Monbiot was quite explicit about this when, in one of his many articles for The Guardian, he called for European unity and the extension of the Euro as a bulwark against US war-mongering. This is about as far away from internationalism as you can get - calling for resistance to one imperialism by binding yourself hand and foot to another. It is no accident that the anti-globalisation movement now plays a central role in the pacifist deception - and thus in the march towards new imperialist wars. A real danger for the working class

Why has the bourgeoisie invested so heavily in publicising the anti-globalisation movement?

We can answer this at two levels. In the most general sense, the democratic ideology which is so crucial to the maintenance of capitalist class rule cannot do without the idea that there is a political opposition to the status quo.The strong grip the old socialist and communist parties once held over the working class has been weakened by its experience of left-wing governments and the collapse of Stalinism, and there has been a growing need for a new and more credible 'anti-capitalist' alternative to the right.

More specifically, the bourgeoisie cannot afford to ignore the fact that within the proletariat more and more people are posing serious questions about the current state of the planet. To a large extent they come from a generation which has little interest in traditional politics and tends to be openly distrustful towards the old left parties.

This is why the anti-globalisation movement, with its ideology of local self-activity, of libertarianism and syndicalism, its mish-mash of a hundred different mini-causes and sub-movements, is so well placed to lead this embryonic questioning into the dead-end of bourgeois ideology.

The refried leftism of the anti-globalisers is thus an important instrument of the ruling class, which needs above all to hide the simple truth from those it exploits and oppresses: capitalism cannot be reformed, improved or made fair. It needs to be destroyed and replaced by a global communist society, and this cannot be achieved without class struggle leading to the world revolution.

H, 4/10/03.

'Blair out', 'Bliar', 'Tony's a Tory'.

These were the most prominent slogans on the anti-war demo in London on 27 September.

But calls for Blair to go aren't limited to the 'far left' groups who hand out placards emblazoned with these slogans.

Respectable ex-cabinet ministers like Claire Short and Robin Cook have more or less explicitly called for his resignation, accusing him of deceiving the country over the war on Iraq. At the recent Labour party conference he was under fire not only over the war, but also his domestic policies - privatisation, student fees, relations with the unions, to name but a few.

Gordon Brown has already begun to tout himself as an 'alternative' - his conference speech avoided justifying the war and rousingly reasserted 'Old Labour' values such as the 'redistribution of wealth'. A false alternative

To think that Brown is an alternative to Blair is to disregard his role at the heart of the Labour government in the management of the capitalist economy where the rich have got richer and the poor poorer.

68% of working taxpayers earn less than £20,000 a year and 51% earn less than £15,000 (according to the Inland Revenue). These are levels of low pay deliberately encouraged by the government through the minimum wage and the Working Families Tax Credit system. His 'distribution of wealth' has seen hundred of thousands losing unemployment benefits due to entitlement changes. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers have been thrown out of work. National Insurance contributions and direct taxes have been increased.

'Prudent' Gordon is also working out ways to make the working class pay the cost of the war and occupation of Iraq - current cost £3 billion and rising.

Neither are the likes of Short and Cook any alternative.

They fully supported British imperialism's participation in the Kosovo and Afghanistan adventures, the military enforcement of the 'no-fly' zones over Iraq, and the maintenance of crippling sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of the Iraqis they now claim to care so much for. Nothing new about Labour's capitalist policies

Socialist Worker (4/10/3) says that Blair and Brown "are both cut from the same Tory cloth". Yet Labour's history shows that it is not becoming a crypto-Tory party but is and has long been a reliable part of the ruling class's political apparatus. In its own right, with its own ideology, it has imposed austerity measures on the working class and defended the interests of British imperialism in times of war and peace - ever since the First World War.

At the Labour Party conference Jack Jones (former leader of the T&G) and Michael Foot were both honoured for their long service, and some nostalgically recalled the days of 'Old Labour'. This is the Jack Jones who was central to the Social Contract imposed by the Labour government of 1974-79. At that time government and unions inflicted a ruthless incomes policy on the working class and worked tirelessly to undermine and defeat the struggle against this attack. This is the Michael Foot who said that Britain was never closer to 'socialism' than during the Second World War - when Labour did its best to ensure that the workers were enrolled to die for British imperialism, repeating what it had done during the 1914-18 war.

All these figures are 'cut from the same cloth'. The fabric of the Labour party has been cut to suit the needs of British capitalism for the last ninety years, and, to mix metaphors, there is no 'reverse gear', or any other means, to change it. The groups that make up the Socialist Alliance also pose as an 'alternative', but their programme for strengthening the capitalist state's management of British capitalism is indistinguishable from the ideology that guided Labour in government and opposition for the decades before Blair became Labour leader. United on the need to attack the working class

The only thing that would change if Blair was replaced by Brown or some other defender of the 'real values of Labour' is the rhetoric. This is because a Labour government acts in the way its does not because of the particular individuals who lead it, but because of the class interests it serves. Brown would sound more 'socialist' but a capitalist government has to consider a number of factors. It has to take account of the state of the economy, and in the face of a worsening crisis it is the working class that has to pay the price. Unemployment, job insecurity, harsher regimes for those in work and in education, cut backs in benefits, the decline in basic services such as the NHS (with more and more available only to those who can pay for them), the disappearance of pension funds: the capitalist state presides over all the attacks on the living and working conditions of its citizens.

Brown has amply shown his willingness to carry out such attacks. As has the labour party, be it New or Old, since the First World War when it has managed British capitalism at a local or national level. It was a very 'old' even 'socialist' Labour government that laid off 30.000 Liverpool council workers in the 1980s (aided and abetted by the 'Loony Left' council run by Derek Hatton and the Trotskyist 'Militant' group).

Thus we can see that all the wings of the Labour party are agreed on one thing: the need to attack the working class in order to defend the interests of British capitalism. Labour defends British imperialism

The government of the capitalist class is not only in economic competition with every other state, it is also compelled to defend its interests militarily. Every capitalist state is imperialist and has to devote enormous resources against the potential threat of other armed states defending their interests. It is the nature of capitalism that requires every national capital to be armed and ready for conflict - not the particular policy of individual governments.

Labour governments have proven themselves to be intransigent defenders of British imperialism. Not only since the 1990s but since 1914. The first Labour government (1924) made a clear commitment to this by continuing the previous government's policy of bombing and gassing the rebels and civilians in Iraq. The only alternative is the class struggle

In addition to the economic crisis and imperialist conflict the capitalist state is aware of the threat posed by the struggle of the working class. Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class, and the more that the ruling class attacks the working class, the greater the potential for workers' struggle in defence of their class interests. The massive struggles that took place in France this May over the issue of pensions were a stark reminder to the ruling class of this potential. In Britain we have yet not seen such a massive outburst of combativity, but the unofficial strikes at Heathrow, in the post and the shipyards are signs of a growing unwillingness to accept attacks on living and working conditions (see the article on page 3).

If the class struggle is to make significant steps forward, workers will have to learn to rely on their own strengths - the ability to organise, to unite, and to develop their own political programme aimed at the overthrow of the capitalist system. And the only way the working class can make progress in this direction is to refuse to get caught up in all the false alternatives offered by its exploiters.

WR, 4/10/03.

Prior to its September public forum in Paris on anti-globalisation (see the article on page 8 of this issue, based on the presentation given at the meeting), the French section of the ICC called on other sections, as well as sympathisers of the ICC, to attend this meeting to express their solidarity with the section, which is one of the two most directly confronted with the presence of the parasitic group that calls itself the Internal Fraction of the ICC [1]. As we explain in more detail in our article 'The ICC does not allow snitches into its public meetings [5]', published on our website as a supplement to WR 267, the ICC, having excluded these elements from the organisation at our last international congress, took the decision to bar them from our public meetings as well. In our view, the activities of this group constitute a danger not only to the ICC but to the whole milieu of proletarian political organisations. In particular, its constant use of personal information and innuendo about members of the ICC on its website and in its bulletin puts it on the same level as that of informers and provocateurs. Closing the doors of our meetings to them is thus an elementary act of self-defence. This view is reinforced in the letters we print below. They come from three of our sympathisers in the UK, two of whom were able to attend the meeting in person, where they met members and sympathisers of the ICC from a number of countries.

28.09.03 Comrades of the ICC, I am writing to express my support for the recent decision to exclude the so-called 'Internal Fraction of the ICC' (IFICC) from all public meetings of the organisation. This latest development in the battle for defence of the revolutionary organisation was, as you are aware, explained in the article "The ICC doesn't allow snitches into its public meetings [5]" (web supplement to WR 267) and put into practice at the last public meeting in Paris on the 13th of September, which I was fortunately able to attend.

That said, before moving on to discuss the meeting I feel it is important to repeat again that my support for this decision (and obviously the ICC) does not stem from any 'brainwashing' or blind loyalty to the organisation, which will disappoint those elements whose 'political' lives revolve around the misfortunes of the 'Stalinist' ICC and its crazy sympathisers; rather it comes from time spent working and discussing with the organisation. The openness and honesty with which the ICC has dealt with its latest organisational crisis has shown once again that the organisation is far from being the cult it is often portrayed to be. Compare this approach with the IBRP's response to the behaviour of the LA Workers Voice group and it is clear who in the proletarian political milieu is facing the difficult, but vital, question of the revolutionary organisation head on.

Although there isn't the time or the space here to discuss the IFICC's behaviour in detail it is important to make a few brief comments. The IFICC has acted from the beginning in a way not befitting members of a communist organisation. They have ignored the statutes of the organisation whose platform they claim to defend, they have stolen money from the ICC to fund their own activity and finally through gossip and the publication of sensitive information they have put individual ICC militants and the organisation as a whole at greater risk of police infiltration. Their activities have effectively threatened the very existence of the ICC!

This is why the ICC had to exclude the IFICC. Not to deny them their 'democratic' speaking rights! And this is what formed the opening presentation of the Paris public meeting. The main reasons for this important decision, as outlined above, were given along with an attack on the 'democratic' fantasies of the IFICC. They may claim not have 'disrupted' previous meetings they have attended but the presence of gossips does little to promote open comradely discussion. Nor does the case that they are not in the direct pay of the state lessen the seriousness of their activities. The IFICC's written response to the ICC's decision was also discussed. As appears usual there were no attempts at political discussion but more veiled threats and bullying claims that the exclusion couldn't be enforced as the ICC 'weren't up to it'. The members of the IFICC left sulking outside the meetings in Mexico and Paris may now want to rethink their opinion of the ICC's abilities.

Time was given after the presentation to discuss the exclusion. Comrades and sympathisers of the ICC from Britain, France and Germany all spoke about the importance of the decision and the seriousness of the situation with the Fraction. With the onset of decomposition the stakes for humanity are higher than ever and revolutionary organisations have a responsibility to ensure that the chaotic and nihilistic tendencies prevalent in decaying capitalist society don't find their way into their ranks. The situation in France is not unique and as a German comrade stated "the fight against the (In)fraction is an international one". The meeting in Paris with its international 'audience' showed that the ICC was prepared, and able, to take up its responsibilities to the class and defend the revolutionary organisation.

Unfortunately I do not have time to discuss the presentation and discussion on anti-globalisation, which followed the announcement on the Fraction. Suffice it to say both were rigorous and criticised the idealism and utopianism of those that believe that the world can be 'made good' without the intervention of the working class and the removal of capitalism.

For Communism,

Harry

29.9.03. Dear ICC, The following letter is a reflection on the themes at the recent meeting of RI in Paris. I decided to attend the recent meeting of RI in Paris in support of the ICC in its conflict with the parasitic Fraction. At the meeting RI convincingly defended its decision to exclude the Fraction from its public meetings in addition to the previous exclusion from the organisation. I believe the defence of revolutionary organisations is important and should not be underestimated. To counter capitalism the working class must organise to defend its interests. Any activity on the proletarian terrain is subject to attack by the ruling class. The working class must organise to counter this. This includes the vanguard who form revolutionary organisations. If these organisations are not defended they are organisations in name only.

The Fraction is guilty of trying to destroy the organisation. This has included personalised attacks on comrades of the ICC, the publication of the real initials of members, the publication of details of internal meetings, the theft of funds and the theft of contacts' details.

This activity should be condemned by all revolutionaries. I believe it is correct for the ICC to expose the details of the Fraction. Firstly as a warning to other revolutionaries and to show openly the problems that revolutionaries face.

In the meeting the comrade from Germany correctly emphasised the importance of organisational issues. Defending the organisation has been an important part of revolutionary history. She highlighted the problems of the German revolution and the organisational failures that contributed to the defeat of the working class. All those in the meeting defended the ICC's decision on this matter.

The meeting proceeded onto the main presentation. This was on the ideology of anti-globalisation as an attack on the working class. In France there is a large petit-bourgeois movement which uses anti-globalisation theory to support it. They are joined by the left in a broad coalition. The bourgeoisie are happy to support this as it plays easily into the anti-American campaign.

A comrade of the ICC was correct to draw comparisons with Proudhon who was attacked by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy. Anti-globalisation poses a false opposition between a ruthless big capitalism and a nice small democratic capitalism. In the Communist Manifesto Marx describes capitalism's globalising dynamic. There is not a non-globalising version of capitalism. There is also not a version of capitalism that doesn't exploit the poor or one that is free from war.

Anti-globalisation is also a defence of capitalist democracy. A false view that the state stands above vested interests. In reality the state is the organised arm of the ruling class as a whole whether you can vote or not.

In Britain the ruling class does not give the same level of support to anti-globalisation theories. This is because the UK has closer ties to the US. But this ideology is useful for diverting searching elements away from proletarian politics. This I know unfortunately from personal experience. Whatever the wide ideas that are expressed in this movement they do not include the destruction of the capitalist system or the organisation of the working class.

I was pleased with the level of contributions in the meeting and it was a nice change to be in a large room full of people who support class positions.

Yours, D

Letter of solidarity from a sympathiser unable to support the ICC in person at the Paris meeting.

3.9.03

I want to express my solidarity with this meeting and the proposed exclusion of the members of the 'IFICC'. It's not only a 'logical' consequence that they should have no place in the ICC's meetings but a continuation of the ICC's permanent - and not passive - struggle for the defence of the organisations of revolutionaries. It is also part of the struggle against democratism which so much infects the groups of the proletarian milieu.

This is the application of a necessarily deepening analysis of this whole episode of the fight the ICC has been through and responded to. The contempt for organisational statutes, the theft, duplicity, denigration and back-door informing has to be responded to with revolutionary vigour.

At the same time as playing up the 'divergences' of the milieu, the IFICC's bulletin no. 20 has kept up the pressure on their targeted individual in the ICC by making sure his name is kept to the fore and the attention of the bourgeoisie.

I support your action.

Fraternally, E

From a subsequent letter from the same comrade

20.9.03 Reading the last issue of RI, I want to reinforce the view I put forward in your proposal to ban the IFICC from public meetings. Their spying activities, something I tended to underestimate, are focussed in this article: who's at what demonstration or intervention: who's not there; who's possibly doing what, as well as other hard information. This has nothing to do with political divergences and can only be of use to the state agencies dedicated to unveiling such things. (The IFICC's) copious taking of notes (who said what) also carries a similar sort of threat that is implied in their sending out of their unsolicited 'bulletins' ('we know where you live - we have your address'). This reinforces my support for your positive action.

Notes

1. The other being our Mexican section, which has already taken similar measures against the members of the IFICC there.

4/10/03.

The murder of Foreign Minister Anna Lindh during the Swedish Euro referendum brought a new intensity to the democratic campaign. It was cynically used by the bourgeoisie to denounce the 'attack on democracy and the open society'. All the political parties of the bourgeoisie, from right to left, agreed to stop the campaign and called for a vote in memory of Lindh.

The 82% turnout was the highest in any referendum so far. It was also slightly higher than in the elections for the last parliament. While the bourgeoisie showed a national consensus to 'defend democracy' (despite the fact that the murder seemed not to have any political motives, probably being the act of a disturbed individual), it was still obvious that the ruling class was divided on the Euro. But the bourgeoisie was able, in the wake of the murder of one of its most prominent politicians, to show a united face in the referendum to mobilise the working class in the defence of democracy. In other words, to defend the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Why was there a majority against the Euro? The leading factions of the bourgeoisie, like the bosses' union, and leading capitalist companies like Ericsson and Volvo were for the Euro, as were the main figures in the Social Democratic Party (SAP), like Prime Minister Persson, Foreign Minister Lindh and Finance Minister Ringholm. However, even inside the government there were divisions which cut through the whole SAP, as well as inside the union apparatus where there were forceful critics of Sweden joining the Euro.

The Centre party, which traditionally has roots in the agricultural sector and was for Sweden joining the EU in the referendum of 1994, was also against joining the Euro. The other right-wing parties were for the Euro, even if there where strong minorities that were against.

The result of the referendum must be seen as a set back for the leading factions of the bourgeoisie, which had underestimated the strength of the 'no' campaign. The 'no' campaign has continued since the 1994 referendum, focussing on the myth that all the cuts in the welfare state were due to joining the EU. Attacks on the working class

The fact that many workers voted 'no' should be seen as an expression of discontent with the long period of attacks on the social wage in Sweden. The left has been in the forefront of the attacks on workers' living conditions. This is most clearly shown in the cooperation between the Green party, the former CP, and the SAP in government, which relies on the other parties to continue as the party at the heart of the state apparatus. The attacks on workers' living conditions have been skilfully organised, mostly on a local and municipal level, mostly by the left parties, but partly by the right wing party protesting against the 'red-green coalition'.

In fact the attacks on workers have been so efficient that Sweden is admired by the bourgeoisies of France and Germany which have had difficulties in undertaking the 'structural reforms' that have already been achieved in Sweden.

The reason why the attacks on workers have been so effective in Sweden can be explained by a number of factors. There has not been a frontal attack on workers' pensions as in France; it has been phased in on a step by step basis. This was accelerated after the financial crash in Sweden in the early 90s, when workers in Sweden suddenly faced mass unemployment. The attacks have also been dispersed across a number of sectors.

The bourgeoisie, and particularly the left, have diverted the dissatisfaction in the working class with electoral campaigns that focus on democracy as a way of channelling discontent. Before the summer the bourgeoisie also used a strike organised by the unions in the municipal sector, which was drawn out and fragmented. This was a lesson to all workers on how not to fight, staged by the unions for workers in the public sector to let off steam. This was effective despite there being a certain loss of confidence in the unions when the strike was seen to lead nowhere, leaving many workers disappointed about how the strike was run. Strategies of the Swedish bourgeoisie

The fact that the bourgeoisie used the referendum in its democratic campaign against the working class does not contradict the fact that the bourgeoisie was divided over the Euro. This division, particularly inside the SAP, has its roots in changes at the economic and imperialist level.

The bourgeoisie had a huge shock in the early 90s when it could not defend its currency (which was tied up in the ERM); the Reich bank increased the interest rate to 500%, and big parts of the banking sector collapsed, only to be saved by the 'lender of last resort', the state. This gave rise to a very sceptical attitude to a fixed rate for the currency. Devaluations have always been the medicine of the Swedish bourgeoisie when it was in crisis, but they have led to an extreme devaluation of its assets and the selling off of big companies like Volvo and Saab to American capital, and with major pharmaceutical companies being integrated into big American capital.

The growing financial turbulence of the 90s drew a part of the bourgeoisie towards the Euro. But the leading faction delayed its change of policy too long, a change from distancing itself to an attitude of searching for cooperation because it needs to improve its position with the prospect of future financial storms. The leading circle in the SAP did not want a referendum, because it knew the difficulties in controlling the election campaign, as well as the advantages the 'no' side had gained. In parliament they could easily get a majority. But most of the SAP wanted a referendum.

On the imperialist level, throughout the 20th century, Sweden always had an attitude of trying to stay out of trouble for as long as possible. It avoided entering into alliances with other powers unless it was absolutely necessary in order to stay out of conflicts. For example, it was close to Germany during the Second World War, exporting significant quantities of iron for the German war effort, and allowing German troops to advance on Norway and Finland through Sweden. The Swedish bourgeoisie laid the rails for German imperialist adventures. The rapid desertion of a former ally faced with defeat was clearly demonstrated in the switch from Germany to the side of the Allies at the end of the war. The success of this policy formed the basis, after the war, of the myth of Sweden's 'neutrality'. It helped the western bloc as an infiltrator and agent in the so called 'progressive movements' of national liberation, which in fact concealed the battle between the American and Russian imperialist blocs. Since the dissolution of the blocs, Sweden's imperialist role has decreased, with the tendency for each country to fight for itself, and the difficulties Sweden faces in playing off other powers against each other. The complete lack of an independent policy in relation to the US offensive after 9/11 was shown in outright apologies for American imperialism. It was only with the open opposition to the US by France and Germany that Persson and Lindh showed a more 'independent' face and fell in with the critics of the American adventure in Iraq. Both Lindh and Persson tried to play a more significant role in Europe, getting closer to France and Germany. One example of this was Lindh's open critique of Berlusconi over the new European constitution. The desire to join the Euro is part of a tendency toward establishing closer cooperation with other European countries. What does Lindh's killing show?

There is no doubt that the former Swedish foreign minister was an effective defender of Sweden's imperialist policy. There did not appear to be any fraction of the bourgeoisie that objected to Anna Lindh, despite the differences over the Euro etc. Who benefited the most from her murder? On one level the bourgeoisie was able to use it to mount nationalist and democratic campaigns and increase the turnout in the referendum, but it also lost an important member of the government, who had been expected to succeed the current Prime Minister. There do not appear to be any real political motives within the bourgeoisie for the killing of one its leading members. It also looks unlikely that a foreign power would have been interested in killing Lindh, not even Berlusconi with his hurt pride and loyalty to the US.

A murder like this does show one aspect of social reality. We have seen one of the vilest media campaigns, at least by Swedish standards, against an innocent man, with his whole life exposed, not only in all the major evening papers, but also in the more 'serious' daily papers. No detail has been left unpublished, no speculation has been too far-fetched or obscure. The events have confirmed the status of the media as a bunch of lying hyenas, prepared to fill their pages with anything, no matter how scurrilous. And a completely corrupt police force has leaked intimate details of the investigation, as well as all kinds of speculation, to the press, whose rights are defended with laws 'protecting the free press', or for the 'protection of media sources' etc.

We have also seen how the psychiatric care system in Sweden has collapsed, partly through the constant cuts in this sector, and this has rebounded on the architects of this 'reform'. People are locked up, abandoned to live on the streets, to get addicted to drink or drugs, to commit suicide, or even to kill others in their moments of despair. It seems likely that the man who is currently accused of killing Anna Lindh needed psychiatric care, which he had been repeatedly refused.

As the furore was beginning to die down, the SAP government put forward a package of tax increases in new budget proposals directly hitting the living conditions of many workers. At the same time there has been a rash of announcements of new cuts in the public sector on the municipal level, sacking a new round of workers in the 'welfare system'. The attacks of the bourgeoisie continue.

Olof, 30/09/03.

This article was originally published in 2 parts. It has now been consolidated into one article, the complete version of which can be found here [9].