war, imperialism and the working class

8/19/2019 war, imperialism and the working class

1/28

Revolutionary Perspectives 1

Editorial

War, Imperialism and the Working

Class

rate, in this breaking of the oldimperialist order the parameters in

which the UK has operated since WorldWar 2 will radically change and theUK’s position as US cat’s paw inEurope will become untenable. TheBlair team imagine they can take partin the adventures of US imperialismeven when they threaten the interestsof core European states while, at thesame time, retaining the economicbenefits of the EU. But the capitalisteconomic crisis is bringing in its wakea chain of events which will force theUK to choose between its US allianceand Europe. The crumbs which it

receives from the table of USimperialism, such any participation inas oil concessions in Iraq orreconstruction contracts, will have tobe balanced against the economic tieswhich bind it to Europe. In theaftermath of the war we will clearly seeif these crumbs are any more than USallies received after the Gulf War. Evenbefore the war started, the US wasawarding its corporationsreconstruction contracts with thecorporations previously controlled byCheney and Bush at the top of the list.

Nothing has been heard of opportunities for UK companies. TheUS does not really need the UK for itsadventures and sees no need to rewardit with more than crumbs. Ultimately,we consider, the attraction of the USalliance will be outweighed. When thishappens, the stage will then be set forthe emergence of a real rivalsuperpower to the US, which is theprecondition for developments leadingto a new world conflagration.

A new nationalism?

The crimes which are today beingcommitted in Iraq are an expression of the true nature of capitalism itself. Theyresult directly from the presenteconomic crisis and the imperialistforces it generates in the major powers.The Iraq crisis is bringing in its train atide of anti-Americanism in Europe,even in the countries which support theUS, such as Britain, Spain and Italy.As our rulers seek to realign themselves

into new blocs they are also seeking todraw the working class behind them

into a new nationalism. A newEuropean nationalism which definesitself in opposition to the US is arising.This can be seen in the pacifistmovements which have moved from asimple anti-war stance to an anti-American stance. From here it is a shortstep towards European nationalism.This new unifying ideology is beingdirected towards the working class andis preparation for a future imperialistwar in which the working class ismobilised behind a European bloc. Itis very dangerous for the working class.

The imperialism of the European blocis just as vicious as that of their USrival. It is simply less powerful. It isimportant that the working class rejectsthis new nationalism and refuses to bemobilised behind it. The working classneeds to fight for its own class interestsindependent of those of its exploiters.Only this fight can stop the drivetowards war on which we are nowembarked.

Workers have no country. They havea world to win!

The new war with Iraq has revealed thebarbaric destruction which our rulers

are prepared to unleash on theinhabitants of any state which refusesto cooperate with their imperialistplans. This display of savagery is astark message for the US rivals whohave frustrated its plans at the UN. Forthe US, the peaceful disarming of Iraqwas always quite unacceptable, sincemilitary occupation by the US is anecessary step in getting control of theIraqi oil and rebuilding a Middle Eastmore closely corresponding to thedesires of US imperialism. This attack,which brought the curtain down on the

farce at the UN, shows the US nowfeels sufficiently strong to go to waragainst the wishes of the majority of the security council. It shows the US isprepared to undermine both the UNand NATO in the pursuit of itsimperialist interests. A new order of imperialism is being established. Thisis discussed in greater detail in “Iraq –War and Imperialist Occupation”below.

The war is also, of course, being aimedat the US’s principal rivals Europe,

Russia, China and Japan. Thesecountries will now find it harder tobypass the US monopoly on managingthe oil from the Gulf and will find itharder for their currencies, particularlythe euro, to substitute themselves forthe dollar as the currency in which oilis traded. While the US aims to weakenits rivals economically, it is also aimingat reversing the moves in Europetowards the formation of a bloc as arival of the US. In this the UKgovernment has played a key role. Forthe central European powers,

particularly France and Germany, thiswar has come as a cruel reminder of their weakness. They will certainly nowtake steps to counter this weakness,steps such as the closer political ties inthe direction of the federation so fearedby the UK, together with coordinationof foreign and defence policies. Theweakening of NATO is likely to leadto a new pact based on the EU corecountries and leading inevitably to therupture of the Atlantic alliance. At any


2/28


Iraq

War and Imperialist Occupation

the pockets of the US capitalist class.For US capital any threat to thisarrangement justifies war.

New imperialist rules and

new imperialist rivalsBy asserting its interests in such adramatic way the US has done more toform a the new imperialist order whichhas been emerging since 1991. In thecountdown to this war tendencies in theinternational order which were latentand hidden have become patentlyobvious. US rivals, who had beenformer allies and had been content tohide behind US coat-tails in the ColdWar period, began cautiously to asserttheir own interests in the ’90’s whilenever daring to put their heads abovethe parapet and oppose US interests

directly. However, in the present marchto war, where they perceive theirinterests to be directly challenged bythe US, the Europeans, especiallyFrance and Germany, together withRussia have directly opposed US plansthrough manoeuvres at the UN. As wepointed out in RP 27 these countriesall have their own imperialist motivescompelling them to defend theirinterests in the Middle East, and havealready positioned themselves to gettheir hands or Iraqi oil deposits. Thisis why these countries favour a

peaceful disarmament of Iraq, whichleaves their oil concessions intact, andoppose a US invasion which could costthem thecontracts theyhave signed. It isironic thatGeorge W. Bushhas managed toforge the“ c o m m o nEuropean home”alliance whichG o r b a c h e v

singularly failedto put together inthe 1980’s.There are nogood guys in thisimperialist saga.As we wrote inRP27,

The arrogant preachers of morality and

international law are, in fact, a gangof thieves quarrelling over how todivide the wealth of a victim they havecornered.2

NATO, UN and

International LawThese conflicts of interests between theUS and its former allies are inevitablyproducing ruptures in the existinginternational organisations of imperialism such as NATO and theUN. The dramatic refusal by France,Germany and Belgium to authorise thetransfer of military equipment toTurkey, when the US requested it,reveals that the Atlantic Alliance isdoomed. Similarly the farce beingplayed out at the UN Security Council,and the US arrogant dismissal of its

relevance, shows that this institution isshortly to return to the status it heldduring the cold war, that of ahumanitarian agency. As we pointedout in RP 27, a Marxist understandingof global imperialism demonstratesthat international bodies, such as theUN, are not independent of thosecountries who hold the real economicand military power. Such organisationswill necessarily express the interests of the dominant imperialist power, or theywill become irrelevant. The UN whichis supposed to decide international

questions of war is completelyimpotent in conditions where rival

With the invasion of Iraq the US hasannounced its determination to launchpre-emptive wars anywhere in theworld where it feels it has importantinterests and to change thegovernments of states which oppose itsdictates. What is, in fact, announced is

that the constraints under which USimperialism has operated up to now nolonger apply. In the 21st century, whichthe US has baptised as the “AmericanCentury” the Monroe doctrine and theRoosevelt corollary will be applied, notonly to the American continents, butalso to the Middle East. The extensionof this doctrine to cover other areas of the world, such as South East Asiawhere a war against North Korea isbeing prepared, is only a matter of time.In these areas of the world the rules of central and South America will applyand countries which oppose USinterests will be treated like Grenadaor Panama.

The events unfolding in Iraqdemonstrate the nature of the newperiod of imperialism we have entered.This period has arisen from thecollapse of Russian imperialism in1991, and the consequent collapse of the only force able to maintain apretence of constraining US appetites.With the emergence of the US as thesole superpower, US imperialism has

shown itself prepared to resort to forcewhenever economic pressure andthreats fail to compel states to do itsbidding. Since the collapse of theRussian bloc we have seen the USgoing to war in the Gulf, in Bosnia andKosovo, in Afghanistan and now inIraq. All these wars have been, in thefamous words of Karl von Clausewitz,

mere continuation of policy by other means. 1

In the case of the present war in Iraq,the policy which is being continued is

securing oil supplies and control of themajor oil-producing region of theworld. At the more fundamental level,US imperialism is asserting its right toappropriate the profits produced byworkers form the four corners of theworld. Through its control of oil andthe currency in which it is traded USimperialism spreads a vast net whichdrains a proportion of the surplus valueextracted from workers worldwide into

US war aims


3/28


imperialist powers have the power of veto. In its 56 years of existence theUN has only authorised two wars, theKorean War and the Gulf War, while ithas been powerless to stop the 150 orso other wars that have been waged inthis period. In the case of the KoreanWar, the Russians made the mistake of boycotting the council, a mistake theydid not repeat, and in the case of theGulf War the Russian bloc hadcollapsed and, in the face of seeminglyblatant aggression against Kuwait there

was no case to defend against USwishes. Today, it is indicative of thegrowing imperialist rivalry between theUS and Europe that France is preparedto veto the proposals of Bush andcorporal Blair.

The brushing aside of the UN by Bushand Blair has caused much bleatingabout international law coming, notsurprisingly, from the opponents of theUS. While the capitalist class can agreeon civil law, which is an expression of the class relationships in capitalist

society and protects capitalist property,they find it hard to agree oninternational law. This is becauseinternational law expresses therelationships between sections of thecapitalist class themselves and theirnation states and is supposed toregulate imperialism. Suchrelationships are inevitably based onthe power relationships between states,i.e. the powerful states make the lawsand the weaker states obey them. TheUS reaction to the 1986 World Court judgement against it over Nicaragua,

when it was found guilty of terrorismand ordered to pay indemnity to theNicaraguan government, illustrates thispoint. George Schultz, who was thenthe US secretary of state, brushed asidethe judgement as

utopian, legalistic …and… ignoringthe power elements of the equation.3

He was correct. International law onlyexists so far as the strongest states areprepared to enforce it and for thestrongest states it is voluntary. The UScan, therefore, ignore international law

when it suits it to do so and forceweaker states to obey the same laws.While the US has no hesitation inlaunching wars against Kosovo,Afghanistan and now Iraq in flagrantviolation of international law, we areforever being told of the unacceptableviolations of international law by Iraq,Iran, North Korea or whoever else isin the firing line.

It is instructive that the powers who arenow shedding tears about the violationof international law, like France andGermany, did not raise this issue overKosovo or Afghanistan. Only whentheir interests are being more directlythreatened do we hear cries aboutinternational law. International law isnothing but a smokescreen behindwhich they intend to frustrate theinterests of US imperialism andadvance their own. Hence, they willonly support a war authorised by the

UN which, since they have the right of veto, will never happen.

The great powers do, however, wantto retain a semblance of legality fortheir actions and we can confidentlypredict that after the US has achievedits interests by force, international lawwill mysteriously be found to justifywhat has happened. Weapons of massdestruction will be found one way oranother and France and Germany willhave no alternative but to accept whathas occurred. A formula will be found

to bring the UN into Iraq forhumanitarian work and the talk of violations of international law will beforgotten.

The important issue in this wrangle isnot that of international law itself butthat other powers are now willing toconfront the US, and that, as we havepredicted for years, opposingimperialist blocs are arising. As hasbeen said above the real argument overIraq is about the division of its oil andthe revenues from this which, in a fewyears time, could amount to some$26bn4 annually.

This war can only bring closer theconsolidation of the blocs of nationsopposed to US hegemony. It will,therefore, bring closer furtherimperialist wars and ultimately worldwar. Although the war has apparentlydriven wedges between the countriesforming the EU, this is likely to be asuperficial result which the EU willtake steps to prevent recurring. Theinstitutional structures of the EU willbe strengthened and this will be

reflected in the constitution now beingdrafted. The leaders who have sidedwith the US will be isolated and putunder pressure to support the corecountries. The forces impelling the EUtowards greater unity and the formationof a bloc opposed to the US, areeconomic and ultimately these willbring the political superstructure whichrests on them into conformity. In all thisthe odd man out remains the UK. The

mid Atlantic position, adopted bysuccessive UK governments has beenabandoned by Blair and his cronies forone of slavish kowtowing to the US sothat the British position is now almostuntenable. Blair is about to come togrief on the same banana skin whichbrought Thatcher down, the issue of theUK’s relationship to Europe (its biggesttrading partner) and it relationship withthe US (its biggest source of outwardinvestment).

Motives for the WarRecent developments and statementsfrom the US have shed further light onthe real motives for the war. Thesemotives are the securing of long termoil supplies for the US and controllingthe oil price, the control of all oilsupplies and transport routes from theGulf region, and the establishing of astrategic bridgehead from which toattack other states opposing USdictates such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.Most of these objectives have beendealt with in RP 275 and we refer

readers the text “Countdown to warwith Iraq” for a detailed discussion of these motives. We will, however,briefly summarise the mainconclusions of the argument beforelooking at the developments whichhave occurred in recent months. Thecontinuing importance of oil is shownby the fact that 62% of the world’senergy still comes from oil and gas, andthe growing importance of the MiddleEast as a source of energy is shown bythe fact that this area contains the 65%of the world’ oil resources which will

outlast those in other regions. The USwhich today imports 60% of its oil isexpected to import 90% by 20206. Oilresources from the Middle East are thusbecoming more important to the USthan ever before. By occupying Iraq theUS is seizing the second largest oilreserves in the world. These will securefor the US a safe long term supply of oil and enable it to control the priceand if necessary destroy OPEC. TheUS will also be able to control the priceand the flow of oil from this region andensure it continues to be traded in

dollars.

Given these objectives it was,therefore, no surprise to be informedby US secretary of state, Powell, thatthe first objective of US forces wouldbe to seize the Iraqi oil wells. Alreadythe great oil companies have started tohaggle for a share of the fat cake whichis about to become available. The Iraqioil industry, which was nationalised in


4/28


1972, has, since the Gulf War, providedconcessions to certain oil companies,notably, those of France, Russia, Chinaand Italy who together hold $38bnworth of concessions. British and USoil companies, hitherto excluded fromIraq, are now barely concealing theirexcitement. BP and Exxon have calledfor a “level playing field” which is acoded way of demanding thatconcessions already awarded to thelikes of Totalfinaelf of France, orLukoil of Russia be renegotiated. Both

Shell and BP have discussed with Blairthe possibility of claiming a stake inIraq’s oil reserves. Whitehall officialsnow openly speak of a productionsharing scheme whereby some of theproceeds would go to Iraq and someto the oil companies. The proceedsgoing to Iraq would, of course, be usedto cover the costs of the war and themilitary administration. With the liftingof sanctions, new exploration andinvestment, Iraqi oil production couldbe tripled to at least 7 million barrels aday (mbd) which could be used to

secure stable supplies for the US and areduction in price. This could also bea significant threat to OPEC.

A further advantage of US occupationof Iraq would be that Iraqi oil wouldagain be traded in dollars. In November2000 Iraq switched the currency inwhich its oil was traded from dollarsto Euros. Although Iraq is the onlyproducer to have made the switch othercountries such as Venezuela and Iranhave been considering doing the same.If more countries, or OPEC as a whole,

were to do this it would be a serioussetback for the US and a correspondinggain for the Europeans. This couldseriously affect the dollar’s role as thecurrency for international trade outsidethe US, particularly, of course, for thetrade in oil. The dollar’s importance inworld trade can be seen from the factthat in 2000 half of the world’s exportsand 80% of the world’s foreignexchange transactions were carried outin dollars. This shows the massiveextent to which the dollar circulatesoutside the US as a fiat currency over

which the US has ownership. Thisbrings massive benefits, namely anunearned income of approximately$500bn annually(6) . Increases incurrency corresponding to increases inthe volume of world trade can becovered by the US issuing more papercurrency without causing inflation. Inaddition the holders of dollars whowish to invest their surplus, much of itderived from the US current account

deficit, are obliged to do so in the US.This ensures a continual flow of dollarcapital to the US from the rest of theworld. In effect the US levies a tax onthe rest of the world for its use of thedollar.

At present the US has a trade deficit of approximately $500bn annually and anational debt of $6300bn. This will bedifficult to sustain. It would becomeimpossible if the dollar started to loseits position as a global reserve

currency. Not only would the tax on itsuse dry up but its value would fall. Anindication of what could occur has beenseen in the last few months when largeswitches in dollar holdings to Euroholdings have seen the currency dropby 25% against the Euro. (See the text“Dollar in continual decline against theEuro” in this edition.) This declinecould threaten the massive flows of capital which the US needs daily tofund its deficit and its debt payments.If these flows were seriouslythreatened, the US would be forced to

raise interest rates which would in turnincrease the payments it must make toservice its debts and it would reduceeconomic activity. This could alsocreate massive individual bankruptciesbecause of the enormous level of personal debt in the US, which couldlead down a path of banking failures,deflation and a slump of 1929proportions. The invasion of Iraqserves as a means of bolstering thedollar’s position as the currency of theoil trade by force of arms, and much isat stake in this.

These considerations illustrate twofurther important issues which liebehind this war. The first is that, likeall imperialist wars, it is directly relatedto the needs of the US economy. This,and not Saddam and his supposedweapons of mass destruction, is the realthreat to the US capitalist class. Thesecond is that the threat to the dollar iscoming from the Euro, whose corecountries are France and Germany.This is why these states are correct inunderstanding this war as a blowdirected at their interests.

Iraq after the warThe US’s preferred option has alwaysbeen to retain Iraq as a unitary state inits present form and resist demands forKurdish independence or autonomy forthe Shiite areas. This was emphasisedin a particularly bloody way in 1991when Bush Senior left Saddam tobutcher Kurds and Shias who dared toraise their separatist ambitions. Today

these two groups will be similarlysidelined by the US. It may be that theUS is even intending to retain theexisting Ba’athist state structures andsimply replace the top echelon of Saddam placemen with Pentagonplacemen. The glorious ambition of democracy and freedom which Bushis always promising is on its way a shortdistance behind the cruise missiles,bombs and tanks will never arrive. Anyfree election would bring either aKurdish or a Shia regime to power

which, of course, is the last thing theUS wants. This is why they intend touse 55 000 Turkish troops to hold downthe Kurdish areas, while British troopscontrol Basrah and the south and theUS holds down the rest of the country.

To fund the occupation, the US hasmade clear that oil revenues will betaxed and, in addition, blocked Iraqiaccounts both in the US and in the UNaccount will be used to pay expensesof the occupation and the war. In otherwords, Iraq is to pay for its own

conquest and occupation in the classicmanner of imperialism. The US intendsto bring in the UN, despite its failureto authorise the war, as a humanitarianagency to continue with the oil for foodprogramme and to distribute food andother emergency supplies. Meanwhilethe US itself will run the country andcontinue with the main task of gettingits hands on the country’s oil.

Much, however, could still go wrongwith the US plans. The difficulties ithas had in installing its armoureddivision in southern Turkey is anindication of the type of problemswhich could lie ahead. The USassumed it could bribe and threatenTurkey to get what it wanted, howeverthe Turks demanded bigger bribes thanthe US was prepared to pay. The USoffered $6bn in grants and $20bn inloan guarantees, but the Turksdemanded $92bn. After a lot of haggling, the Turks came down to$30bn and Powell was sent to Turkeyto sort out a deal. The final offer of theUS came down to $16bn, but this wasrejected by the Turkish parliament. TheTurkish government, which alsodemanded the offer in writingindicating a clear mistrust of the US,said it would resubmit the request tothe parliament after the UN delivereda resolution authorising war! All thisinfuriated the US which has declaredthat no grants would be made toTurkey. Much of their heavy equipmentdestined for the Kurdish front has hadto be shifted to Kuwait. The failure to


5/28


secure grants and the crisis provokedby the collapse of trade with Iraq couldplunge Turkey’s economy into acutecrisis. Also, if the US fails to place itsarmoured troops in Kurdistan the planof allowing 55000 Turkish troops tooccupy the region could lead to bloodyconflict with the Kurdish nationalists.In addition Iranian backed Iraqiopposition troops, the so-called Badrbrigade, have entered Kurdistan. Theseare Iraqi Shi’ite forces recruited fromthe south of Iraq and trained by the

Iranian revolutionary guards. Thereasons for their entry into Kurdistanare not clear, but their presence isanother dangerous factor and anindication that the Kurdish problemcould still explode with unexpectedconsequences for the US.

The US is also bound to face otherpolitical problems elsewhere in theregion which will come in the wake of its onslaught on Iraq. Popular anger atUS imperialism is likely to rock theregimes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and

Egypt and could produce acuteinstability throughout the regionprompting direct US intervention toprotect its interests.

Another problem for the US is thewhole question of payment for thisadventure. Without a UN resolution, itis unlikely to secure payments from itsallies as it did for the Gulf War,particularly as many of these alliesoppose the war and regard it as illegal.Although the US plans to loot Iraqibank accounts and take income fromIraqi oil it is unlikely that these will besufficient. The cost of the war isestimated to be $95bn and the USgovernment has already requested theCongress provide $80bn in additionalfunding to cover the cost of the war. Inaddition, the cost of the occupation willprobably amount to another $100bnannually. Confiscating Iraqi bank accounts and the income from a year’soil production would cover less thanhalf the cost of the war. If fightingdestroys the oil wells, as occurred inKuwait, the income from Iraqi oil,which the US assumes will be in itshands, may take years to materialise.In the short term the US economiccrisis is likely to be made worse by thisadventure. Already the Congress istalking about halving Bush’s famoustax cutting package. In the short termthe US economic crisis is likely to bemade worse by this adventure.

Of course, the US planners are awareof all these things and have concluded

that the long-term interests of USimperialism demand taking these risks.As far as the popular Arab anger isconcerned they have adopted the adageof the Roman Empire, “let them hate,so long as they fear.”

Turn the imperialist war into

a class warAs we have pointed out, the causes of this war are rooted in capitalism’sproblems of profitability which areseverely limiting accumulation of

capital. The Bush Junta hopes, bymeans of this bold stroke to cut throughthe knot of economic and politicalproblems in which it finds itself entangled. As has been said above, ithopes, by means of controlling the oilresources of the Middle East to achievea guaranteed supply at lower and stableprices. It also hopes to be able to limitsupplies and thus increase the priceswhich its competitors pay. At the sametime it aims to retain the dollar as thecurrency of the oil trade, and thus of international trade generally, and socontinue to reap the rich rewards whichthis brings. It is for this reason that theskies above Iraq are about to rain downmissiles and bombs in a barbariconslaught which will leave tens of thousands dead in the first days of thewar. The war is, therefore, quite clearlyan imperialist war waged for theinterests of US capital as a whole butwith the oil and military interests in thevanguard.

It is a war which will see workersmobilised behind their capitalist

exploiters in the name of nationalism,and workers in their workplaces willbe asked to make sacrifices for the war.Already the UK firefighters are beingasked to suspend their strike for thesake of the imperialist interests of theirexploiters. At the same time workersin uniform are being called to kill theirIraqi class brothers. All this is in directopposition to the real interests of theworking class which demand both totalopposition to their capitalist exploiterswhatever the circumstances, andinternational solidarity with workers of

other countries. Workers have nocountry!

Since its formation in the 1920’s theItalian left communist current, to whichthe CWO belongs, has defended thepolicy of revolutionary defeatism in theface of all capitalism’s wars. Thismeans that imperialist wars should beturned into class wars, that is to say,civil wars between the capitalist classand the working class. As we have

pointed out many times, this was thepolicy adopted by Lenin at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 whicheventually led to the revolution of October 1917. Today this remains theonly position which can defend theinterests of the working class andwhich can eventually lead to theoverthrow of this rotten system underwhich we live. Although we are fullyaware that today this is a distantprospect, and that the working class isdominated by the ideology of the

capitalist class, this policy representsa direction of orientation and a polearound which revolutionaries can rallyboth now and in the future. This presentwar is merely the latest of a series of wars which will stretch away into thefuture on a road which is clearlyleading to another world conflagration.The capitalist class cannot deviate fromthis road since the forces pushing it inthis direction are located in capitalism’seconomy itself. The only way this drivetowards war can be halted is throughclass struggle, class war and revolution.

As we have said before, the choicebefore us is not between “war andpeace” it is between “imperialist warand class war.” We call on workers to:

• Refuse all sacrifices for the war • Continue the class struggle• Stage strikes in the war industries• Refuse to transport war materials• Turn the imperialist war into aclass war for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of communism.Workers have a world to win!

CP

Notes1 Karl von Clausewitz On War , Book 1,

1.24

2 See “Countdown to war with Iraq”,

RP 27

3 Quoted by N Chomsky, Rogue States

4 This assumes production is increased

to 7mbd and is sold at $25 per barrel

while production cost is $4//barrel and

half the surplus is taken by the oil

companies. In fact, the figure could be

larger, as production costs are lowerthan in Saudi, only $0.4 to $0.75 per

barrel. See Financial Times, 21/02/03

5 See the Energy Plan produced by

Vice President Cheney and released in

May 2001

6 See “Control over the oil market in

an epoch where finance capital

dominates” in In te rnat iona li st

Communist No. 18


6/28


North Korea

Another Imperialist War is Being

Prepared

in turn led to the restarting by NorthKorea of its nuclear reactors which hadbeen mothballed under the ’94

agreement and in January of this yearits withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Thiswithdrawal, which followed theexpulsion of nuclear inspectors who areauthorised under the NPT, is clearly athreat to restart the weaponsprogramme. To understand how thiscrisis has been able to blow up soquickly it is necessary to look brieflyat the key events of the 1990’s.

Crumbling bastion of state

capitalism

North Korea is one of the last remnantsof fully integral state capitalism, andremains an economy such as that whichexisted in Russia up to 1991. Itseconomy is not, nor has it ever beenanything other than a type of capitalism, a capitalism where the stateholds all the capital but where theworkers remain exploited throughwage labour. The country was a clientof Russian imperialism and was heavilydependent on Russian support. Thewithdrawal of this support after 1991was a heavy blow, but, instead of

throwing in the towel and becoming aUS client as other Russian clients haddone, the Stalinist regime soldiered on.The cost has been enormous. There hasbeen a catastrophic economic collapsewhich has produced energy shortages,decline in industrial production withcapital equipment being run into theground and factories barely operatingand a corresponding agriculturaldecline. The agricultural crisis was sosevere that in the mid-’90’s between 1and 2 million people died of starvation!

In the period after the collapse of theRussian bloc, North Korea wascritically short of energy and continuedto develop nuclear energy fromreactors supplied by the Russians. Theyalso continued with an accompanyingweapons programme despite havingbecome a signatory of the NPT in1985. In 1993, the inspections regimeallowed for under the NPT wasextended to allow inspectors to visitresearch and production sites, even if

they had not been previously declaredby the signatory of the treaty. Thisextension of the treaty’s inspections

regime caused North Korea toannounce its withdrawal from thetreaty. This was the pretext for the 1993crisis with the US.

For the US, the survival of the regimeafter 1991 was an annoyance since itexpected the regime to become a USclient now that the Cold War had beenwon. The 1993 crisis gave the US theopening it had been looking for and,by a combination of threats and bribes,North Korea was persuaded toannounce a moratorium on itswithdrawal from the NPT and to close

down its nuclear facilities. In return,the US promised to provide two of itsown light-water nuclear reactors,capable of generating 2000MW. Thesewere supposed to be in operation by2003. Also, the US undertook toprovide 500 000 tonnes of fuel oilannually. Through this agreement, theUS hoped to either bring North Koreaunder its wing through its economicstrength, or provide a pretext forremoving the regime by force.

After the 1994 agreement, North Korea

began a slow process of reform aimedat changing its state capitalist economyto a market one. These reforms, whichwere modelled on reforms carried outby China in the ’80’s, have recentlybeen accelerated and have broughtsome liberalisation of the economy.Price reform has been carried out, andin July 2002, the currency wasdevalued and prices and wagesincreased by a factor of 18, rationingwas ended, charges introduced forutilities such as electricity, gas, water,etc., and private markets allowed for

agricultural produce. Opening of cross-border links with the South was startedand a business park for South Koreancapitalists to invest in was started inthe border city of Kaesong. The North,however, needed massive amounts of new capital which it hoped to get fromS Korea and Japan. However, after2001 it also became clear that the Bushcabal was not seriously interested incontinuing with the ’94 agreement.

When Bush delivered his famous “axisof evil” speech in January 2001 hespecifically mentioned three countries

the US intended to attack, Iraq, Iranand North Korea. We are now seeingthe US invasion of Iraq, and althoughthis has assumed a position of centrestage in the spectacle we are presentedwith, in the wings a crisis, which couldprecipitate the invasion of NorthKorea, is being engineered. Althoughdevelopments in this area of the worldhave been kept out of the limelight theyare just as dramatic as those of Iraq andarise from the same fundamentalcauses. Just as in Iraq, all the huffingand puffing about North Korea’s

weapons of mass destruction, iscamouflage designed to conceal themore fundamental imperialist motivesfor this confrontation. These are theneed for the US to maintain its controlover this area of the world, to check itspotential rivals China, Japan andRussia and to prevent the formation of a bloc of nations which could challengeits domination. As we will argue below,the confrontation is, at root, aconfrontation over how the profitsproduced by the working class of thisregion of the world are to be divided.

While the other powers in the regionare keen to overturn the presentdivision, for the US it is imperative thatthe present distribution remains as itis. The capitalist class are able to plantheir wars in the open and arrogant waythey do because the working class doesnot oppose them and is not at presentable to put forward political solutionsof its own.

The new crisisSince October 2002, the Korean crisishas escalated to the point where the US

is now threatening a pre-emptivenuclear attack on North Korea and hasmoved warships and bombers into thearea. The development of the crisis hasbeen extremely rapid. In the fivemonths since North Korea admitted toa programme of uranium enrichmentwe have seen suspension of oilshipments guaranteed by the US underthe 1994 US/North Korea agreementand suspension of food aid. This has


7/28


This was demonstrated by its failureto deliver the nuclear power plantspromised and its announcement that theregime was part of the “axis of evil”.This convinced the regime that it wasgoing to be attacked and led to therestarting of the nuclear weaponsprogramme. When this was discoveredby the US the regime tried to use itsnuclear capacity as a bargaining cardin an attempt to get aid and a non-aggression pact with the US. This wasa desperate move from a bankrupt and

starving country being threatened by acountry whose Gross DomesticProduct is some 500 times larger thanits own. In doing this, however, NorthKorea was playing into Washington’shands. The US promptly stopped itsfuel deliveries, dismissed all talk of anon-aggression pact and declaredNorth Korea had violated the NPT andthat it would refer the matter to the UNwith a view to getting a resolutionpaving the way for war. Having startedon this course North Korea had littleoption but to continue and it restarted

its nuclear reactors and then threatenedto produce nuclear weapons. All thishas simply strengthened the US hand.

The US is, of course, putting pressureon its allies in the region, particularlySouth Korea and Japan, to support itsmoves against the north. Both arereluctant allies. The US is veryunpopular in South Korea because of its longstanding support for the militarydictatorship and the careless brutalityof its 40 000 troops stationed there.This unpopularity was reflected in the

defeat of the US-supported candidatein the December election and thevictory of Roh Moo-hyon, a leftisthuman rights lawyer who opposes theUS policy towards the North. A furtherindication of US unpopularity were theanti-US demonstrations whichfollowed the acquittal of US soldierswho ran over and killed two Koreangirls. South Korea has been pursuingwhat it calls the “sunshine policy”towards the North. This consists of restoring communications andeconomic links and supplying aid in

order to gradually reintegrate it in acombined economy. South Korea fearsthe US policy of confrontation andsanctions will lead to economiccollapse of the North, and in thesecircumstances they estimate the cost of reunification to the South would beastronomical. They fear a repeat of thedebilitating effect of Germanreunification. Some have estimated afigure of $3200bn!1 Although the South

is fabulously prosperous by thestandards of the North with a GDP of $865bn, 40 times that of the North,such a cost for unification would becrippling. The South has also beenweakened by the 1997 crisis whichbrought the bankruptcy of half of allthe major chaebol (partly state-ownedconglomerates) and a quarter of all thefinancial institutions and which forcedthe country to borrow $58bn from theIMF increasing the national debt to$120bn. The South is not ready for

further adventures which could proveexpensive.

A further worry for the US is that thechange occurring in South Korea’spattern of trade has resulted in Chinareplacing the US as its main tradingpartner bringing a shift in its loyaltytowards China. China is now the risingpower in the area and counteringChina’s ambitions is one of the mainaims of the drama being staged by theUS with regard to North Korea.

Korea – crucible of

imperialist struggleSince the industrialisation of Japan inthe late nineteenth century, Korea hasbeen a crucible of imperialist struggle.The country is strategically placedbetween China and Russia, close toJapan and gives access to the mineralwealth of Manchuria. North Korea

itself is rich in minerals such as coal,iron, magnesite, graphite, copper, zinc,lead and various precious metals. Thefirst imperialist war over the region wasbetween Japan and China in 1894,giving Japan rights in Korea. When thiswas challenged by Russianimperialism, a war between Russia and

Japan followed in 1904 which led toJapanese domination of the peninsulaand finally annexation in 1910. In the1930’s, Korea formed the springboardfor Japanese expansion into Manchuriaand its invasion of China. The end of the Second World War saw thepeninsula divided between Russianimperialism which occupied the Northand US imperialism which occupiedthe South. The Korean War whichbroke out in 1950 was a proxy warbetween Russian and Chinese

imperialism which backed the Northand the US which used its own forcesto invade from the South. This warended with the division of the countryon the 38th parallel which has persistedto the present. All these wars have beenfought for sources of raw materials,markets, theatres of capital investment,control of trade routes and strategicpositions for future wars. Today, thesame motives are at work and the samepowers, Russia, Japan, China and theUS, are involved.

Russia is keen to restore its influenceover the North and increase trade whileestablishing a rail link to the South.Since the collapse of trade in 1991,Russian trade with the North hasincreased to over $100m annually.Moscow hopes to increase this bysecuring a major share of thereconstruction of the North afterreunification and to recover itsoutstanding debts from the Sovietperiod. In particular, the Russians areinterested in restoring the north/southrailway connection and so linking the

South Korean network to the trans-Siberian line. If this connection werein operation, the trans-Siberian railwaywould have access to the ice free portsof South Korea and the land bridgefrom Korea and Japan to Europe wouldbe complete. Moving freight on thisline, instead of by sea, would reducethe average journey time to Europefrom 35 days to 15, and would cut thecosts by 25%. It would not simply be asource of profit for Russia, but give hercontrol over this trade route. PresidentPutin has met the North Korean leader,

Kim Jong Il, and signed an agreementto proceed with the link. This work hasalready started and has continuedthroughout the present crisis.

The Japanese are themselves keen toonce again exploit the mineral wealthof North Korea and to export capitalinto the region to cash in on the lowwages paid there. The Japanese primeminister Koizumi also met Kim JongIl in September 2002 and the two

Only the bourgeoisie could claim the Kimdynasty has anything to do with communism!


8/28


leaders kissed and made up for the past.Koizumi apologising for the atrocitiescommitted during 35 years of colonialrule and Kim apologising forkidnapping Japanese to help NorthKorean agents spy on Japan. Koizumiannounced Japan’s intention to invest$10bn in the North, once further stepstowards a market economy were takenand the country’s stance of “aggressiveisolation” was ended.

China is the principal exporter to North

Korea, supplying 38% of all thecountry’s imports, including much of its oil and food, and wishes to maintainthis market. The economic collapse of North Korea, or a war with the US, inwhich China could become involved,is the last thing the Chinese want. Whatthey would like to see is stability,reform and a removal of the US forces.

With its victory over Russia in the ColdWar, the US is seeking to convert theentire peninsula into its client statewhile keeping open the option of militarily occupying the North as well

as the South. The other powers wish toresist this and see Korea reunited andthe US forces withdrawn. The USopposes all the ambitions of the otherpowers in the area. It is now opposingreconstruction of transport linksbetween the North and South, opposing

political engagement and opposing aidto the north.

An Asian bloc against the

US?The entire region is now beginning tosee its interests as opposed to those of the US and is taking the first tentativesteps to assert these separate interests.China, Japan, South Korea and variousother South East Asian nations aretalking of establishing an East Asianfree trade area and an Asian Monetary

Fund. The experience of the 1997 crashand the terms of the subsequent IMFloans which led to US corporationsbuying up Asian businesses at rock bottom prices has contributed to this.This fund will be set up in oppositionto the IMF and therefore opposing animportant tool of US foreign policy.There have also been talks of acommon currency which would cut thefund free of the dollar and lead to abloc like the European Union whichwould inevitably threaten US interests.At present, these Asian nations holdapproximately $1500bn in reserveswhich could form the basis of an AsianMonetary Fund. The dollar’s recentfall2 has, of course, devalued thesereserves by 25% pointing to theadvantage of a separate currency. TheUS is, of course, adamantly opposed

to these plans.

US attempts toassert control of the Middle Eastand its oil suppliesare a clear threat to

Japan, China andother countrieswhich aredependent on theoil from thatregion. In anattempt to counterthis threatpipelines are beingplanned to bringRussian oil fromthe Siberian oilfields to theregion. Two routes

are underconsideration, onefrom Angarsk,which is southwest of lakeBaikal, via a routenorth of China tothe port of Nahodka nearVladivostok. Theother runs from

Angarsk directly to Manchuria. Fromthere, oil could be taken south throughKorea. These pipelines would reducereliance on Middle Eastern oil whichthe US may shortly control. They showthat the powers of the area are keen tocut themselves free of US control.

The US is, therefore, facing longer termchallenges in the region which itintends to counter in whatever waypossible. Consequently the strategicimportance of maintaining control of

Korea is growing rather thandecreasing.

How can workers oppose this

war?In all the developments and disputesoutlined above we can witness thesordid, but familiar, manoeuvrings of the imperialist powers. All the usualissues which drive our rulers to war,such as access to raw materials,markets, investment areas, control of trade routes and strategic positioningfor future wars are present. These

issues are the apparent reasons, theform in which the underlying forcesexpress themselves. The real forcewhich underpins all these apparentcauses of imperialism and from whichthey spring is the struggle of theimperialist powers to get hold of thesurplus value produced by the workersof South Asia. The real issue which isbeing fought about is how the profitswhich the workers of this regionproduce are to be distributed. Therising powers are attempting tochallenge the present distribution and

the US wishes to leave things as theyare.

The operation of the capitalist systemleads to a tendency for profit rates tofall and as profits fall there is an evermore vicious struggle to get hold of theprofits which are produced by theworking class. This struggle isintensifying as the capitalist crisisdeepens. It is a struggle whichinevitably leads to war. This is whycapitalist wars are not extraordinary,unexpected events caused by mistakes,

particular circumstances or bloody-minded madmen, as our rulers areforever telling us. They are aninevitable outcome of the normalfunctioning of the capitalist system.That is why the only way these warscan be prevented, in the longer term,is by overthrowing the system whichcauses them.

However, in the short term, the abilityof the ruling classes to wage war can

Our pamphlet on Trotskyism is £2.50 from the

group address


9/28


be disrupted. Our rulers can onlysuccessfully pursue their wars while theworkers in the imperialist countriescontinue to submit to their exploitationand to make sacrifices for the wareffort, and while workers in uniformremain ready to kill each other for theimperialist cause. Once workers are nolonger prepared to do this, waging warbecomes impossible. This why the onlyopposition which can prevent war, isan opposition based on class struggle.When Lenin opposed the First World

War in 1914, he launched the policy of revolutionary defeatism which calledfor the imperialist war to be turned intoa civil war of the working class againstthe capitalist class, a war that neededto be continued until the overthrow of the capitalist system of production wasachieved. This policy, whichcontributed to the Russian Revolutionof October 1917, led to the ending of the imperialist war. The capitalistclass’s fear of revolution was strongerthan their lust for the spoils of war. Itis the only time in the modern epoch

that imperialist war has been opposed

Revolutionary Perspectives Back Issues Magazine of the Communist Workers’ Organisation

1: Spain ‘36; Engels; Islam; French

Strikes; Dayton; US Domination; Israel

After Rabin

2: Communist Manifesto; From

Capitalism to Communism; Ireland; SLP;

JSA; ‘26

3: M.East; Spanish War, ‘36; Class

Struggle; German Crisis; Russia;

Elections

4: Labour; Crisis, Welfare State;

Unemployed; M.East; Ireland; Leninism;

Racism, Sexism, Communism

5: Globalisation; WTO; Welfare Cut;

Perspectives; French Strikes; Ireland

6: Intern’l Class Struggle; Cap’list Crisis;

Labour; Parl’tarism; German Communist

Left; Deng; Imp’lism in Africa; Racism

and Communism

7: Labour; US Welfare Cut; US in Asia;

Palestinians; Italian Imp’lism in Albania;

Against Wage Labour

8: October Revolution Today; UPS; ME

War Process; Labour — Party of Intern’l

Capital; SPD in WWI; Toothless Tigers

9: Nation or Class; Hard Labour; Asian

Tigers; ME War Process; The October

Revolution Today; Letters; Indian

Workers Appeal

10: Akers McNulty; Student Struggle; 150

Years of Struggle; KAPD and Nat’l

Bolshevism; The Firing Line (1); The Gulf;

The Great Game

11: Japan; New Deal; Indonesia; The

Firing Line (2); Israel and US; Russia

12: Multin’ls; Imp’lism in Africa;

Labour’s Lost Jobs; US Social Sec’ty;

Russian texts; Parliament; May ’68

13: New Labour; Pinochet; Cuba; Brazil;

Globalis’n; US and Iraq; 20 years after

the Shah

14: Yugoslavia; Asylum Bill; London

Bombings; Food Crises; Trade Wars;

Colombia; Nat’l Lib’n in Africa; Debt

Crisis

15: Ford Strikes; Capit’m’s Disasters;

N.Ireland; E.Timor; Caucasus;

Colombian Strikes; S Pankhurst; Iran;

China

16: Seattle; Call Centre Strikes; Rank and

Filism; British Working Class;

Nationalisation is Capitalist; KAPD;

Barbarism in the Caucasus

17: Death of Rover; Haider; Immigr’n

Law; 100 Years of Labour; Incinerators;

Welfare; US and Oil; Russia; Ecuador;

Unions and Struggle

18: Our Anti-capitalism; Global Crisis

Kills; Sierra Leone; UN; Zimbabwe; ME;

Vietnam; Ecuador; Globalisation;

Tottenham Election; N.Ireland

19: Yugoslavia; M.East “Peace”; Germany

1921; Wheen on Marx; Slavery and Child

Labour; Euro; Petrol Blockade; Ecuador;

Peru; Colombia; Strikes in LA; Women’s

March against Poverty

20: Class War isn’t Over; Job Losses; US

Cap’list Elections; Socialist All’ce; Postal

Strikes; Bolivia; Palestine; Zero

Tolerance; Byker Incinerator

21: Class Consciousness and Political

Organisations (1); China; Fighting

Capitalism; Foot and Mouth; Middle East;

Balkan Wars; Ukrainian Communists; US

Unions; Mexico

22: Class Consciousness, Political

Organis’n (2); Genoa, Real Face of the

Capitalist State; Italian Strikes;

Unemployment; Argentina Crisis; Racism

in Britain; Autism; Ireland; Son of Star

Wars; Cap’lism’s 3rd Sector

23: 9-11; Afghanistan; Oil; US Economy;

Opposing War; Consciousness (3);

Ireland; Monbiot; Islam and SWP; Rail;

Miners’ Pensions

24: Argentina; PO; Railworkers; The

Euro; Consciousness (4); Immigrants are

the Same Class; War on Terrorism; ICC

and Warl West Bank

25: Fascism and Democracy; Palestine;

Nationalism; PO Workers; Italian General

Strike; Council Housing; Consciousness

(5); Lenin, Luxemburg; Little Steel;

Zimbabwe; Venezuela; US Imperialism in

Afghanistan

26: No War But The Class War; 11 months

since 9/11; Stock Market Falls and War;

Public Sector Strikes; Rail Farce;

Consciousness (6); Immigration;

Colombian Debt

Back issues are available £2 (plus 50p postage in

UK or £1 elsewhere) from the group address.

by widespread class struggle. This wasexpressed through strikes, mutinies andrevolution, and it is the only time thatthe ruling class has ended its war beforethey had achieved their aims. Thepolicy of revolutionary defeatism isstill the only true proletarian responseto imperialist war. It is just as validtoday as it was in 1914. Thedevelopment of this struggle must beour orientation.

Today our rulers are calmly preparing

to butcher hundreds of thousands of people in Korea in order to get theirhands on the profits produced by theworkers of this area of the world. Theonly way to prevent this is throughintensification of the class struggle. Inthe coming war in south east Asia wecall for workers to support the policyof revolutionary defeatism. Thismeans:

• Continuation of the class struggle,refusal to accept sacrifices for the wareffort• Strikes in the war industries andin the transport of war materials

• Propaganda for fraternisation withenemy soldiers and mutinies• Turning the imperialist war into aclass war.

Today imperialist war explodes in Iraq.Tomorrow there will be another: it maybe Iran, the day after that North Koreaand after that Saudi Arabia or Libya.The only solution to the imperialistwars which are threatening the worldin one place after another remains theoverthrow of the capitalist system

itself. This system needs to be replacedwith the communist system, which hasnothing to do with the state capitalistsystem which existed in Russia, butwhich will be based on socialownership of the means of productionand production to satisfy human needs.

CP

Notes1 See The Financial Times, 8 th

November 2002 “South Korea fears

nightmare vision of meltdown in the

North.”

2 See “The dollar in continual decline”in this edition


10/28


Firefighters

Restart the Strikes — Break out of

the Union Prison

This dispute illustrates once again the

real divisions which underlie oursociety and the class struggles theygenerate. It also illustrates how thisstruggle cannot be “resolved” withincapitalist society since the interests of the working class and the capitalistclass are quite simply irreconcilable.The trade unions generally, and in thisdispute, the Fire Brigades Union(FBU), pretend that these interests canbe reconciled within capitalism. Thissignifies their fundamental support forthe capitalist system and leads them toact as the fifth column of the capitalist

class sabotaging workers strugglesfrom within.

Union SabotageThe latest offer was, as manyfirefighters put it, “an insult”.

This offer consisted of a 16% increaseover three years was linked to job cutsof 4000 in the fire service and far worseconditions for those left. In reality, the16% boiled down to 4% backdated toNovember 2002 with the rest tied to‘modernisation’, i.e., cuts in theservice. The government, through the

Bain report, has pressed for a shift fromfire fighting to fire prevention andwants some of the smaller, ruralstations to be closed down. There maynot be any more money on the tablefor decent wages, but £30 millions hasbeen set aside for ‘transitional funding’to allow these changes to come intoforce. But the increase, measly thoughit is, is not open to all firefighters, onlythose who acquire new ‘skills’.Obviously, the new offer will mean ahuge attack on firefighters but it is alsoan attack on public safety and will lead

to a massive deterioration of theservice, putting lives at risk. The Bainreport recommended changes in shiftsand working patterns which wouldmean firefighters could be deployedanywhere and on any duties with 14days’ notice. This would allowauthorities to move staff from stationto station and reduce night cover. Theyalso wanted to ban pre-arrangedovertime with crew members being

asked to put in up to 24 hours extra a

month. This was the offerrecommended to the membership bythe FBU.

Throughout the struggle the FBU hascancelled one strike after another. Eachtime strikes have been cancelledbecause of endless negotiations withthe employers, often on offers alreadyrejected. Similarly the FBU has goneto the arbitration service ACAS timeand again to negotiate on what themembership has rejected. The FBU hasbacked down on point after point in thisdispute. It said it would not agree to

cuts in the number of jobs to fund apay rise as suggested in the Bain report.Then it said it was prepared to acceptwhat it called the ‘strategic heart’ of the Bain report and was prepared tosign key proposals. It said it wasprepared to agree to cuts in jobs as soonas the benefits of the new ‘preventativemeasures’ were in place. It said itwould not shift from a 35 hour week and would not agree to overtime. Thenit said it would agree to pre-arrangedovertime in return for cutting theworking week from 42 to 35 hours.Now it is considering lifting theovertime ban while agreeing toemployers’ proposals to keep theworking week at 42 hours and islooking at more work ‘flexibility’. Ithas dropped its demands from a 40%rise to 16%. All this pussy footing hasbeen intended to produce confusionand demoralization amongst thefirefighters and to some extent theunion has been successful in this. Thelatest manoeuvre of the FBU has,however, exposed in another way howthe union supports the key interests of the capitalist class. The latest offer of the employers was hardly differentfrom the offer made a few days beforethe war broke out. The only differencewas that of consultation or “consensus”in the planned restructuring of the fireservice. This means in effect that themanagement is to “consult” with thelocal fire staff before doing what theywant and is essentially meaningless.The FBU, which has been very

On 19 th March the Firefighters’

delegates rejected the latest offer putforward by the bosses, despite the factthat the union desperately urged thento accept. The government promptlyannounced its intention to impose asettlement on the firefighters by force,using a legal injunction and the powerof the state through the courts and thepolice. These three events are a typicalexample of the way the struggle hasprogressed over the last six months.They illustrate the militancy of thefirefighters themselves, the sabotage of their struggle by the union and the

determined resistance coming from thecapitalist class as expressed by theirgovernment.

The rejection of the latest offer showsthe determination of the firefighters topursue the struggle, a struggle whichis about pay and working conditions.These are quite simply the issues thatthe working class has fought for sinceits creation in the 18 th and 19th

centuries, and they are still the issueswhich it is fighting for from one end of the world to the other. This struggle canclearly be seen as a class strugglespringing from the nature of capitalismitself. The capitalist class is, of course,unwilling to grant these demandsbecause granting improvements to theworking class will reduce the profitson capital. This is why, from the startthis dispute has been tied to the issueof producing greater efficiency in theservice through reorganization,restructuring, changing workingpractices and redundancies. For thecapitalist class these changes willensure that, even if there is an increaseof pay of 16% over three years, theoverall cost of the service will bereduced and there will be no effect onthe overall profitability of Britishcapitalism. For our rulers it isextremely important that this is theoutcome of the strike, since there areseveral million other workers in thepublic sector who could follow the leadof the firefighters. If they did this wouldhave a far more devastating effect onthe profitability of British capital.


11/28


reluctant to permit strikes anyway, wasterrified of striking during the warwhich our rulers have launched on Iraq.This was given away by Gilchrist, theFBU leader, at the conference of 19March when he said,

It would be foolhardy to reject thisoffer when British troops are about to go into battle.

Here we see quite clearly the FBUlining up with the capitalist class to helpits imperialist war to loot the oil of Iraq

and the Gulf region. This is exactly thesame course as the unions all followedin 1914 when they declared socialpeace and pledged to assist the wareffort and the slaughtering of Germanworkers. For the FBU to support astrike would be foolhardy because itwould tie down 19 000 troops whomour rulers would like to send to Iraq toassist those already there in seizing thecountry and killing Iraqi workers inuniform, conscripted into Saddam’sarmies and resisting this adventure. Atthe same time as the capitalist class is

attacking wages and conditions of workers in Britain, as is clearly shownby the Bain report and every worduttered by their spokesman Prescott,they are demanding our loyalty in animperialist war. They are demandingwe suspend all class struggle so theycan get on more quickly with theirbarbaric destruction and butchery. Andthe FBU is their spokesman advocatingthis all in the name of patriotism. Werepeat the words of Marx,

Workers have no country.

Firefighters have more in common withthe Iraqi workers being slaughtered bythe US and UK military than with theirexploiters in Britain. This is why theclass struggle should not be called off because of the war. Firefighters shouldstrike now while the enemy’s forces arestretched and the strike will have moreimpact.

As we have said in previous texts1, theonly way that the imperialist wars,which the capitalist class is nowconducting, one after another, can be

halted is through class struggle. TheFBU turns this into its opposite anddeclares that the imperialist war mustprevent the class struggle. For them, itis only after the bloodletting iscomplete that the class struggle canresume. Again this is precisely theposition adopted by the SocialDemocratic parties and the tradeunions in 1914. We all know also, thatafter the imperialist bloodletting was

over, it was precisely these same partieswho saved the day for capitalism bytheir bloody crushing of the workers’revolutions in Germany and elsewhere.

Capitalism’s solutionBritish capitalism, through itsrepresentative the Labour government,has announced it intends to impose asettlement on the firefighters by law.By using the 1992 legislation, theyexpect to be able to pass an injunctionthrough parliament fairly rapidly. A raft

of other anti-working class legislationexists which could be used in anattempt to force the firefighters back to work under conditions dictated bythe capitalist class. Prescott, the deputyprime minister, announced inparliament that the government had,

lost patience with the firemen

This is exactly the same language usedby Bush when he was proposing toimpose a settlement on the US westcoast dockers, and shows that, not onlyis Britain following the US in its

imperialist wars but also in its wagingof the class struggle.

Imposing a settlement by use of stateviolence is the final answer of thecapitalist class to the struggles of theworkers. It exposes, in a brutal way,the real nature of what is going on. Notonly are they using the army forstrikebreaking, they plan to use otheragencies of the state, namely, the courtsand the police, to force workers toaccept the terms they dictate. All thedemocratic camouflage is being

brushed aside and stark relations of force are being revealed. The fact thatall this is occurring at a time when ourrulers are preaching sermons about thewonders of democracy and the gloriousbenefits of freedom we enjoy, and howthey intend to bring all these wonderfulthings to the benighted Arabs by forceof arms, reveals their utter hypocrisy.The attempt by the state to impose asettlement by force should be totallyrejected. But how can this be done?

The way forward

Events of the last six months haveshown how hopeless the presentstrategy for fighting the struggle is.Although the majority of thefirefighters want to continue thestruggle they do not see how this canbe done effectively outside the uniondespite the fact that the FBU hassabotaged the struggle.

The strength of the working class is inits collective strength, the strength of

the class as a whole. Individual groupsof workers, even key ones like theBritish miners, can be isolated anddefeated by our rulers, and their unionhelpers, at will. However, a moregeneral struggle cannot be defeated soeasily. The firefighters are a smallgroup of workers who, like other stateemployees, do not directly produceprofits for the capitalist class. Theirprimary role for capitalism is to protectcapitalist property against fire. Anyhope of winning this dispute while

firefighters remain isolated is doomed.It is essential that that they break outof their isolation. The strike needs tobe spread to other workers, e.g. tube,rail and other public sector workersfacing the same attacks. The strugglesneed to be linked and commondemands made. This is the only way tomake our rulers take any notice. Thestruggle needs to be taken out of thehands of the trade unions whose roleis primarily to sabotage any effectivefight. It needs to be democratically runby mass meetings which elect a fighting

committee directly answerable to themeeting. This is the only way forward.Our watchwords must be:

• Spread the struggle to otherworkers• Link up demands to a single paydemand for all workers• Pursue this with strikes• No concessions to the imperialistwar.• Continue the class struggle.

Such a programme represents the onlyhope for victory and the only hope forhalting the capitalist’s drive to war.

Note1 See RP 27, “Spread the strikes, stop

the war drive.”


12/28


We are publishing a text from the January edition of Battaglia Comunista , the monthly paper of our sister organisation in Italy, the Partito Comunista

The Dollar in Continual Declinethe European average. The causes of the decline of the dollar are thereforenot to be sought in a superior European

economic situation, but in thecontradictions which have accumulatedin recent years in the heart of USimperialism and in the forms of itsdomination.

In order to understand the dollar’spresent decline, it is first necessary tocomprehend the dynamic which has ledthe American currency to be highlyvalued in comparison to the othercurrencies over the last few years. Aswell as being the most importantcurrency in the international monetary

system, that which is most used ininternational exchange and as a reserveof value for the various central banks,the dollar, over the last few years, hasgained in value with respect to the othercurrencies, chiefly due to the enormousmass of foreign capital which flowedonto the New York stock market. Theexponential growth of the Dow Jonesand Nasdaq indices at the end of the’90’s, which occurred, in good part,due to the inward flow of foreigncapital, had as a consequence arevaluation of the dollar above all the

other currencies. The largeinternational investors, from Europeand Asia, invested their capital on theUS market to acquire shares inAmerican companies and to place it infixed-rate stock, such as Treasury

Internazionalista . Since the text was written, the downward trend of the dollar has continued and at the start of March2003 it stood at $1.10 to the Euro.

And the international

monetary system falls into

crisisHaving trod the other currenciesunderfoot for years, the US currencyhas began a precipitous decline whichdoesn’t seem to be destined to stop;rather, according to analysts, the dollaris fated to be further devalued in thecourse of 2003. As to what theeconomic and financial factors whichare pushing the dollar downwards are,bourgeois economists, as is often thecase, are rather imprecise and grasponly the superficial aspects of thephenomenon, undervaluing the fact

that currency dynamics represent onlyan aspect of the changes underway inthe interimperialist relations betweenthe most advanced areas of the world.

We start with a simple fact. Therelationship between the dollar and theeuro has completely reversed over thelast 24 months. At the start of 2001,$0.81 was enough to obtain a euro,while at the start of February 2003,$1.08 was needed to acquire one. Weare witnessing a devaluation of thedollar of more than 20% which cannot

be justified by an improved situationfor the real economies of the eurocountries. Instead, in the same twoyears, the European economy hassuffered a strong deceleration, to theextent that countries like Italy had, in

that period, a growth in GNP whichwas close to zero. Germany and Francehave done a little better, as they have,

thanks to the devalued euro, made upfor the contraction of their internalmarkets by increasing the export of their goods to Asian countries and tothe United States. By exploiting theweakness of the euro, the two mostimportant countries in the EuropeanUnion have succeeded in floatingabove the line of the recession,registering annual increases of morethan 1% in GNP.

On the other shore of the Atlantic, theAmerican economy in parallel with the

European one has suffered a brusqueslowdown. The tragic events of 11th

September 2001, despite thehammering insistence of bourgeoispropaganda that locates in them thecause of the crisis of the worldeconomy, are totally extraneous to thecollapse of the new economy and thebursting of the speculative bubblewhich has seen the Nasdaq index onthe New York stock exchange go downlike a lead balloon. Capitalism’seconomic crisis has rather differentorigins, finding its mechanisms in the

contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. In comparison with the oldcontinent, in recent months the UnitedStates has enjoyed a more dynamiceconomic situation in that its growthin GNP for 2002 was 2%, well above

120 day record of the dollar against the euro, ending 23rd March 2003. Note the slight, and probably temporary, recovery caused by the second

Gulf War


13/28


Bonds. The devastating crises whichhit Mexico, Brazil, the so-called AsianTigers, Russia, Turkey and, mostrecently, Argentina, fed, to a certainextent, the flux of capital towards theUS. The solidity of the US economyand the fact that it constituted the safestplace of the various stock markets inthe world for their investments inperiods of crisis, fed the flow of capitalfrom abroad, despite interest rateslower than elsewhere. As well assupporting the dollar exchange rate, the

flow of capital from abroad served, inthis period, to compensate for theenormous indebtedness of theAmerican economy. The UScommercial deficit exceeds $450bn peryear, while, after a few years of beingsubstantially in balance, in the last 20months the federal deficit too hasreappeared in all its “glory”, thanks torearmament programmes and thesupport given to the sectors of theeconomy most linked to war industries.

The presence of a double deficit,

commercial and federal, is not anentirely novel event in the recenteconomic history of the United States(the two deficits already co-existed inthe Reagan years), but, in the presentinternational context, they couldrepresent an explosive mixturesufficient to tip the American economyinto an unprecedented spiral of crisis.The dollar is being devalued primarilybecause the mechanisms whichpreviously caused it to be highly valuedare exhausted. Capital from abroadis no longer arriving, the books can

no longer be successfully balancedin the face of the massivecommercial and federal deficits, andconsequently the dollar is falling.The effects of the fall in value of thedollar could, theoretically, bebeneficial for the real US economy,in that it should make US goods morecompetitive on internationalmarkets. But, observing the detailsof the dollar’s dynamic with respectto the currencies of the countrieswhich are the largest exporters to theUS (above all, China, which has

become one of the largest exportersto the US), it can be seen that thegreenback has not fallen so much inthat context. On the other hand, it iswith respect to the euro that the dollarhas weakened, but, from acommercial point of view that doesnot represent a great advantage forthe US. For some Europeancountries, imports from the US aredestined to fall. The latest data,

published at the start of February,shows that in Germany, preciselybecause of the revaluation of the euro,external orders for January have fallen8.7% with respect to those forDecember; if we take into account thatit is exports which have dragged theEuropean economy a little forward,then we can predict that the growth inGNP for 2003 will be very close tozero.

The present devaluation of the dollar

presents a few novelties in comparisonwith those of the past. It is a devaluationwhich does not stem from a decisionby the US monetary authorities, or atleast not just from such a decision, butfrom the massive shift of capital fromthe American towards the Europeanmarket. It is a devaluation, in sum,which has happened more suddenlythan is desired, which will do very littleto relaunch the real economy and whichrisks the further reduction of thedomination of the dollar overinternational currency markets. The

presence of the euro is a fact of extraordinary importance from thepoint of view of interimperialistrelations; if, in the past, the solereference point in periods of crisis wasrepresented by the dollar, nowinternational investors sense in the newcurrency an alternative instrument tothe dollar which offers the sameguarantees in terms of the security of investment. If a country like China,which has the largest currency reserves

contents

War over Kashmir

Argentina: Working

class confrontscapitalist failure: IBRP

statement;

After the December

2001 Insurrection;

The Piqueteros Movement;

Each copy £2.50, including postage,

from our Sheffield address (see inside

front cover)

Polemic with the ICC

Comments on the

Latest Crisis of the ICC

Los Angeles Workers Voice and the IBRP

in the world, has decided to sell dollarsand replace them with euros, and thusdiversify its own monetary reserves,then this means that we are witnessinga new fact which will have importantrepercussions on a world scale.

Finally, in order to estimate thedifference between the present dollarcrisis and those of the past, we note thepincer effect which has been createdwith the price of oil in the recent period.If, in the past, the price of oil rose, then,

by the fact that this price was expressedin dollars, the US currency appreciatedwith respect to other currencies. Now,despite the threat of war (anotherelement which in the past made thedollar appreciate), while the price of oil is tending to rise, the dollar isfalling, all to the advantage of the euro.It is a sign that the times are changingand is evidence of the dangerthreatening the financial revenue thatthe US draws from its prerogatives, of that revenue shrinking ever more, andtherefore of the need for the US to play

the card of war to the fullest extent.Yesterday Afghanistan, tomorrow Iraq;but will that be enough?

pl


14/28


Class Consciousness and Working Class Political Organisation

Part Eight: The Decline of the

Russian Revolution and the Cult of

the Party

revolutionary working class and whichwas forged as a revolutionary party inthe struggles of 1917 by responding tothe actual class movement. As a resultof that experience revolutionaries frommany countries looked to them to leadthe world revolution. However this wasa task which was actually beyondBolshevism (or anyone else for thatmatter). The Russian proletariat was aminority in a backward capitalistcountry. As all the Bolshevik leadersrepeatedly stated in 1917-18 “withouta German Revolution we are doomed”.

Or as Rosa Luxemburg put it, thequestion of socialism could only beposed in Russia. It would have to beanswered further West. As that answernever came the question became oneof survival rather than revolutionarytransformation. As we have said manytimes in the past there was nothing inMarxist theory which prepared anisolated proletarian bastion to deal withthis question.

Bolshevik “errors” and the

rise of the party dictatorship

Bolshevism was an instrument of therevolution forged in the class strugglebut in one sense alone the councilistsare right, it was also the agent of thecounter-revolution when the classmovement was defeated. However,here we have to differentiate ourselvesmethodologically from the councilistsin that we see this as a result of anobjective process of defeat and not dueto the pre-determined weaknesses of the Bolshevik Party. As we have shownin this series the Bolsheviks were theleast hidebound, the most open tochange of all the Social DemocraticParties of the Second International.

This does not mean that there is nothingto learn. On the contrary it makes it allthe more important for us to learn fromthe manner in which the RussianRevolution collapsed into abureaucratic counter-revolution, whichultimately spawned Stalinism. The firstlesson is that no amount of

revolutionary will can reverse amaterial process. In the winter of 1917-18, even hostile observers concede thatthe Bolsheviks went around trying toget more workers to run their ownsystem. In this period real grassrootssoviet power expanded. Lenin’s ownexhortations in the factories were allalong the lines of what he said at theThird Congress of Soviets in January1918,

… socialism cannot be implemented by a minority, by the Party. It can beimplemented only by tens of millionswhen they have learned to do it for themselves.1

However, harsh reality was soon toundermine this early aspiration. In thefirst place, during the course of therevolution of 1917, the Bolshevik Partyhad welded itself into a disciplinedwhole to lead the assault on bourgeoispower. It was the largest and most all-Russian organisation in Russia byOctober 1917. However, proletarianrevolutionary parties are notgovernmental parties. Whilst they lead

the revolutionary assault they do notform the government as such (even if party members take important roles inthe post-revolutionary society). AsLenin said repeatedly, in the winter of 1917-18 the proletariat as a whole haveto build socialism. Bolshevik practice,however, soon began to undermine this.To start with, the Bolsheviks set up acabinet of the Council of People’sCommissars (Sovnarkom) to run theDepartments of State. Calling theleaders of these Departments “People’sCommissars” (Trotsky’s brainwave)

did not hide the fact that they wereMinisters in the old sense. Instead of relying on the class-wide bodies of thesoviets to elect an executive which ranthe government, the Bolsheviks hadalready begun the process of supplanting soviet rule. This was not aconscious process but followed arecurrent pattern in every area of lifein the Russian Socialist Federal SovietRepublic (RSFSR). In the early days

IntroductionIn the last two parts of this article wehave looked at the Russian Revolution.Despite taking place more than 80years ago, it remains the single mostimportant event for shaping ourunderstanding of the question of classconsciousness in this epoch. As theonly time in history when a self-consciously working class movementactually arrived at the head of statepower, it hands down to us a richheritage of experience which we cannotignore. In fact, so important is this

event for our epoch that we have toreturn to it yet again.

In Part Seven we tackled the ideas of councilism which sprang up as therevolutionary period which followedthe First World War came to ashuddering defeat. We consider thatcouncilism is itself a distorted productof that counter-revolution because itactually theorises the idea thatspontaneity alone will be enough tospark the revolutionary movementwhich will transform society. In doing

so it actually does violence to the wayin which class consciousness amongsta propertyless working class arises.Councilism blamed the Bolshevik Party as the agent of proletarian defeatand, councilists have gone on to arguethat this was because the Bolshevikswere either insufficiently clearpolitically and programmatically orwere even, in some versions, alwayscounter-revolutionary in their ideas.This is both historically inaccurate andmethodologically untenable. TheBolsheviks, for good or ill, were the

best elements in political terms thatexisted within the old SecondInternational. Their position on the waralone made them the vanguard of, not

just the Russian proletariat, but theinternational proletariat as well. Weshould also remember that, as we showin our pamphlet 1917 , Bolshevismwasn’t just a movement which sprangfrom the head of one man, it was apolitical representation of the


15/28


Sovnarkom always made sure that theSoviet Executive (VTsIK) got thechance to discuss and rejectSovnarkom plans but in practice thishappened less and less often as therevolution was faced with internationalinvasion. The Soviets met less and lessoften, and the Congress of Sovietswhich began as quarterly affairs hadceased to be such by 1920. In someways, even if the form of soviet rulehad been more firmly adhered to itwould have made little difference. The

need to send the most class consciousworkers to fight in the Red Army inthe period 1918-20 tore the heart outof properly functioning soviets. TheParty was quite rapidly transformedinto the real governmental organisationin Russia. Again this was not plannedin advance nor was it an immediatereality. The victory of October had ledto

an outburst of unfettered discussionand controversy unprecedented in theannals of the Bolshevik Party, and

perhaps rare in those of any other.2

However, the process of concentrationof power within the party had alreadybegun. And with it came thedomination of the Party over the organsof the state.

The same men, sharing the sametraditions and the same purpose,directed the affairs of party and state;the same incessant crisis and thesame uninterrupted pressure of events weighed equally between 1917 and 1921 on party and Soviet

institutions. The outstandingdevelopments of these years in themachinery of the state – theconcentration of central authority inthe hands of Sovnarkom at theexpense of the All-Russian Congressof Soviets and of VTsIK, and theconcentration of authority at thecentre at the expense of the localsoviets and Congresses of Soviets and their organs – had actually preceded the corresponding developments inthe party organisation. For some timethe lines of development in party and

state ran parallel. Then, by aninevitable process they began toconverge and finally, to coincide.This process had been virtuallycompleted by the time of Lenin’sdeath.3

This is the schematic overview andtakes in the whole period 1917-24.However, the pattern is the same inevery area. Even on the issue of thefactory committees, whose

“suppression” the councilists make somuch of, the truth is rather morecomplicated. It was clear to all that thefactory committees were at best patchyin their performance. Workers on therailways who took to housingthemselves in rolling stock rather thanusing it for running the railways forsociety is perhaps one of the moreextreme examples, but the factorycommittees were also dominated byBolshevik workers who demandedgreater coordination and centralisation.

It was they, supported by the LeftCommunists, who were the mainopposition group inside the Party in1918, who insisted on the setting up of the Supreme Economic Council orVESENKha. Even a left liberal criticof the Revolution could write that:

The Council of People’s Commissarstook a step in the direction of the Leftist plan, apparently at the behest of the factory-committee leadership,with the creation of the Supreme Economic Counci l (and the

authorisation for similar localcouncils) in December 1917. Thecouncil was initially dominated by Leftists – the firs t chairman wasOssinsky, and the governing bureauincluded Bukharin, Lomov and Vladimir Smirnov. Despite thedubious success of the central and local councils in the ensuing months,they represented enough doctrinalmomentum to evoke from Lenin a fina l expressi on of hi s 1917 anarchism. He declared to thecongress of local economic councils

held in May 1918: “The apparatusof the old state is doomed to die; but the apparatus of the type of our Supreme Economic Council isdestined to grow, develop, and become strong, fulfilling al the most important functions of an organised society”4

This, though, wasat the end of whatthe Bolshevik economist L.Kritsman calledlater “The HeroicPeriod of theRevolution”. Itwas a period whichended when thecivil war broke outafter the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk withGermany in March1918. From nowon the constant

drain on the already shattered Russianworking class was to further underminethe soviet principle.

Party and classAgain we have to repeat, though, thatthe degeneration of the revolution wasnot the result of any preconceived ideaabout the Party. At the Eighth PartyCongress in March 1919 there was nobabbling about the Party being thesame as the class or that the vanguardcould make the revolution on its own.

On the contrary the relationship of Party and class was seen quite clearly

The Communist party sets as its goalthe achievement of decisive influenceand complete leadership in allorganisations of the workers; intrades unions, in cooperatives,agricultural communes etc. TheCommunist Party especially tries tocarry out its programme and itscomplete domination in the stateorganisations of the present time,

Documents

war, imperialism and the working class