Contents  :

– Revolutionary Marxism and the War in the Gulf.
– The Party's Classical Theses and Evaluations on war (part 2).
– The Italian Left and the International (part 1).
– Italy - The Metalworkers caught in the vice between Bosses and Unions.
– Reunions of the party, June 2-3 and September 29-30 1990.
– "Practical" Socialists by William Morris - Introduction.
– Current Events: Reports from Argentina -. Liverpool: Assault on all Fronts against the Workers.
 
 
 
 
 

This text was presented at public meetings held in Italy at Turin, Genoa, Florence and Bologna in or around February 1991.

From its very beginnings, Marxism has considered that war doesn't happen by chance, that it can neither be considered as a cause nor a by-product of history, especially modern history, but is instead an element integral to the capitalist mode of production. For us, 'Marxism' means the orthodox doctrine for the emancipation of the proletariat that has existed in a clear and coherent form from 1848 onwards. This doctrine is also known as left or revolutionary Marxism as well; even though we cannot talk of right-wing or reformist Marxism as today that it would be a contradiction in terms. The latest official abjurations of Marxism by various allegedly communist parties are the confirmation of this; although they haven't been Marxist for the last 70 years in any case.

Our declarations and writings do not arise as particular thoughts elaborated within a circle of fertile revolutionary minds, rather they wish only to present to the proletariat a series of historical conclusions. These, though well-known, are rejected by the majority yet have the force of objective data; as laws of social nature, as discoveries linked in a continuous way within the party. And over the almost 150 years of its existence, the party has been a working organism within which Marx, Engels and Lenin militated, as well as the anonymous and unknown, and its task is preparing the way for social destruction of capitalism.

In Marx's economic theory, we find the explanation of the causes of modern wars. These differ from the wars of the ancients which were fought to gain land, slaves or riches; and from the wars of the rising bourgeoisie, which concluded the formation of the national units of de-throning autocrats and smashing of the great union of feudal states. Never has Marxism explained wars in terms of personalities, or sought explanations in the mental health or wickedness of heads of state. All the imbecile gulf-war propaganda about the mental characteristics of 'Saddam', and formerly about Hitler, is nauseating; particularly because it serves to hide the truth from the oppressed and intoxicate the conscripts.

Modern wars, from 1914 on, have for their aim the destruction of wealth, not its re-division. Marx teaches us that capitalist production knows no bounds because it is an end in itself. The mechanism of capital and profit is arranged so that competition selects the capitalist concerns that are in a position to produce more capital; the capital which grows fastest – and most resembles a cancerous growth – survives. Around 1700, the capital in England which became established did so because it was so widely spread throughout the world, firstly in France, then Germany, then Italy, America, Japan and even in Russia. But in the last quarter of the 1800's, capital no longer had virgin land it could occupy. This triggers off that phenomenon of catastrophic proportions; the cycles of crises of overproduction. On the one hand, the capacity for the production of commodities increases, whilst on the other, the capacity to consume on the part of the masses increase only very slowly – and decreases relatively. Capitalist economy needs to force the consumption of the masses everywhere right down to the minimum level necessary for survival. From this arises, in its turn, the absolute necessity of destruction, so as to make space for a whole new cycle of capitalist accumulation, in other words, the famous 'reconstruction'. All this can be found in Marx, and Engels himself made specific reference to the inevitability of world wars.

For Marxism, the point of origin of the current war isn't the Gulf, but Wall street, London, Milan, Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo. It arises from the economic crises of over production already wreaking havoc in the U.S.A., Russia, and in Europe. Iraq is first and foremost just a provisional target for the imperialist juggernauts, who, given their current alliance, are sharing in its destruction. But the destruction of one country will not quench capitalism's thirst for new 'business', capitalism requires the generalized destruction of entire continents in order to ensure its monstrous reproduction. Not counting the uninterrupted series of regional wars, in the first half of the century there have been ten years of war; we can foresee that world capitalism, after more than 50 years of peace will need another cataclysm lasting at least ten years, involving the destructions on a continental scale. The war is not yet over.

This is the reason why the truce offered by Saddam could not be accepted; the scope of the war isn't to 'liberate Kuwait', the aim of the war is war itself. Until the arsenals are emptied of bombs, such 'liberations' are bound to continue.

As a direct consequence of the economic predictions of Marxism, which are today strikingly borne out by the recession (the newspapers would be clogged with articles about it if the columns weren't already filled with falsehoods about the war) communist revolutionaries draw the conclusion that war is an economic necessity, that capitalism and war are as inseparable as if production and destruction formed a coherent whole, as long as the capitalist mode of production exists, war is therefore inevitable. These theses were not 'invented' by us, but hammered out by Lenin when faced with the betrayal of the social-democrats in August 1914. They are rejected by every one of the countless groups of pacifists, who delude themselves with the possibility of a capitalism 'with a human face' which 'rejects war'. In the face of this endless array of political peddlers, ranging from the priests, to ever less convinced ex-communist parties, we reaffirm that the historical tendency of capitalism, which is accompanied by immense growth in the production of all those countries which have emerged from pre-capitalism (such as in Asia), does not lead to war being transcended, and to a society based on peace and world harmony, but to an ever more terrifying catastrophe. The history we are living through confirms it.

Bourgeois society is ever more permeated with militarism, and the claim that democratic society is naturally pacific, whilst dictatorships and fascisms, or the feudal pre-bourgeoisie tend towards militarism, is an opportunist deceit. Militarism dominates wherever there is arms production, wherever the 'military-industrial complex' holds sway in uncontested fashion, and particularly, therefore, in the most parliamentary, in the most democratic, and in the most liberal countries. We can see how the mobilization, and the shamelessly insinuating and incessant militaristic propaganda can attain maximum efficiency and astonishing levels of cynicism whilst all the while respecting, in the formal sense, constitutional charters, etc.

From these communist theoretical and programmatic assumptions of our party, there inevitably follow the directives which we address to the proletariat when faced with imperialist war. Their aim is to prevent the proletariat from entertaining any illusions about capitalism leading towards the land of 'milk and honey'; to prevent any euphoria and false optimism after the 'collapse' of that 'iron curtain' during the 'miracle of 1989'. The war in the Gulf is precisely a direct consequence of the most bitter inter-imperialist rivalry, and of the redundancy of the Yalta Pact.

The party makes no claim to any originality in its tactical orientation and retreads the century old path of defeatism which begins with Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune. According to Marx, all armies were by then confederated against the insurgent proletariat. The path winds on to Lenin, to Rosa Luxemburg and to the Left, which in Russia, in Germany and in Italy, strenuously fought against mobilization, and against the prostration of the ex-workers' parties before 'the country in danger'.

Point one, Communists consider that war is reactionary on both imperialist fronts; the proletariat, therefore, mustn't throw its might behind either side of the imperialist battle lines because it would fall into the bourgeois war trap intended to divert it from class struggle against the dominion of global capital. Worst still is if the proletariat becomes divided into different parts, each supporting their own national bourgeoisie, in war, against their class brothers in other countries. The first two world wars are dramatic examples of such class ruptures. Loyalty to the bourgeois nation, whether in their 'holy alliance' or as partisans is the opposite of class struggle. War is the opposite of revolution, its negation, the complete inversion of the class front.

The proletariat considers that war when declared by the world bourgeoisie is war declared against itself, and as a consequence it must react against it. It seems obvious and natural, but because of the betrayal of the socialist parties in the first world war, and the Stalinist betrayal in the second, it didn't happen; thus defeat came after the wars too. There were, of course, exceptions, namely the revolutionary attempts in Italy and Germany and our victory in Russia.

The parties which today declare themselves to be pacifist (in a very feeble way and avidly supporting their 'country') have already theorized and had plenty of practice in subordinating the proletariat to the world war.

The notion of supporting the Arabs amongst western workers, and championing the Iraqis amongst Arab workers is gaining ground in some quarters. We refute such theses as follows: Firstly, the current conflict is not an Arabic national war. The case for supporting the Iraqi side in this war by considering it as pro-Iraqi nationalism does not stand up. To support the Iraqi side is clearly to support the bourgeoisie, but, the latter cannot claim to be representing the common interests of all the Iraqi classes since these now have interests that are irreconcilable. This is shown particularly clearly by the epilogue to the Iran-Iraq war and by the defeatism practiced by the proletariat at the war front. Saddam isn't fighting to liberate Kuwait; and that is why he isn't calling on the masses of other Arab capitals to turn on their governments which, like Kuwait, are also in the pockets of the west; and which fear their own subjects more than the American marines. From Cairo to Casablanca, there has been no call for bourgeois revolution, for a holy war against the West, and we don't find this in any way "regrettable". This is because as materialists we evaluate historical facts, their ripeness and even their rottenness, and also because we see the possibility of a proletarian revival emerging from the shameful collapse of the pan-Arab myth. Such a revival will not be Arabic alone, but will have to include, at the very least, Europe. Like Marx, when he wrote of the still feudal Poland that it would be liberated in London and not in Poland, so we maintain, at the end of the 20th century, that the Arabic proletariat will liberate itself in Berlin, as well as in Baghdad and Algeria.

The Arabic national question, in the countries of the Maghreb as in the Middle East, has been overtaken by the social question; the bourgeoisie and the Arab states are no longer really involved in the nationalism, but in anti-proletarian irredentism, as Nasser proved. However, though we reject any claim that either Bush or Saddam may make of being the more progressive, we are not indifferent since we retain that the defeat of the West, with their stronger bourgeoisies, would favour our revolution more than an Iraqi defeat which would leave things as they are.

The second point to consider is: how should the proletariat fight against war. At a certain point, the working class is compelled by sufferings of slaughter and hatred against this society, to set itself in motion to frustrate war objectives, or else, to constrain the state to declare a truce (in the event war has already started). At that time, it will have to face the fact that survival of capitalism is impossible without the carnage of war. The bourgeoisie knows that too much peace would spell its ruin, would mean renouncing profit. For big capital it is a matter of life and death and we can clearly see, at this very moment, gigantic forces pressing inexorably for war and ready to remove any obstacle that gets in their way. Even governments themselves have to act independently of their personal convictions and obey the imperative of war. When things come to such a pass only the party which doesn't shrink from the necessity of fighting capitalist society, which doesn't comprise with it, will be able to persist in its opposition to war; preventing war comes to coincide with revolution.

Given the above, we therefore declare – as did Lenin – that proletarian defeatism entails the communist revolutionary programme. Communists, therefore, are not pacifists since they consider that capitalist peace is neither lasting nor an advantage to the proletariat and its revolution. Peace is only an interval between wars and is no less inhuman. From this follows ours long-held and oft-confirmed predictions about pacifists in wartime. Pacifists, by definition neither communist nor anti-capitalist, are destined either to betray their opposition to war or else limit themselves to prayers to their god or exhortations to their governments.

Lenin moreover observed in the democratic countries, that pacifists – for instance the Red Cross – are indispensable as an auxiliary force for luring the proletariat to the front; first of all they deviate the spontaneous movement which is opposed to the carnage of war (and which has its source in the proletariat's natural tendency towards revolution) with the illusion that prayers and torchlight processions can affect the transistorized heart of big capital; but once war has well and truly arrived, and millions of call-up notices have been dispatched, the majority of pacifists then roll up their sleeves and set about demonstrating the sanctity of war in order to defend 'civilization' against the 'aggression of the enemy'. War is always fought to defend peace.

The pacifist movement is founded on the fact that not all the various components of the bourgeoisie agree on when and where to stage the massacres; until the stakes are clearly defined some would prefer to line up as part of a 'Mediterranean' or 'anti-imperialist' front, or then again some still have unconcluded business deals with the 'enemy'. In the Second World War, the declaration of war against France was delayed by a few hours so that a train load of arms which had left Turin could reach the frontier. During the first World War, Italy hedged its bets as long as possible, just as it did in the Second; in the 1st not only the Socialists were neutralist but also the catholics, Giolitti and the liberals, the Roman church, and even the crown. In the 2nd, secret diplomatic maneuvers were opted for by both the German and English states in order to win over Mussolini. For analogous reasons Gorbachev is adopting a pacifist stance.

Undisputed chief pacifist at the moment is the Pope, who is summoning us to prayer, which never does any harm; he will doubtlessly continue praying through the long years of the next war. But all the national churches, Islam included, have already sided politically with their respective states, praying under the flag as always. We can be sure it will get even worse in days to come.

As they are bourgeois, all these pacifists will close ranks as the expected general mobilization draws near. The proletariat will then find itself isolated. In fact we can say that the proletariat has already found itself alone by opposing the war by strike action, by its spontaneous mobilization; whilst the regime's unions, on the other hand, have been quick to demonstrate where they stand: on the side of the bourgeois state and the war. As in the 1st World War, the ex-working class unions have shown themselves to be indispensable instruments for actuating proletarian mobilization in the trenches and the factories; the auxiliary force of its unions is essential to the regime as the police would not be enough to keep discipline in the arms factories; and it would only take a few hours for a revolt to spread from the factories to the front. Especially social-democratic and Stalinist opportunism is the best guarantee for the maintenance of bourgeois order.

Today, it is big United States capital that wants the military occupation of the Middle East. For years it has been making preparations, right down to the minutest detail through secret diplomacy, and the occupation has been cynically timed so as to profit from the temporary weakness of its competitors. American capital's objective is to postpone the collapse caused by the over-production crises and to take possession of strategic crossroads with a view to the next world war. The war hasn't finished – it has only just begun.

At the same time, it is useful that the illusions of the international law have been unmasked – law clearly derives from violence. For revolutionaries, the might of capitalist conservation can be opposed only by world proletarian might. We don't delude ourselves that there is any other way. At present though the strength of the proletariat is sapped by division and diversions. We are reminded that Marx wrote: in this society the proletariat is either revolutionary or it is nothing. The challenge that has to be met is the same for the revolutionary bourgeoisie in one fundamental respect – that the battle will take place on a global scale; the proletariat, as in Russia, will have to conquer the bourgeoisie in its own country, and then go on to conquer the countries that still remain in bourgeois hands. For this communist party of the future, it will still be necessary to study military strategy with a view to the war which the states of the new proletarian dictatorship will have to launch against the mercenaries of capital.

There are many things to be taken into consideration: the technical equipment of modern warfare, used terroristically by the bourgeoisie, is in fact in the hands of the proletariat, especially in the most advanced countries and it will have to learn how to use it. Another factor is the possibility of fraternization between the proletarian troops which can be brought about in different ways according to whether the combatants are in the air force, navy or army. Proletarian governments installed in any of the advanced countries will certainly have greater possibilities of maneuver and mobilization than does the reactionary Iraqi state.

As matters stand at the moment we certainly don't expect any immediate conquests, and, if war broke out tomorrow we couldn't claim to be able to put a stop to it with our meager forces. But that won't lead us to hang onto the coattails of the priests and the pacifists. Rather it is because the duty of the International Communist Party today to put up a barrier against the flood of nonsense, the out and out bilgewater spread by our enemies, whether of the pacifist, interclassist or gradualist variety. Our duty is to remain aware at all times of the harsh reality of the struggle between classes and its inexorable laws.

We have already recently seen the proletariat in Italy out on strike. The right moment arrived and a spontaneous mobilization took place for its own economic defense and against submitting to the war. Our contribution is to anticipate the conditions under which the battle will be fought; to say that without trustworthy defensive organizations, without unions which are red and combative no effective defense will be possible; and to say, furthermore, that without the revolutionary party resistance to war is impossible. Most of the proletariat though, despite what we have said, will still find it necessary to experience for itself the bloody betrayal of those other organizations that claim to be workers parties and workers unions. However, a minority of the class will become conscious of communism and the party, and thereby reconstitute the bond that has been broken for more than 60 years.

Amidst this process of economic crises and the preparation for world war, our small, but nevertheless great party continues working.