A proletarian internationalist voice on the Israel-Palestine war, rarely heard in Latin America where the leftist bourgeois idea prevails that only the U.S. and Israel are imperialist, and “the Palestinians” deserve support in their struggle for “national self-determination.” In a comment following the article, we show some differences with the authors, who are deeply influenced by Brazilian Self-Management Marxism.
F.C.
In international relations, the bourgeoisie represents the policy of war and conquest and, in the current phase, the system of customs duties and economic war, while the proletariat represents the policy of universal peace.
Rosa Luxemburg, The National Question and Autonomy (1909).
The Jewish question is insoluble in today’s capitalist barbarism. It makes no sense to close our eyes to reality: however difficult it may be (…) to stop the special atrocities against the Jewish population, Palestine has no solution. Capitalism means prolonging this barbaric situation. The task of Jewish workers is the task of all workers: to end the international system of capitalist exploitation.
Paul Mattick & Walter Auerbach, A “Marxian” Approach to the Jewish Question (1938).
A year and a half after the start of the inter-imperialist war between Russia and Ukraine, we are witnessing a new (old) conflict between the State of Israel and the Islamist paramilitary organizations that control the Gaza Strip in Palestine. In a society based on the accumulation of capital, to the detriment of human needs, war is used by the bourgeoisie to combat the instability of the current cycle of accumulation, relying mainly on war capital (“arms industry”)[1][2] to resume increasing profits. Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised if another war breaks out between capitalist states in a short space of time, foreshadowing the escalation towards its worldwide generalization, which is taking great strides.
In a March 2022 article published on this portal[3] , the author, Maurício Cunha, warned that the event in Ukraine was an inter-imperialist conflict and that strengthening any side in the war meant contributing to a collaborationist policy, and therefore a counter-revolutionary one. And in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, what’s new? Is this the moment for sectors of civil society[4], which claim to be revolutionary, to abandon the perspective of the proletariat and the historical project of human emancipation, exchanging them for the defense of the “Palestinian people” and their illusory national self-determination? To answer these questions, let’s start by clarifying the significance of this recent problem.
Neoliberal policies, new labour relations and the intensification of international exploitation, elements that characterize the integral (contemporary) accumulation regime[5], allowed for an increase in the exploitation process and a certain margin of stability in several countries during the time when this regime was formed (1980s to early 2000s). From 2008 onwards, the pace of capitalist accumulation began to show signs of slowing down, resulting in political and economic instability[6] in several countries and difficulties[7] in resuming this accumulation. Between 2020 and 2022, the decline in capital accumulation was accentuated by the global situation of the coronavirus pandemic and the outbreak of war in Ukraine, intensifying the process of global impoverishment. In the regions encompassing the State of Israel and Palestinian society (the Gaza Strip and the West Bank), the situation was no different. The lower classes[8] (proletarians, service providers, the immense army of unemployed, etc.) who survive in these areas have suffered more acutely from the effects of the rising “cost of living” (energy, food, etc.), rising unemployment, rising inflation and other processes that have been aggravated by the ever-increasing difficulty of capital’s expanded reproduction around the world.
As for the areas bombed by Israel, the Gaza Strip is under constant dispute and the situation there is really dramatic for the workers due to the economic and commercial blockade (air, sea and land) imposed by the Israeli government and Egypt since 2006, when Hamas won the elections and took control of the territory.[9] . In this region, workers are framed as “second-class citizens”: the working class of Palestinian origin is not only dominated by the Israeli bourgeoisie and its allies, but is also discriminated against (ethnically and nationally) and excluded from various other rights supposedly guaranteed by bourgeois-democratic regimes. There is a deep historical dimension to the class struggle that has been going on for decades in this region[10] .
The Zionist state of Israel fulfills the function – like any other capitalist state – of guaranteeing the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, interfering in the process of valorization and in international relations of exploitation. In the case of this Zionist state, the dynamic is based on a bourgeois democratic political regime that constantly metamorphoses according to the needs of national and transnational capital. In times of war, the Israeli state expands repression and takes on an “authoritarian” face with the discourse of fighting the “external enemy” (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) while, in reality, it is the Palestinian and Israeli lower classes who suffer the main consequences.
One policy that has been carried out by the state of Israel is the confinement of millions of Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip[11] as part of a long historical process of occupation, leaving them under constant surveillance and control when entering and leaving the borders. Added to this confinement is the international support Israel receives from the United States (US) to militarily occupy Palestinian territories in the West Bank, near the River Jordan, and other regions. In this tangle of interests and conflicts, Hamas is a reactionary political force that governs the Gaza region[12] , while the West Bank areas are controlled by the occupation forces and the Palestinian Authority, led by Fatah, a political and military organization founded in 1959.
Behind the October 7 attack was Hamas, this reactionary Islamist organization, which is also responsible for the repression of the lower classes and control in the Gaza Strip, preventing the emergence of any political opposition and radicalization of the disaffected sectors. Hamas’ main military ally is Hezbollah[13] and its financial support comes from various countries, such as Qatar. In recent years, Israel’s Zionist government has begun to go through a political crisis, threatening the position of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accused of corruption and other crimes. This political crisis has generated pressure and internal divisions within the ruling bloc, intensifying the protests by various progressive sectors that have taken place in recent months. Against this backdrop of a weakened government, the Israeli security forces were (allegedly) surprised by the military offensive of Hamas, which had been planning this attack for at least a year, which puts the responsibility for the attack on the government itself and leaves it under suspicion.
Behind the war between Israel and Hamas is a larger war in the Middle East, a region that has historically supplied energy (gas, oil) and strategic maritime routes. The governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia have begun negotiations in recent years to sign a diplomatic agreement, mediated by the US, which would involve building and upgrading seaports and railroads to speed up the movement of goods between the region of India, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Europe. The agreement would mainly integrate the states of Israel and Saudi Arabia, bringing them closer militarily, which means a threat to Iran and other capitalist nations (Lebanon, Syria, etc.), long-time enemies of the US. Thus, the negotiations between the Israelis, the Americans and the Saudis were almost concluded in recent weeks and, after the Hamas attack, the agreement was thwarted and postponed indefinitely, with Saudi Arabia backing out so as not to risk its authority and influence in the Arab world.
Thus, an ongoing trend is the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas to other neighboring countries, such as Lebanon and Syria, involving countries such as Iran and the US. The consequences in this case are drastic for Palestinian workers, as their lives (in the Gaza region and the West Bank) are being taken and are in the process of deteriorating. As for Israeli workers, living conditions are also worsening with increased exploitation, surveillance and repression, and in a war situation – that could go on for months or years -, thousands of reservists are called up to occupy the battlefronts, generating discontent and protests against the Israeli government.
In the long term, a military escalation cannot be ruled out, with a direct conflict between Israel and Iran, and with the participation of the United States, which could in the future involve Russia and China, bringing the two major imperialist blocs into dispute the two major imperialist blocs[14] that are in the process of forming and transforming the war conflict into a problem that will have global consequences. The worsening of economic, environmental, etc. problems and the strengthening of nationalist, irrational and warlike discourses are elements that are already weakening the opposition sectors[15] and the development of the proletarian struggle[16] . These are possibilities that show that the inter-imperialist war serves only and exclusively the interests of the bourgeoisie, increasing war capital and other sectors of national capital, renewing domination and the redistribution of power between national states across the planet. In the end, it is the proletariat, the exploited class in the workplaces that produce all kinds of weapons used on battlefields to exterminate their comrades – other workers – who pay the costs of this war.
Wars thus present the most aggressive, naked and oppressive face of contemporary capitalism. On the battlefronts, workers of various nationalities and ethnicities are discarded, while the bourgeoisie (and its main ally, the bureaucracy) rejoices in its increased power and conquests. The inter-imperialist war, in its current form, intensifies competition between national states and seeks to establish a new division of the world with countries that want to expand their domination of the world market and military power (China, for example); that don’t want to lose their dominant position (the United States); and that aspire to a redistribution of power (Russia, for example). We therefore reaffirm that there is nothing new in the strife in the Middle East, except for the old dilemma that humanity has been facing for the last century: Social Self-Management or Barbarism!
***
Given what has been discussed so far, how can we assess the significance of the issues raised by sectors of civil society in Brazil in relation to the capitalist war in the Middle East? We’ll start the discussion with brief notes on the positions of the progressive (or reformist) bloc.
In the reformist field, the PT (“Workers” Party), the main neoliberal neopopulist party in Brazil, gained strength during the Bolsonaro government and managed – in the 2022 elections – to secure its return to the dominant bloc, particularly in the government wing. The reformist sectors that opposed the fascist scarecrow embodied in the Bolsonaro government have once again accommodated themselves to the Lula government and the conservatism of their positions has become crystal clear. In all these political expressions linked to the bourgeois classes and their auxiliaries (bureaucracy and intelligentsia), hypocrisy reigns: Israel’s attacks on the “Palestinian people” are condemned, while Lula’s speeches and diplomatic role in the UN Council (supposedly United Nations) are celebrated. Leaving aside the link between the UN and the interests of the imperialist powers, the cynicism of the positions that support the “centre-left” PT coalition hides the fact that, concomitant with Brazil’s participation in the UN “Security” Council (war room), the Lula government is continuing with military operations in Haiti and internally approving policies that harden the repressive character of the Brazilian neoliberal state with the privatization of prisons, the maintenance of a fiscal policy that restricts social policies (education, health, etc.) and other measures that correspond to those of the UN.) and other measures that correspond to the interests of the capitalist class (national and international).
In this way, the moderate wing of the reformist bloc demonstrates that its position in relation to the state of Israel and the “Palestinian people” is nothing more than a discourse (anti-war and for a return to supposed “social peace”) that simulates an illusory humanitarian concern in order, in reality, to conceal its interests and links with the maintenance of capitalist society and Lula’s neoliberal government, to the detriment of a real concern with the emancipation of the workers (Brazilians, Palestinians, Israelis, etc.). On the other side of the progressive bloc is the extremist wing, represented by groups linked to Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, among others, which range from defending Hamas to supporting the “Palestinian people” and their nation-state, which should be protected and effectively recognized by all UN countries. This support was to be expected. What is controversial here is that the latter position has become present among those who would appear to be revolutionaries, i.e. belonging to the revolutionary bloc (anarchists of various currents, autonomists and their subdivisions, etc.).
With regard to the political intervention of organizations and activists who set themselves up as revolutionaries, the first issue that catches the eye in this intervention is the claim of solidarity with the “Palestinian people”. Behind the terminology “people”, a false concept that creates more obstacles than it clarifies reality, what is hidden is the opposition and struggle between social classes. The idea of “people”, “nation” and the like represent a form of abstraction that hides the real basis on which social classes are based: fixed activities in the social division of labor of capitalist society, which generates common ways of life, similar interests and common opposition and struggle against other classes. The interests, way of life and struggle of the Palestinian working class are different from the interests, way of life and struggle of the Palestinian bourgeoisie. To illustrate this discussion, we will look at examples of real issues facing the Palestinian population living in the Gaza Strip.
The inhabitants of Gaza who are unemployed do not have a bunker to protect themselves from Israeli attacks. Those who have precarious jobs, living on the borderline between unemployment and temporary employment, live in small spaces where their families reside and who, in the event of military attacks, are wounded. This situation experienced by some individuals from the lower classes is different from other individuals from the upper classes of Palestinian origin. Several Hamas leaders (bureaucrats) are able to protect themselves from the war by accessing deep underground bunkers in relative safety, connected to a network of tunnels in Egypt that provide a refuge in the event of increased conflict with Israel.
In addition, most of Gaza’s inhabitants live in areas with dense urban agglomeration and a large number of young people have no job. For its part, Hamas groups together leaders in bureaucratic positions and various officials who enjoy a greater margin of security compared to the so-called “civilians”. It is part of these “civilians”, the Palestinian workers, who are in the most vulnerable situation and it is they who carry out actions of resistance, mutual support, protecting their families and what may be left after the Israeli forces bombard them.
Thus, among the Palestinian “people” there are differences in the way of life, security conditions, financial conditions, etc., which produces divisions and subdivisions among the “Palestinian people”, and, in general terms, generates an antagonism of interests between the upper classes (exemplified in the condition of Hamas leaders belonging to the bureaucracy) and the lower classes (exemplified in the condition of the unemployed or underemployed belonging to the lumpenproletariat). So there’s no reason to be under any illusions about who suffers most from the war[17] : the Palestinian workers.
From another angle, let’s assume that there is an honest intention on the part of some in that demand and the “people” refers to the Palestinian working class, and not to the upper classes (bourgeois, bureaucrats, etc.). What follows from this position (the defense of the abstracted slogan “Palestinian people”) is another equally illusory banner: the demand for “Free Palestine”. Alongside this idea of Palestinian “freedom” is another slogan with the following phrase: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.
In the latter case, the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” could be interpreted as the end of the State of Israel and the “expulsion of the Jews to the sea”. Another interpretation is developed by the Communist Alert group, in the text “On the Never-Ending Israel-Palestine Conflict”[18] which puts the following historical context. The phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” means that the river is the Jordan and the sea is the Mediterranean. The use of this slogan began with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its main wing, Fatah. Later, the slogan was adopted by Hamas. It’s no secret that the purpose of these organizations is for all the capitalist states, members of the UN, to recognize the State of Palestine as a member, and not just as an observer without the right to vote, which would give the Palestinian bourgeoisie (and its allies) another status in the division of the world market. “Free Palestine” would have another status and would still be based on a capitalist state with its institutions, class divisions, exploitation of surplus value and the whole set of relations that are guaranteed by this private apparatus of capital.
We could assume, again, that there is a background of sincerity in some apparently revolutionary militants and that the presence of the demand for “Free Palestine” would be a temporary political proposal, changing the correlation of forces (the class struggle) in the region, which would cause a reduction in the problems of Palestinian workers. In this way, the defense of this proposal would aim to guarantee more “civil rights” to the Palestinians in their territories, which is configured as a “democratic” way of guaranteeing their long-term survival, after all, (bourgeois) democracy is a softer form of domination than (bourgeois) dictatorship.
The problem is that the imposition of the state form and political regime that will guarantee bourgeois domination is not a “choice” of the proletariat. It is the decision of the bourgeoisie (national and transnational) and its allied classes (such as the bureaucracy). Would-be “revolutionaries” who support Palestinian nationalism cannot reasonably suggest that they are defending “democracy”, because this is actually a defense for the Palestinian proletariat to support the “democratic” fractions of the capitalist class, and the fruits of “democracy” would be an empty promise for a supposed situation after the victory of this “democratic” sector of the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the fruits of Israel’s (and the US’s) bourgeois democracy are falling on their heads in the form of bombs and bullets. This “democratic” dilemma is therefore disconnected from the analysis of the class struggle and its antagonisms, and in a general perspective, from the critique of the social conditions that generate exploitation, domination and the existence of nation-states. The internationalist position then drowns in national dilemmas.
It is in this area of the national problem that we need to confront. In contexts of inter-imperialist war and conflicts between capitalist states, the capitalist class spreads nationalism as a weapon to fight the proletariat, ideologically justifying its territorial disputes which are linked to the need to expand the capitalist mode of production and share the world[19] . The national discourse serves as an ideology that legitimizes[20] various illusions: the idea of “nation”, “homeland”, “national identity”. The spread of national ideology thus seeks to integrate the lower classes into a false unity, dampening the class struggle. We therefore have the replacement of the bourgeoisie’s real purpose (profit) with false discourses about the “common good”.
The bourgeoisie’s strategy of claiming nationalism in war contexts thus serves to camouflage its true interests and throw workers onto the battlefields and regions that are bombed, separating them in a struggle that serves interests contrary to their own. In the case of the “Palestinian nation” and its possible liberation, what actually exists is the population of Palestinian origin that inhabits the territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the refugee camps and all those who have emigrated. In a hypothetical reconfiguration of the Palestinian state, bringing together this entire population, the outcome of the inter-imperialist war could lead to the realization of this tendency. However, national self-determination is impossible.
The reason for this is that Palestine has social classes and fractions of classes with distinct interests that cannot be solved with any proposal within the parameters of capitalist society. The Palestinian bourgeoisie, although fragile at the moment, will not hesitate – in its own state or territory – to make future alliances with other capitalist states to improve its position, guaranteeing the extension of its domination over the Palestinian working class and leaving it in even more miserable conditions. In the international conflicts between the various bourgeoisies, a population (or a society with its social classes and other elements) will always depend on the decision of the imperialist powers and the regional conflicts between the bourgeois classes. Just as it was impossible to achieve the supposed autonomy and liberation of the working classes in Cuban and Vietnamese territory in the middle of the 20th century, the emancipation of the Palestinian, Kurdish, Syrian, etc. workers will depend on the proletarian revolution in various countries (especially the imperialist powers) to become a reality.
In this sense, the political expressions present in these sectors that are linked to nationalist and statist demands represent an obstacle to the revolutionary proletarian struggle, which places them in a counter-revolutionary perspective similar to the reformist bloc. Such mystifications need to be seriously discussed, confronted and overcome so that political intervention is effectively favoring the struggle for a radically different society. In this sense, we will develop a final topic that aims to offer brief notes on the trends that could emerge from this war.
***
Final words
The situation in the Palestinian territory is in ruins. Most of the lower classes who survive in the Gaza Strip receive crumbs sent by Israel and other countries and international organizations, the so-called “humanitarian aid”. The conflicts between rival factions place the region in a constant state of open civil war and the visible consequences are the daily suffering of these classes, attacked by the bombings and systematic violence exercised by all sides in the inter-imperialist war.
In these conditions, the struggle of the proletariat, the class capable of destroying capitalist relations of production, appears to be a distant goal. What appears immediately is the need to survive in the rubble of these ruins, which may depend on the “good will” of the imperialist powers. Faced with urgent issues, observes Gilles Dauvé[21] , revolutionaries do not have the capacity to do more than the workers themselves can in the situations and countries in which they find themselves. This does not mean that we should refrain from evaluating the actions and justifications of those who support the war, on one side or the other, or protest for the end of the war, expressing solidarity and support according to their political strategy.
When the situation is bleak, the will to act becomes more pressing and people feel tempted to take a side in the issue in order to show a form of political commitment. The pressure to take a stand can thus be a way of completely abandoning certain principles that seem unreasonable, and in a sense, unrealizable, at least in the momentary situation. For this question, we would like to return to a discussion that involves dilemmas that go from political strategy to the principles that various revolutionary organizations and militants claimed in other wars between capitalist states, whether in 1914 or 1940. This discussion is still relevant today and remains valid in the analysis of the class struggle.
On the strategic level, what is immediately apparent is the link to the specific, momentary problem that workers of Palestinian origin have been dragged into, and where there is not much room for choice. We have no illusions about the state of civil war and the difficulties faced by Palestinian workers, and on the other side of the trench, by Israeli workers. In the case of the Palestinian side, the end or truce of the war could lead to the extension of the “civil rights” of the Palestinian Arabs, putting in check a change in the correlation of national political forces, which, however, would remain dependent on the inter-imperialist war between the major imperialist powers and regional conflicts. Faced with this alternative, which resembles the idea of the “lesser evil”, the replacement of the reactionary Hamas by other more “democratic” forces and the truce with the state of Israel, what is most likely to emerge is the consolidation of this bureaucratic organization, supported by several Palestinian workers.
In this partial support, we have an illusory veil that creates obstacles to resistance actions. Hamas, the enemy of the Palestinian workers, ensures bourgeois hegemony by spreading nationalist ideologies, conservative (Sunni) religious values and doctrines, articulating them with the project of “liberating” (dominating) Palestine and strengthening a nation based on the principles of Sharia, thus extending its territorial political control. These obstacles could lead to the strengthening of patriotism, the last refuge of the bourgeoisie, and consequently the two alternatives mentioned (the emergence of other “democratic” forces or the expansion of Hamas’ control over Palestinian territory) would guarantee – to a greater or lesser extent – the foundations of this society (private property, the exploitation of surplus value, racism, violence, etc.).
On the other hand, Israeli workers have already demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the Netanyahu government and, in several cases, with the treatment of Palestinian workers. But at the moment, the bourgeois perspective in defense of the deepening of “democratic freedoms” and for an end to Israel’s military attacks are the agendas that hegemonize the ongoing demonstrations. The fall of the current government and its replacement by a “more democratic” one would not radically change Israel’s relations with the United States. The interest in the resumption and development of the capitalist regional bloc remains, as seen in the attempt to strengthen the Israel-United States-Saudi Arabia alliance in the Middle East, and, in turn, the conditions of domination of the Palestinian and Israeli workers by the national bourgeoisies and their allies would not be changed in almost any way in this scenario.
At first glance, therefore, the defense of the immediate interests of the proletariat on both sides leads to a dead end. If, at first, Palestinian workers and some Israelis show indignation at the Zionist state’s attacks, and hold spontaneous demonstrations, in nearby regions the context is also marked by dissatisfaction, coupled with the growing number of protests in numerous countries against this war. There is pressure to end the war, as well as solidarity with the “Palestinian people”. However, restricting solidarity and political strategy to defensive actions creates an opposition to what we can call the historical interests of the proletariat.
In this way, solidarity with the Palestinian workers’ resistance and recognition of their particular problems are issues to be dealt with, which, however, cannot be separated from the significance that the class struggle can assume and has developed in a global sense. The inter-imperialist war extends the conflict to other regions and could have devastating consequences for the working class worldwide. This is why, more than ever, the internationalist position enunciated by Marx in 1848 in his Communist Manifesto remains relevant. According to Marx, revolutionaries must make common interests prevail, regardless of nationality, and represent the interests of the proletariat as a whole in its various stages of development in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. Currently, the conflict is taking the form of a war between several capitalist states, which could, in the near future, become a new world war.
Thus, solidarity can only be effective with the development of the proletariat’s struggle against its ruling class and its union as a revolutionary class, a principle that many call revolutionary defeatism. This principle becomes even more present in situations of war in which the working classes are involved directly (Palestinians and Israelis) and indirectly (imperialist powers like the US). Actions such as sabotage in arms production, abandonment of battlefields and solidarity between soldiers on both sides are configured as forms of confrontation with the capitalist classes involved in the inter-imperialist war, opening up the possibility for the radicalization of struggles in other countries. It is towards the radicalization of the class struggle, the constitution of the new or the not-yet-existent[22] , that we defend the fight against all forms of nationalism, the national state, war and other problems that are derived from the capitalist mode of production.
The proletariat (Israeli and Palestinian) may not have presented its historical interests and positioned itself as a self-determined class in recent years. Expecting it to struggle against its bourgeoisie is an exercise far removed from the historical and social conditions that are concretely presented. But when it does, all support will be needed. While this revolutionary struggle in Palestine-Israel does not prove to be a realizable trend, we cannot ignore the broad underground movement that carries with it the potential of the proletarian revolution. In recent years, there have been advances in proletarian struggles in other countries (Turkey, Iran, China, etc.), which demonstrates that the working class has not been wiped out of history and its struggle takes place on a daily basis.
The workers’ struggles in the production process, in their defensive and daily character, demonstrate the refusal of capitalist relations in practice, but still lack revolutionary consciousness and project. There are moments when spontaneity, practical refusal, unfolds into autonomous struggles, articulating collective actions that gain a higher level of radicalism and consciousness, although these struggles still manifest various limits and difficulties.
Finally, autonomous struggles can reach the revolutionary stage, the moment when the struggle is hegemonized by the workers’ movement and the rejection of capital is accompanied by the affirmation of another radically different society, social self-management. There is a union between practice and consciousness, revolutionary councils are created that become widespread throughout society and the bourgeois counter-revolution is fought to guarantee the victory of the revolution. It is these self-management struggles, the core of which pushes the lower social classes and discontented sectors of society, that will be able to put an end to the wars and, ultimately, an end to capitalist society.
In view of the self-management struggle, militants and organizations that claim to be revolutionaries[23] must support and strengthen the conditions for the realization of social self-management, fighting the false representatives of the proletariat (parties, unions[24] , etc.) and not leaving it in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Revolutionary strategy presupposes the analysis of specific problems, without abandoning the ultimate goal of human emancipation. This strategic unity points to a practical and conscious revolutionary policy, which doesn’t get hung up on immediate problems (the particular situation of Palestinian, Israeli, Arab, Jewish workers), nor does it abandon the final goal (the emancipation of all workers with the abolition of capitalism).
Faced with the massacre of the working class in a region divided by concrete walls separating Palestinians and Israelis, the struggle to build a new life, free of divisions and exploitation, oppression and violence, cannot be replaced by abandoning the proletarian revolution. This new life is what we call social self-management, a world with freely associated human beings who consciously establish self-managed relations of production and distribution. In this way, the only concrete proposal that can bring about world peace is to be found in the revolutionary politics of the proletariat.
Crítica Desapiedada [Unapologetic Criticism] (October 2023)
[1] The expansion of war capital heats up with the threat of war, as the purchase of armaments is encouraged and justified. In this particular context, war capital, like any capitalist enterprise that needs to make a profit, sells to its main buyers, the nation states, thus accomplishing capital accumulation. In a general sense, war also favors other fractions of capital, since it is determined by the very essence of the capitalist mode of production: profit. When the average rate of profit reaches a very low level, competition between capitalists intensifies and one strategy to combat this decline is violent confrontation between states with the fundamental aim of increasing exploitation in new territories.
[2] Information on the increase in the profits of war capital in recent years can be found here and here. In 2021, global military spending broke a record and exceeded US$ 2 trillion. The United States dominates the lion’s share of this market.
[3] The reader can consult this text at the following link: Revolutionary Politics and World War: Ideological capitulation in the face of conflict.
[4] Civil society is a concept close to that used by Karl Marx, who saw civil society as the instance of the private, of private relations, and the state as the instance of the collective and of laws. In capitalist society, the mode of production creates social forms (the “superstructure”) that can be divided into private and state. State social forms are the state and the set of apparatuses derived from it (repressive, legal, communicational, etc.), which appears to be “public”. Private social forms manifest the private life of individuals, such as the family, organizations, etc. It is in bourgeois civil society, the private social forms and the mode of production, that the real stage of history, of class struggles, is to be found. The sectors of civil society we are referring to are those “left” (or “bourgeois left”) organizations that call themselves revolutionary, such as political organizations inspired by anarchist currents.
[5] The discussion of the theory of the accumulation regime is based on the book Capitalism in the Era of the Integral Accumulation Regime (2009) and the articles “Tendencies of the Integral Accumulation Regime in Modern Times” (2023) and “Integral Accumulation and the Dynamics of Contemporary Capitalism” (2022), all written by Nildo Viana.
[6] Accompanying the political and economic instability, the year 2008 amplified a wave of social struggles that has been impacting and creating cracks in the foundations of the regime of integral accumulation. For an informative compilation of class struggles dating back to the last five years (2018-2022), the text “The greatest wave of popular revolts in human history (Part 1)” (Granamir) is useful. Other informative reading covering practically the same period of social struggles (2018-2021) can be found on the Amanajé and Libertarian Communism blogs.
[7] The difficulty means that the regime of integral accumulation is going through a moment of destabilization, facing various problems that are contributing to the decline in the rate of profit. What could further aggravate the dissolution of the regime of integral accumulation is the expansion of local crises (political, fiscal, environmental, etc.) that could become generalized and reinforce the radicalization of social struggles. In this way, crises in capitalism can turn into a crisis of capitalism, which opens the door to strengthening the struggle for the trend towards a communist (self-managed) society, or for the creation of a new accumulation regime that would continue capitalism.
[8] In capitalist society, there is a broad social division of labor that creates a complex division of social classes. To illustrate this social composition, Marxist Nildo Viana distinguishes between upper and lower classes (see: Lower and Upper Classes). The upper and lower classes are the social classes aggregated (united) by their class situation, linked to the position and function exercised in the social division of labor and in the social pyramid. There is a tendency for the upper classes to unify around the bourgeoisie, and for the lower classes to unify around the proletariat. On a concrete level, the upper classes have greater power and income, such as the bourgeoisie, bureaucracy, intelligentsia, etc., although the only class that owns capital is the bourgeoisie (the ruling class). On the other hand, the lower classes are deprived of power, have lower incomes and correspond to the proletarian classes, servants (subalterns), lumpenproletarians and others who will also be considered in our text as the working class or simply workers. In the latter case, we will take turns using the terms “working class”, “workers” and “lower classes” as synonyms. This is done here for didactic purposes, avoiding repetition. However, we would like to point out that, in our view, the only productive salaried working class is the proletariat. A more detailed and in-depth discussion of the theory of social classes in capitalism can be found in the article mentioned above and in its bibliographical references.
[9] After elections in 2006, Hamas was victorious, winning a majority on the NPC (Palestinian National Council), and came to govern the Gaza Strip, and Fatah (the main political party belonging to the Palestinian National Authority) the West Bank, dividing the territory politically. Our purpose is not to elaborate on this broader historical context, which is why we are presenting it in summary form. The reader can access detailed information on this dispute between the main political factions in the Palestinian territory, the Oslo agreement in 1993, the beginning of Israel’s sanctions and blockade and other aspects in the following articles: On the situation in Gaza (Konflikt) and Israel’s crisis and the Palestinian resistance (Toufic Haddad and Ilan Pappé).
[10] For an analysis of the first spontaneous uprisings (called Intifadas) started by Palestinian workers in 1987 and 1993, we suggest checking out the analysis developed by the Worldwide Intifada bulletin: Palestinian Autonomy or the Autonomy of our Class Struggle? (1992).
[11] In addition to this confinement in the Gaza area, Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank live under surveillance and in Israel “enjoy” limited civil rights.
[12] There is another military organization in the Strip that plays a secondary role: Islamic Jihad. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are financed by Iran. Several pieces of information used to explain the context of the Hamas attack were taken from the article “Israel’s ‘9/11’ will change the Middle East” by Mikhail Magid.
[13] Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed Lebanese group with the greatest military power. Hezbollah also took part in the military attack on October 7 and has warned that it could go to war with Israel if it invades the Gaza Strip by land.
[14] The two major imperialist blocs in development are: the bloc with the United States as its main power and its main alliances in the European Union, as opposed to the bloc with China as its main power and allies such as Iran and Russia.
[15] The opposition sectors express a section of civil society that does not include the proletarian class, the class tied to capitalist relations of production. This discontented section is made up of numerous lumpenproletarians, servants (or subalterns), domestic workers, small groups of intellectuals, individual bureaucrats and other salaried workers. It is also made up of oppressed social groups, such as young people, students and others who generally have links (direct or indirect) with the lower classes. Oppositionist sectors can be analyzed in popular demonstrations with a polyclassist character that do not express proletarian hegemony, even though proletarian individuals can participate in these demonstrations. Two recent examples that illustrate these cases are the June 2013 protests in Brazil and the Yellow Vests revolt in France in 2018.
[16] A crisis in contemporary capitalism with global consequences can result in a return to regimes of exceptional accumulation, such as Nazi-fascism, and the expansion of military dictatorships. But in other contexts, such as the First World War, the worsening of misery generated change and discontent at the front (especially in Germany and Russia) and so revolutionary councils emerged. It is the latter trend that we are fighting for, as you will see in the last topic.
[17] It is the Palestinian workers who are in the crossfire. The Palestinian bourgeoisie is not even in the crossfire and lives in exile alongside the bureaucratic leadership of the organizations.
[18] Check out the text at the following link: https://alertacomunista.wordpress.com/2023/10/09/on-never-ending-israel-palestine-conflict/. For a translation into Portuguese: Sobre o interminável conflito entre Israel e Palestina (2018).
[19] See: Russia, State War and Class Struggle, by Nildo Viana.
[20] In this war in the Middle East, nationalist ideology has another function, which is to reinforce ethnic-national divisions between Israeli and Palestinian workers, weakening solidarity and increasing discrimination and competition.
[21] In his article “Peace is War” (2022).
[22] According to Ernst Bloch, the not-yet-existent expresses the content of consciousness that has not yet manifested itself in a clear way, that is still dawning from the future. Following the possibilities offered by reality, we don’t know if the trend we want will necessarily be realized. It is the dynamics of the class struggle itself that will tell us which tendencies will be confirmed or not. However, the tendency we defend is one that carries a utopian-concrete dimension, expressed in various historical moments (Paris Commune, Russian Revolution, German Revolution) that point to the consolidation of a radically different society.
[23] We couldn’t fail to mention some individuals and organizations who have written on the same subject, expressing in their texts a perspective close to ours, although with differences in theoretical and methodological aspects, political and strategic proposals, etc. We cite the following articles: “The war between Israel and Hamas from a critical-radical perspective” (Pablo Jiménez – Chile), “Against Palestinian and Israeli nationalism” (Barbaria – Spain), “The latest carnage in the Middle East is part of the march towards generalized war” (Tendencia Comunista Internacionalista) and and “The working class and the war Israel – Palestine” (Fredo Corvo and Aníbal – Holland/Spain). There are undoubtedly other political organizations, activists and virtual pages that have expressed a similar perspective, but these examples are enough to illustrate what we mean by a revolutionary position.
[24] In our view, political parties and trade unions are bureaucratic organizations, contrary to the historical interests of the proletariat. This does not mean that we are against the intervention of revolutionary (or autarchic) political organizations in the class struggle. These organizations can do what Marx considered to be the role of communists: they do not constitute an organization separate from the interests of the proletariat as a whole, nor do they establish particular principles that seek to direct or control the movement. There are other theses developed by Marx on this issue, but these are enough to illustrate our argument that revolutionary organizations do not seek to replace the working class in its struggle and defend self-emancipation, positions that are antagonistic to the bureaucratic character of organizations that seek to replace the class, direct it and falsely represent it through institutional (or illegal) mechanisms aimed at conquering the state apparatus.
Source
In portuguese: Política Revolucionária e a Guerra no Oriente Médio – Crítica Desapiedada. Translated with help of Deepl.com, and corrected by the authors.
Comment
The above article takes an internationalist position and even brings up revolutionary defeatism. F.e.:
- “A year and a half after the start of the inter-imperialist war between Russia and Ukraine, we are witnessing a new (old) conflict between the State of Israel and the Islamist paramilitary organizations that control the Gaza Strip in Palestine.”
- “The inter-imperialist war, in its current form, intensifies competition between national states and seeks to establish a new division of the world with countries that want to expand their domination of the world market and military power (China, for example); that don’t want to lose their dominant position (the United States); and that aspire to a redistribution of power (Russia, for example). We therefore reaffirm that there is nothing new in the strife in the Middle East (…)”
- “(…) solidarity can only be effective with the development of the proletariat’s struggle against its ruling class and its union as a revolutionary class, a principle that many call revolutionary defeatism. This principle becomes even more present in situations of war in which the working classes are involved directly (Palestinians and Israelis) and indirectly (imperialist powers like the US). Actions such as sabotage in arms production, abandonment of battlefields and solidarity between soldiers on both sides are configured as forms of confrontation with the capitalist classes involved in the inter-imperialist war, opening up the possibility for the radicalization of struggles in other countries.”
A careful reader will have seen that the authors struggle with the terminology of the Self-Management Marxism they espouse. Reading the notes is often illuminating. Some broad explanations indicate a struggle to adapt the theory to other circumstances. We list here three sub-theories in which Self-Management Marxism differs from the Communist Left, of which it originally knew only Otto Rühle’s council communism:
- The theory of social classes Self Management Marxism (SMM) differentiates various social classes in capitalism, such as the lumpenproletariat, the proletariat, the subalterns, the bureaucracy, the intelligentsia, the bourgeoisie, etc. Strictly speaking, the proletariat is considered the only productive class, meaning it is the only one exploited (through the extraction of surplus value) in commodity production, making it a revolutionary class.
Against this, Aníbal and I have defended that capitalism consists of two historical classes, the bourgeoisie (including the petty bourgeoisie) and the proletariat, including the working and the unemployed workers and the lumpenproletariat. How several layers and sectors of the proletariat, on the one hand, and, on the other, that of the petty bourgeoisie develop in class struggle should be analyzed over and over again. - The way to analyze the historical development of capitalism and one of its components, imperialism, SMM tries to approach this analysis through the theory of the accumulation regime, as developed by Nildo Viana here in Brazil, who was inspired by the Regulation School in France (Alain Lipietz, for example). However, the article’s authors underline they do not defend the “dependency theory” approach, which is inspired by Lenin’s theses and, in some cases by Trotsky’s thinking.
About this, we can see that the capitalist policies since Thatcher/Reagan have less and less effect. The turn towards war economies is significant and should be investigated on the grounds of Marxism. - The way of analyzing the political positions present in capitalist society. In this case, SMM uses Nildo Viana’s theory of social blocs. This approach is linked to his theory of social classes. Therefore, the theory of social blocs is a logical consequence of the conception of social classes that the authors are working with. The article above talks about social blocs, revolutionary blocs, reformist blocs, dominant blocs, sectors or wings of blocs, and other terms.
For most people not familiar with SMM, this terminology is hard to understand. Left communists are suspicious about the theoretical roots of the theory of social blocs in Gramsci and a Eurocommunist like Poulantzas. Regarding the current situation in Brazil, it is striking that in the media of SMM – as far as we know – an analysis of the internal and foreign policy of the Lula government is lacking. The article’s attempts to analyze this government’s foreign policy are extremely modest. The question of how Brazil navigates between the shaping of a US imperialist bloc and the emerging Chinese imperialist bloc remains unanswered. I believe the comrades have some catching up to do, as shown by the lack in their analyses of the influences of several superpowers in the Middle East.
F.C.
Left wing communism 
Pingback: Política Revolucionária e a Guerra no Oriente Médio – Crítica Desapiedada – Crítica Desapiedada