with summaries and quotes from articles recommended for study and discussion
KRAS-IWA (Russia), ‘new’ anti-imperialism, Euro-army, desertion from Ukraine, ‘Free Palestine’, Ecuador
Updated 6-5-2024
KRAS-IWA, 4-5-2024
To the internationalist anti-war conference in Prague
https://actionweek.noblogs.org/post/2024/05/04/kras-iwa-to-the-internationalist-anti-war-conference-in-prague
Dear comrades!
We in the KRAS-IWA, as heirs to the anarchist anti-militarist tradition of the 1915 Manifesto, welcome participants in the international conference who have gathered to speak out against capitalist war and capitalist so-called “peace” and to denounce the supposed leftists and pseudo-anarchists who take sides in the capitalist wars. We hope that this forum will be an important step in establishing practical interaction from below and across all organizational boundaries between all genuine anti-war and anti-militarist social revolutionary forces.
Unfortunately, the situation in this country and the difficulty of communication with foreign Europe do not give us the opportunity to directly participate in the conference. But in spirit we are with you. We are sending you a statement of our position on the issue of war and ask you to familiarize the conference participants with it.
International Secretariate of KRAS-IWA
ON THE CAUSES OF WAR IN MODERN CAPITALISM
Before we talk about the role of crisis phenomena in the emergence of modern wars, in our view it is important to note that wars actually arise, firstly, from the nature of the ruling mechanism “THE STATE” as such and secondly from the diverse and multidimensional contradictions of modern capitalism as a world system. Most analyzes (including those from the left) are actually too short and don’t go deep enough into the roots, as they usually don’t fully understand this complexity.
These contradictions appear at various levels, namely global, regional, interstate and intrastate, with the drive for competition, domination, hegemony and expansion forming the very nature of capitalism and the very framework of its existence.
When talking about the war in Ukraine, for example, one must first of all take into account the global system framework. These consist in the gradual formation of two competing power-political-military blocs, one declining around the USA and the other rising around China. It is clear that their final composition has not yet been fully worked out – this may take a few decades. And it is also clear that contradictions and different interests remain between the states within these blocs. This can be roughly compared with the formation processes of the Entente and the German bloc before the First World War. Each strives to bring new states into its sphere of influence and expand its sphere of influence.
Furthermore, from a regional perspective, there is a struggle between the so-called Western Bloc and Russia, as a contender for regional hegemony in the post-Soviet space, for control and influence in the region of the former Soviet Union. It’s about dominance, both economic and political, military and so on. There are also economic contradictions between Europe and Russia, for example in the area of energy strategy and struggle for energy market.
At the interstate level, the war in Ukraine arises directly from the struggle between the ruling classes and their states that emerged on the territory of the former Soviet Union. This is a fight for the redistribution of already shared space, resources, etc.
And finally we return to the intrastate level. Here we come to the question of the role of the crisis in the outbreak of war. Of course, this crisis is global and systemic. This is the impasse of the state and the capitalist system itself. This crisis did not begin today or yesterday. But now we are experiencing its avalanche-like intensification almost everywhere in the world. The crisis affects all areas of life and is accompanied by creeping fascization.
The economy is stumbling, so to speak, and public consumption is supported only by credit bubbles and so-called “military Keynesianism.” The latter requires a constant increase in military spending and weapons production, and the arms race inevitably contributes to wars. Politically, the old methods of rule called democracy no longer work, at least not in the same way. The result is a crisis of the old elites, a creeping fascisation and the entry of competing groups of the ruling classes into the political arena in the form of right-wing populism. In almost all countries there is a crisis of trust in the authorities and a crisis of legitimacy.
In such situations, states have always resorted to war. Firstly, they must make it possible to divert the growing discontent of the population by directing it towards an external enemy. The mobilizing consolidation of society against an external enemy was intended to strengthen the so-called “national unity” and the illusion of “common interests of different classes.” This means preventing the potential growth of class resistance. Second, the victorious outcome of the war should strengthen the population’s trust in the government and give it new legitimacy in the eyes of the masses. In economic terms, moreover, the war makes it possible to accelerate the process of renewal of fixed capital, and the post-war restoration promises new enormous profits for capital.
Clarification is needed here, as it is often said that war is unprofitable for some influential groups of big business because it threatens their global connections and interests. You hear that about Russian oligarchs, for example. This gives rise to the illusory idea of the divergence of the economic and political interests of the ruling classes, of the contradictions between the state and capital.
We would like to emphasize that this is an illusion. The capitalist state has never expressed the interests of every single capitalist or even a group of capitalists. The state is a concentrated representative of the interests of the entire capitalist class, which by no means excludes competition and conflicts of interest within the capitalist class. A capitalist state is certainly capable of oppressing certain groups of the capitalist class, but that does not make it no-capitalist or, in particular, anti-capitalist. In addition, as the current war in Ukraine shows, not everything is so simple with the position of supposedly oppositional groups of big business. Trade in many of Russia’s most important export goods and raw materials is not only not declining, but is in some cases increasing. And very often the same so-called Russian oligarchs, as they would say in chess, play on both boards at the same time.
But let’s get back to the question of the crisis. In general, it is to say that the worsening and deepening of crises leads to an increase in the frequency and severity of wars. In this case, one of the incentives for states and ruling classes is the attempt, if successful, to break out of the impasse of the crisis that those in power cannot resolve through so-called peaceful means.
However, capitalism is increasingly a system of general chaos. It is characterized by uncoordinated, chaotic and selfish actions by the actors, as a result of which the result of the development usually does not correspond to their wishes and plans. In philosophy this is called “antifinality”. Therefore, war often not only leads to not getting out of the crisis, but on the contrary, the hardships caused by the war create a new, even deeper crisis. This is exactly what happened, for example, during the First World War. And it is precisely this crisis, created or exacerbated by war, that contributes to the growth of the class struggle and may one day contribute to the transformation of war into a social revolution, that is, to a revolutionary exit from war.
ABOUT THE STRUGGLE AGAINST
First of all, it should be said that it is precisely and only the revolutionary struggle of the workers` class in the broadest sense of the word that can lead to a victorious social revolution and thus to the abolition of the social system that produces wars. As long as capital and the state exist, wars are fundamentally inevitable anyway.
Of course, we all wish that this current war will be the last and that it will lead to a social revolution or, as the old anarchists said, to the “great evening”. We’re not going to play prophets here, but given the current situation in society, this is unfortunately still a long way off. There are many reasons for this state of society in modern capitalism. Increasing atomization, alienation and loss of solidarity of people, the decline of class consciousness and class culture or manipulative actions of the ruling classes, as well as crisis of ideas about the possibility of an alternative development and complete degradation and bourgeoisization of the established left or pseudo-”anarchist” and many other factors and phenomena are at play her role here.
Of course, the question also arises as to why today’s wage workers are willing to endure the material cuts associated with the war. Firstly, in Russia and Ukraine, for example, this passivity is explained by the decline in the scale of class struggles and social protests in these countries in recent decades, which is a consequence of social decay, especially on the periphery of world capitalism.
The proletariat here has neither the experience nor the organization for such great resistance as would be required for a mass struggle against the war. Nationalist “pumping” also plays a role, to which large parts of the population are unfortunately exposed in the situation of constructing post-Soviet nations. Furthermore, in the initial phase of wars (as long as they are not immediately accompanied by immediate catastrophes), the situation of some workers may even initially improve. The expansion of arms production creates new jobs. And in disadvantaged regions, the opportunity to join the army for money is often almost the only source of income.
Of course, when the war drags on with no apparent prospect of an end, the army goes into total mobilization and the material difficulties become unbearable, the mood in society begins to change. There are spontaneous protests, unrest, strikes – and the revolution is close. This is exactly what happened in the First World War. It is difficult to say how possible this will be in Russia and Ukraine in the future. In the West, which has so far only been indirectly involved in this war, such a development is even more problematic today. Class struggles are taking place, but it is unlikely that the working class is currently ready for, for example, a general anti-war strike. And when mass protests against wars occur, they are often organized by forces that support one of the warring parties. This is unfortunately the case with demonstrations against the war in the Middle East. There are almost no or very few demonstrations demanding, for example, to stop supporting the war in Ukraine and to encourage the parties to a ceasefire.
But even if we say in principle that only the mass struggle of the working people can end wars, does that mean that it is enough to simply be satisfied with this conclusion and not try to do anything about this current war? We are convinced that no. It is not so.
First of all, there is a difference between fundamentally eliminating the causes of war and ending a specific war. Yes, the statement that capitalist peace is, strictly speaking, also a form of war is correct. But in this case it is not about “peace” but about stopping a concrete, ongoing massacre, the mass murder of people. It would be cruel and irresponsible to the hundreds of thousands of proletarians dying to simply wash their hands and say, “There is nothing we can do at the moment.” Proletarian Lives Matter!
Second, the scale of class struggle and class consciousness do not fall from heaven. Their creation is not an automatic process. The fight has its own logic and its own dynamics. Concrete and daily class and social conflicts can become the school and gymnastics for a future social revolution if they develop on the basis of class self-organization and autonomy and go hand in hand with increased solidarity, the formation of appropriate struggle structures and the development of class and revolutionary consciousness.
Of course, as anarcho-syndicalists we think primarily of the economic class struggle. But the anti-militarism can also play a role of schools and gymnastics of struggle. It is just very important not to confuse the actual anti-militarist struggle with support for one or the other belligerent side!
What could internationalist social revolutionaries do now, even if there is no prospect of an imminent revolution?
The strategy of the social revolutionaries can consist of four parts:
a) “do not howl with the ruling wolves”: i.e. no support for states, war, any nationalism (and “national liberation”) and any “unity of the nation” as well as any “collaboration of classes”. The harm of patriotism, the fatherland and the idea of protecting it should be explained. Don’t join the army yourself and if possible dissuade other people from doing so. No participation in official patriotic measures. So, a position “Without me” / “Without us”.
b) to explain real reasons for war and their class conditionality (“it is revolutionary to tell the truth”): We have to explain in whose interests the war is being waged and who benefits from it. We must explain that the workers do not benefit from the war, that we do not care what language the master and the boss speak or where they live. This war is created by the state and the capitalist system and one must understand that we cannot get rid of the war without fighting them. So: war against war and the system of war!
c) practical activities against the concrete war (however small these may be today!): propaganda, sabotage of the war and army mobilization, practical solidarity with deserters, war objectors, with the population, etc. In countries not directly involved in the war, in addition to supporting deserters, this may include measures aimed at putting pressure on governments to stop supporting this war here and, on the contrary, encouraging the belligerents to do so to stop fire. Furthermore, as anarchist internationalists in Ukraine have repeatedly told us, it would be important if pressure were put on the Ukrainian state to open its borders and allow everyone who does not want to fight to leave the country!
d) Participation (strictly with one’s own position) in the concrete class conflicts, social struggles, possible protests, hunger revolts, etc. If such unrest and uprisings occur, then one can also count on the internationalist option of the time of the First World War, i.e. with one revolutionary end to the war.
Complete declaration.
Comment by F.C. and Aníbal
Some comment before we could study this document properly. Broadly speaking, we can agree. On some points it is even better than that of some “left-communist” groups. And this explicitly applies not only to the ‘practical’ points but perhaps more so to the ‘theoretical’ position.
However, the comrades sometimes fall back on anarchist ideas such as that of “the state” (differentiated further on to the imperialist state), the “general strike” on the “great evening,” against which we contrast a longer process of mass strikes (German-Dutch Left).
There is no clarity on the “ economic crisis-war ” relationship. We are not right now in an international crisis of capitalism … and there are imperialist wars, because their development has to do with the necessarily contradictory and competition-based dynamics of international imperialist capitalism and all its factions and states.
The question of first and in capital letters the State and then capital is erroneous, distorted again, and proper of the anarchist approach with which we differ from the IWA. Forces that do not constitute a State because they lack the strength to achieve it are nevertheless imperialist capitalists and participate in the inter-imperialist wars.
The war of the proletarian semi-state, of the dictatorship of the revolutionary workers councils against the bourgeois forces is favorable to the world revolution to put an end to wage labor and capital, it is not a rejectabel war but a supportable one. The simplistic doctrinairism of anarchism plays tricks.
Another serious theoretical problem seems to us that the text avoids the subject of World War II, while the failure of proletarian revolutions at its end contains valuable lessons about the bourgeois influences of “socialism” in one country, of the protection of “democracy,” of national-“socialism” and the “anti-fascist” fronts with the bourgeoisie.
A recent confusion seems to be the idea (ventilated by the ICC sect) that capitalism is sinking into chaos because this idea underestimates the decisiveness of imperialism to overcome its own contradictions. While the text indicates the conflicts of interest between, for example, export-oriented capital groups and groups that benefit from domestic sales (an argument by Kautsky for pacifism), the decisive point (by Pannekoek) is that the imperialist state overcomes these internal contradictions in favor of the war economy.
It is to be hoped that despite its inability to participate in the Prague conference, the KRAS-IWA can contribute to this online.
Internationalist Communist Tendency, April 2024
To the Internationalists Attending the Prague Week of Action
https://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2024-05-01/to-the-internationalists-attending-the-prague-week-of-action
“… Impending imperialist war comes at a time when the working class has been in retreat in the face of four decades of capitalist attacks on living standards. On top of that we have been faced with a battery of ideological weapons from identity politics to the biggest identity con of all – nationalism. This is the banner under which workers will be recruited to be cannon fodder to slaughter each other to defend the “nation”, or rather, the property of those who actually own the nation’s wealth – our exploiters. After such a long period of retreat workers have to reacquire the confidence to struggle, not only against wage cuts, unemployment and austerity but now against the greater danger which capitalism poses to us all. It cannot be under-estimated that building class unity is the most important task facing revolutionaries.
We thus welcome the Prague Week of Action and all other serious attempts to bring genuine internationalists together to fight the growing drive of the world capitalist system towards barbarism. These conferences and initiatives could be a first step, provided that we all recognise the extreme danger of the situation and as a consequence concentrate on what unites us rather than what has divided us. In this respect the call of the Prague Action Week is not different in essence from the five basic points which those of us in the No War but the Class War (NWBCW) initiative adhere to. These are:
- Against capitalism, imperialism and all nationalisms. No support for any national capitals, “lesser evils”, or states in formation.
- For a society where states, wage-labour, private property, money and production for profit are replaced by a world of freely associated producers.
- Against the economic and political attacks that the current war, and the ones to come, will unleash on the working class.
- For the self-organised struggle of the working class, for the formation of independent strike committees, mass assemblies and workers’ councils.
- Against oppression and exploitation, for the unity of the working class and the coming together of genuine internationalists.
None of the eight points in the description of who the Prague call is aimed at contradicts the basic aims of NWBCW. Indeed we could quite happily expand those five points to encapsulate the Prague eight (see below) as they both define the framework of genuine working class internationalism. NWBCW already includes comrades from the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist tradition plus different groups of the communist left as well as individuals who belong to no specific organisation. It is present in several countries from South Korea and the US to the UK and Europe. It has no central body and each local committee decides on the basis of its local situation how best to carry out the five basic points which were originally adopted by the first committee to be formed (in Liverpool in the UK). It is still in its infancy and, like all the other initiatives, its weakness is that it is composed solely of those who are already politically committed in their opposition to capitalism and the state. Unless we can reach the wider working class — which is only now beginning to stir from the onslaught of the last forty years — then we will achieve nothing. This can only be done if we reach some “critical mass” which enables us to organise to combat both imperialist propaganda and the fake schemes of the “part-time internationalists” who always support some existing state or want to create another.
Some organisations who are in NWBCW, like members of the AnarCom Network (ACN) and the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG), have been specifically invited to Prague. Others have not, including the Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT), yet we shall be present alongside the other comrades as we accept all eight points of the invitation. It is in this spirit that we attend the Prague Week of Action which we hope will be a success and open out to other internationalist initiatives in an attempt to draw us all closer together.”
Conclusion of a longer article
Comment by F.C.
The ICT – having been wrongly rejected from participation! – is determined to exert its influence on the Prague Conference through groups and individuals associated with its NWBTCW committees. It wants the conference to “focus on what unites us rather than what has divided us”. One can agree with this, but in practice this neo-Leninist sect shows that it shies away from the equally necessary debate about what still divides us.
Initiative group Socialism or Barbarism, April 2024
Socialism or Barbarism – Fifteen theses for a new anti-imperialism
https://www.angryworkers.org/2024/05/03/socialism-or-barbarism-fifteen-theses-for-a-new-anti-imperialism
“We translated these points from German. They are indeed very general points, but perhaps they have to be made in these times. We don’t adhere to an ‘uncompromising pacifism’, but insist on the need for proletarian mass violence and autonomous guerilla action against state oppression as a tactical means distinct from military and national warfare.” (Introduction by AWW)
“(12) Based on this slogan, an association of the various fragmented global social movements should be encouraged, which could be based on the following premises:
Social resistance is directed in a joint effort against all imperialist superpowers equally. Nowhere and at no time will it take sides with any of the rival great powers or work in their favour. The main opponent of any social movement movement is first and foremost its own imperialist regime and the military-industrial complex in its own country. This is an indispensable precondition for building a continental and global association. It will not always be easy to adhere to these principles in the complex mix of regional conflicts. However, we must insist on this. In the Gaza war, for example, the Palestinian resistance, dominated by the reactionary Islamist Hamas, and the military, apartheid and settler state of Israel confront each other. Both sides have committed terrible war crimes. Again, we cannot take sides with either side.
(13) The starting point for joint action is uncompromising pacifism: the fight against armament programmes, the war economy, military recruitment systems and militarism at all levels of analysis through counter-information, political practice and concrete action (desertion campaigns, blockades of arms companies, transports and army bases, etc.). Social struggles in all their facets should be included in these joint perspectives for action. They find their practical intersections in the common struggle against military and forced service and in the refusal of labour for re-armament and war research. Their common conceptual basis is the socialist counter-proposal of a peaceful, egalitarian, grassroots democratic and self-organised society beyond capitalism, patriarchal hierarchies, racism and the nation state.
(14) This counter-perspective requires an empirically, historically and theoretically proven foundation. Working groups should be set up with the aim of analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the historiography on the prehistory of the World Wars and the theories of imperialism that have been developed to date. On this basis, a discussion about long-term counter-perspectives could be initiated. Its results should be used as a basis to advance the development of social resistance worldwide and to homogenise it. As a platform for globally associating resistance, they should be repeatedly and critically scrutinised and revised. This would ensure that the learning processes are constantly reflected upon and translated back into practical action.
(15) Global society and the planet are heading towards a double catastrophe: a new era of devastating major wars, which may be fought with nuclear weapons, and an equally threatening environmental catastrophe. In view of this development, it has become a question of survival for the left to attempt the unthinkable right now. Its task is to once again build a globally effective counter-power that can counter the rampage of the imperialist superpowers and the destruction of nature. Let us dare a new anti-imperialist attempt. If we succeed in linking it with the struggles of the working classes and the social movements against environmental destruction, the new awakening has a chance. Let’s use it!”
Fragments
Comment by F.C.
As is often the case, the devil is in the tail – the final statements shown above. This project demonstrates the same Trotskyist influences as in the British AWW and the German Communaut: Lenin’s conception of imperialism as that of hegemonic forces, even “intersectional” struggles, embellished with a reference to Rosa Luxemburg. Of course, considerable study must first be done to convince participants of the guiding old- or neo-Leninist principles.
Prospettiva Marxista, May 2024
La questione dell’esercito europeo
https://coalizioneoperaia.com/2024/04/30/la-questione-dellesercito-europeo
The question of the European army
between ideological formulas and real knots
We publish and share an article by comrades from the editorial staff of “Prospettiva Marxista”, published in issue 117 of the magazine (May 2024).
The sharpening of the conflicts along certain fault lines of the imperialist arrangements understandably fuels ideological formulas in which are expressed as much the needs of the bourgeoisies and imperialist centers to equip their “internal front” as the organic bourgeois inability to deal coherently, on the level of political analysis and historical reflection, with those knots, those contradictions that derive from the very class nature of their own condition of domination and exercise of power.
A specific ideological formulation on the side of the relationship between reality and myth, between possibility and wishful thinking, of the political unification of European imperialism has come back into vogue, as has already happened cyclically. After a long period of understandable marginalization, due to the poor feedback on the level of actual developments in the relations between the member states of the European Union, this formulation has gained a new impetus in its circulation. This ideological formula envisages the European countries arriving at a common army on the basis of an awareness on the part of their elites – an awareness that would be made even clearer and more urgent by the multiplication of conflict situations at the global level, from Ukraine to the Gaza Strip and the Red Sea, and by the scenarios of a possible withdrawal of the United States from collective military arrangements and instruments, NATO in primis – of the inadequacy of the national dimension in the face of the challenges posed by strong competitors of continental stature (the United States, China, India). The timing of the translation of this awareness into actual institutions, into a unified political reality represented by a completed continental state dimension, would be marked essentially only by the troubled passages imposed by the backward excrements of a democratic and mass consensus that has proved to be distant from this supreme “consciousness” and susceptible to being misled and manipulated by backward bourgeois forces, unaware of the need for unification or too marginal and localist to recognize themselves in this objective. It is necessary to put the question on a different footing, first of all by clarifying some of the terms of the question itself, freeing them from ideological distortions and the false and misleading vulgarization of a crude bourgeois teleology. To speak of a European army is to speak of a European state. If by a European army we do not mean stable forms of cooperation between national armed forces, joint command centers in certain areas and for certain tasks (situations which, incidentally, have been in existence for some time without revealing themselves to be the mythical embryo destined inevitably and gradually to evolve fully into a European army), this military arrangement can only be integrated and linked to a European political power capable of defining its objectives, criteria of employment and methods of participation on the basis of interests recognized and assumed as its own. A European army – if it is truly a European army – cannot but respond to commands that are placed in a state of hierarchical superiority, of political priority, over those that may continue to supervise military units and structures that are still organized on a national basis. A European army, as well as a European foreign policy, cannot be truly considered without the political unification of Europe into a new unitary state.
Defined, then, that when we address the issue of the political unification of Europe (foreign policy, taxation, army, ability to project itself stably as a unified entity in the arena of global imperialist competition), we mean the formation of a European state that overcomes, through a reorganization of the levels of power and institutional hierarchy that have taken different configurations in other historical contexts, the existence of sovereignties exercised by a multiplicity of states in relation to the prerogatives proper to the state dimension, we reiterate our conviction, the result of our commitment to subject the European question to an analysis based on the criteria and conceptual tools of Marxism. We cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that the current division of the European space into several national and sovereign states could be replaced by a single state entity. What we have denied, and continue to deny, is the possibility that such an outcome could come about by consensus, by virtue of the growing political awareness that the European states – themselves the product of a historical process that has produced specific and effective forms of representation of the bourgeoisies organized and defined as the ruling class at the national level – “cannot make it” on their own, without pooling their resources and powers and transferring them permanently to a new common and recognized authority. If a European state does come into being, it will be because a unifying force, expressed by a state or coalition of states, has emerged that is capable of imposing its own leadership and, to a certain extent, its own interpretation of continental unification against resistance within and outside Europe, against other conceptions of political integration that correspond to other bourgeois interests.
If one does not frame the European question within these essential coordinates, one is forced to measure oneself against them from a distorted, illusory point of view. The interview with Romano Prodi, “the undisputed guardian of the Brussels dream,”[1] published in the March issue of the Catholic monthly Jesus, is extremely illustrative in this regard.
One of the passages that first strikes us for the force with which it reveals the depth of a conception of the subject of European political unification, of an approach to this historical knot that is enormously distant, in methodological terms one could even say antithetical, to our criteria, is the one in which he describes the funeral of Jacques Delors: “The state ceremony was solemn, and then, at the end, at the moment of departure, something moving happened: the authorities all stood still, the family members behind the coffin, and the Erasmus boys, the program that started with him, played jazz music. ” We certainly have no nostalgia or sympathy for the cannon salutes, the military departments in full uniform, the guard of honor and the martial notes of the hymns – all the choreography that historically accompanied the triumphs and celebrations of the heroes of the ruling classes, But it really does not seem to us to be a coincidence that Prodi has isolated and emphasized this difference between the funeral of a still disunited “father of Europe” and those of the great exponents of the wars of national unification in the age of capital, like Cavour or Lincoln, like Ho Chi Minh or Mao Zedong. And it is significant that Prodi’s excitement does not leave room for a glimmer of reflection on what it means that the last farewell to a statesman who would associate his name with European unification was given by representatives of a student mobility program that, in the vast majority of cases, has led to the possibility for the sons of the bourgeoisie to indulge in a comfortable period of bohemianism while preparing for the practice of their profession. Are these the human, political and intellectual paths, are these the tests that should forge the human material to realize the goal of the European state in the era of wars, struggles and crises of imperialism? But the passage in which the framework of Prodi’s conception of European unification seems to us to emerge with extraordinary clarity is the one in which he addresses the growth of German strength, with its consequences and the choices it would entail in Europe. “A Europe with only one leading country is being prepared,” given Germany’s economic and industrial capacity, “there does not seem to be much to do,” and French stubbornness in not recognizing this is defined in terms of a denial of reality. The solution: “It would be enough, therefore, for France to say ‘history has changed’ and to make available the right of veto in the UN Security Council, the nuclear weapon….”. The open question of the common army? “If France gave Europe the right of veto and the nuclear weapon, the next day the European army and the European foreign policy would be created”[2].
Obviously, however, French imperialism is still moving along the coordinates of a European construction to be supported and developed only if it corresponds primarily to its own interests, only if it is a Europe with the hegemonic role of Paris. The “transfer” of its political instruments and weapons to a generic Europe in which this French role is not guaranteed is still not an option. Nor can an abstract awareness that only by ceding its sovereign prerogatives to another European bourgeoisie could it achieve a dimension comparable to other imperialisms of continental tonnage suffice to overcome this logic and its imperatives. The class nature of the bourgeoisie has never considered this long-term and “general” logic, which is capable of eliminating – without confrontation and the use of force, without winners and losers – its own innate “particular”. And indeed, at the end of February, French President Emmanuel Macron revived the proposal of military involvement of Ukraine’s supporting countries in the war with Russia, even going so far as to invoke the possibility of deploying troops on the ground. Salt on the wounds of a German political cadre that has been repeatedly and bitterly divided over the war in Ukraine, another blow to a German imperialism that has paid dearly for the effects of the conflict, the blows to its political and economic relations with Russia, the cooling of relations with China and the deepening dissonance with some of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, its historic area of influence and projection. From time to time, Berlin has had to adjust, with difficulty and pain, to new, higher levels of involvement in military support for Kiev imposed by other powers, and its historic partner within the Rhine axis has raised the bar even higher. Not surprisingly, the German government’s firm rejection[3] and Chancellor Olaf Scholz, confirming the sensitivity of the issue and the unease caused by the French move, added remarks with a critical and recriminatory tone about the commitment of other powers to support the Ukrainian military effort, arousing discontent and piquant reactions from the ranks of the Western deployment[4]. The Ukrainian conflict, which was pushed to a higher level of confrontation in February 2022 by the offensive of Russia, which is struggling in the dynamics of the changing imperialist power relations, was used by the US imperialism, which is still a “European power”, in an essentially anti-German key. This device, this iron circle tightened around the directions and sources of power of the German imperialist power, is objectively usable and exploited, of course to different degrees and depending on interests and possibilities, by other powers as well. When the issue of military force and the European army came up again, the political leadership of French imperialism wanted to show once more how it can undermine an important European partner, which, however, must not become too strong and too assertive.
At the same time, it is not unexplainable how Berlin, for its part, at the European Council of March 21-22, opposed the proposals for a common debt to finance the military complex of the Union. If French imperialism is unwilling to “transfer” its resources to a Europe over which other powers exercise leadership, German imperialism is unwilling to transfer its economic strength to support EU projects in which its own imprint will prove too weak. The European cycle that developed for a long period of time after the Second World War, based on the combination of German economic power, confined within strong political limits, with the political leadership function exercised by a French imperialism in decline, but still possessing important political levers and military resources, is no longer reproducible, at least with results and outcomes comparable to those achieved in the past. The substantial stalemate in which, after the single currency and the defeat of the Rhenish axis in its attempt to centralize Europe in opposition to the U.S. war initiative in Iraq in 2003, the thrusts towards a reorganization of the continental political space in the sense of a concentration of state powers in a new arrangement above the national dimension have been blocked, restrained and neutralized, is not a temporary anomaly waiting for the fate of a united Europe to be fatally fulfilled. If this stalemate in the direction of the political unification of the continent is overcome, it will be because a suitable force has asserted itself. However, it cannot be excluded that the European space will remain divided into sovereign states and that this arrangement will be the one that will face the intensification of the imperialist conflict on a global scale. The task of the class vanguards who seek to embody Marxism in the course of the historical developments of imperialism, who work on the formation and consolidation of the revolutionary party in the tensions, convulsions and contradictions of these developments, is not to bet on one of these possible scenarios, perhaps even ending up “rooting” for the bourgeois forces and orientations that seem functional for the realization of their prediction. On the contrary, after having generally identified the historical conditions on the basis of which the various scenarios could materialize, it is necessary to carefully analyze the actual course of events and rigorously compare it with one’s own assumptions. Without ever forgetting that there is no a priori guarantee that can exclude the possibility that the most conscientious and sincere effort to apply the criteria and methodological tools of Marxism to the unfolding historical reality may lead to errors or to conclusions that have matured behind the tasks and demands of the class struggle. Marxism can only live in history through the presence and work of Marxists, and Marxists can make mistakes. This realization, far from being paralyzing, must inspire with even greater force a great sense of responsibility, extreme care and maximum commitment in the attempt to fulfill the tasks of strategic orientation that Marxist theory makes possible.
Notes
[1] Andrea Malaguti, “I guai del Pd e il pane buono dell’Europa”, La Stampa, 7 aprile 2024.
[2] Daniele Rocchetti, “Europa ultima chiamata”, Jesus, marzo 2024.
[3] Guy Chazan, Henry Foy, “Berlin lashes out against Macron’s plan for sending troops to Ukraine”, Financial Times, 28 febbraio 2024.
[4] David E. Sanger, Christopher F. Schuetze, “It’s Germany’s turn to unsettle its allies”, The New York Times (International Edition), 6 marzo 2024.
Complete article. Translated by DeepL.com
assembly.org.ua, 1-5-2024
Наперегонки со смертью. Что нужно знать желающим пересечь границу Украины через лес или реку
https://assembly.org.ua/naperegonki-so-smertyu-patruli-i-reshetki-ne-ostanavlivayit-stremlenie-ukraintsev-k-svobode-interview
Race with death. What those who want to cross the Ukrainian border through a forest or a river need to know
In some town in the post-Soviet quagmire, about 10 years ago. Few people could imagine then that the state would drive them to the slaughterhouse instead of cattle. About the historical origins of May Day, we suggest reading in the lively and juicy material of another collective, now defunct. The words of Adolf Fischer, who died on the gallows, are virtually applicable to today’s Ukraine: “To abolish slavery in this country required a long and cruel war… In my opinion, those who believe that modern slave-owning capitalists will voluntarily give up their privileges and free their wage slaves without the use of force, those who hope for such a miracle, are bad thinkers…”.
Collective Uchilles, son of Tisei, is perhaps the protagonist of the Ukrainian informpol in the spring of 2024. Today is the 1st of May, and the day is commemorated in honor of the executed anarchist workers in Chicago, whose immediate demand was to reduce the working day to 8 hours. Today, social anarchism (of which you are now on the Ukrainian online tribune) is the only international movement that advocates that no government should decide for Ukrainian workers where to live and how to die. After all, those who take millions of dollars from Ukraine do not swim across the Tisza – this is the fate of those who do not want to give up their most precious things for them.
All of this is especially true for Kharkiv, where virtually all of the critical energy infrastructure has been destroyed by Russian strikes for the past month. That’s why today we publish an interview with a representative of the open Telegram chat “Escape” about free mutual help in this hard and dangerous business, continuing the detailed Sunday canvas. Our interlocutor is a little reticent about himself – he introduces himself simply as “one of the admins and part-time escapee”, and at his request we do not publish a photo. Whether it is worth going on the road in view of what he told us – think for yourself, our business is only information.
***
– How does your, let’s say, travel agency work in general? How long has it existed, what were the motives for its creation?
– The very first and most basic thing. Everything I’m going to say is fiction and fantasy. It has nothing to do with reality.
The band has existed for over a year and a half. It was formed after one of the main admins quit. It was created to fill the main admin’s spare time, just for fun. But in the end it grew into something more.
It works quite simply. Tourists, and not only, share their experiences, without certain details, with others who want to engage in tourism. We have both a text format, divided into several threads dealing with different aspects of hiking, and voice chat. There’s also a YouTube channel where hikers are interviewed. There is an established base of travel highlights.
Let me say right away that the main goal of the group is to keep people alive in extreme conditions. To prepare these people for the extreme conditions that they might find themselves in.
– And these skills of traveling in extreme conditions, as we understand it, will be very useful in crossing rivers and mountains… Now there is a lot of talk about the fact that with the onset of the warm season, the flow of mushroom hunters will increase dramatically. Do you personally see an increase in their number after the adoption of the law on total mobilization on April 11, and how true is it that it is easier to do it on the green?
– Yes. These skills will help save many lives, prepare people for dangers they don’t even know about.
Yes, we’ve seen an increase in people coming in over the last month. A lot of new people, both text and voice.
In some ways, it’s easier to travel on the green. Higher temperatures, less soil moisture and more. But there are some major downsides. Let me put it this way: the harder it is for you, the harder it is for certain other people.
A man from Kharkiv walked for 6 days with a backpack through the snowy Carpathians before he was caught by the Ludolovs in the Ivano-Frankivsk region. Their press service wrote three weeks ago: “The man realized that he wanted to illegally reach one of the EU countries, but did not realize that the journey would be so dangerous. He walked 50 to 70 kilometers, slept in a sleeping bag for five nights, repeatedly felt wolves, wild boars and deer, and one day he met a Carpathian deer on the meadow”. Whether he is grateful to those who arrested him for such a “rescue” is not reported.
“How to swim across the Tisa” became a very popular search query in Ukraine in mid-April. And in both languages
– How is the internal structure of your project organized? Does it allow you to share experiences of successful treks, or do those who came to success immediately leave the chat room and try to forget the past life as a terrible dream?
– The structure is simple. There are admins who oversee the TG itself. They keep the order, the rules of the group and so on. There is an admin who takes care of interviews with those who have come out and the YouTube platform. There is an admin who supervises the voice platform “Ukhilant FM”.
Of course, we try to do our best to let those who have left the project share their experiences, impressions and other information about their life’s path in the same voice or text format and, of course, with some conventions.
There are those who leave the project after coming out, and there are those who stay and continue to share information. There are those like me who participate in moderating and developing this project. Everyone is different.
– What are the most common mistakes you see when summarizing their stories? How can you avoid them as you prepare to go on the road?
– Mistakes are about overestimating or misjudging strengths and abilities.
Problems often do not arise from mistakes. Problems arise from lack of information in one way or another. There are some things you simply cannot prepare for because you do not have a complete picture of everything that is going on.
The best way to avoid mistakes is to gather as much information as possible, to be morally prepared for all kinds of developments. This is the maximum you can do.
But in our business, no matter how it sounds, the main criterion is luck. That’s what we have to rely on in a lot of ways.
– Information, you mean, about a particular place of transition? Or are there some universal points to remember in all situations?
– In general. The situation changes every day. There are more obstacles in the form of roadblocks, meeting people at train stations, and more.
– And are there many mushroom pickers who are stopped on their way? Or do such poor people not even have a chance to tell about it in the chat?
– Unfortunately, we have no statistics. Open the register of court decisions on misdemeanors and you’ll see.
– What do you recommend to take with you on a trip, apart from a box of mushrooms? How true is it that you should turn off your cell phone?
– The most important things to take with you are brains and wit. Without these two components, the percentage of a successful trek drops dramatically. The phone is a myth. Flight mode is enough.
– And how much detail do you need to explore a pre-selected area? Is Google Maps enough?
– Ideally, you should know every bush. But it doesn’t happen that way. In my personal experience, a Google map is sufficient.
– Your group has a fund to support its members. How long has it been in existence and what exactly are the funds used for?
– It started relatively recently. Just half a month ago. People are in different situations. Some don’t have enough money for a ticket, some don’t have enough money for certain equipment. The fund was created for emergency situations, when you have to react here and now.
– Do the beneficiaries have to pay back the money or is it free?
– It’s non-repayable. But it’s not easy to get help. You have to go through several steps of verification to prove the need for help.
“Progress is disobedience.
– What can you advise if the border guards stop you while you are picking mushrooms?
– If the border guards stop you while you are hiking, nothing will help. All the stories are hackneyed and it is almost impossible to come up with something new.
The best option is not to meet at all.
– And the last question. We are talking to you on the eve of International Workers Solidarity Day, which was established in memory of the executed figures of the Chicago labor movement. It seems very symbolic that they were all anarchists and (with the exception of Albert Parsons) immigrants to the United States. What can you wish for the people of Kharkov and our readers in general?
– Take care of your life, because it is one. Never give up, fight to the end for what you believe in, no matter how hard and bad it is.
The world is not fair by definition, even before our birth, and get into this great injustice, remember one thing, no one and never, except you yourself, will not pull you out of this ass.
***
As an appetizer, we note that 14 years before those memorable events in Chicago, a mass uprising of workers against the police took place in Kharkov, which went down in history as “Bloody Easter.
Complete text, without hyperlinks. Translated by DeepL.com
Anibal, 6-5-2024
¿”Palestina libre”?. ¿O Palestina en manos de Hamás y el nacionalismo burgués palestino?
https://inter-rev.foroactivo.com/t12947-palestina-libre-o-palestina-en-manos-de-hamas-y-el-nacionalismo-burgues-palestino
“Free Palestine”? Or Palestine in the hands of Hamas and Palestinian bourgeois nationalism?
The demonstrations, camps and acts of protest for the “freedom of Palestine from the river to the sea” mean supporting Hamas, the Palestinian national bourgeoisie and its different factions, that is, supporting capitalism and the subjugation of the proletariat in this area. That is, to support one side in the imperialist war, in this case the one that follows Iran-China-Russia and their coalition forces, which, in case of achieving a Palestinian national state or even if they wipe out Israel, would maintain the exploitation and domination over the proletarian class.
The population of Gaza is dominated by Hamas and its allies, while in the West Bank it is Fatah and the groups that support the PNA. In no case do these forces represent anything favorable to the exploited class, and as for their own population, they do not hesitate to use it for their anti-communist purposes, from having workers and fighters to being a reservoir of cannon fodder.
These student and citizen sectors that wave Palestinian national flags are not a force for peace, even if there are pacifist declarations in their midst, but a lever for imperialist interventionism in favor of one side, they are the complete negation of the necessary revolutionary internationalist defeatism, of the necessary struggle against ALL BOURGEOIS FACTIONS AND FOR A CLASS-LESS SOCIETY, not for a Palestinian state with classes, nor for an Israel without Netanyahu, but still with a bourgeois government, imperialist capitalism and social classes.
Complete declaration. Translated by DeepL.com
The Palestinian Solidarity Caucus Of The Brooklyn Eviction Defense Tenant Union (BED-TU), May issue of Filed Notes (The Brooklyn Rail)
PROPTECH: From Zionist Occupation To Brooklyn Apartment Buildings
https://brooklynrail.org/2024/05/field-notes/PROPTECH-From-Zionist-Occupation-To-Brooklyn-Apartment-Buildings
Under the the caption of a photo, declaring “BED Tenant Union members pose at their February General Assembly, which included an extensive workshop led by the Palestinian Solidarity Caucus on the resonances and direct ties between our organizing and the Palestinian struggle for liberation.” the article finally concludes, writing:
“…. In the Brooklyn Eviction Defense Tenant Union, of which the writers of this article are members and organizers, we recognize these indissoluble ties between our work and the struggle of Palestinian liberation. As a Tenant Union, and particularly as members of the Union’s Palestinian Solidarity Caucus, we understand our task to be twofold.
On one hand, this is the continued project of building and growing democratic, deliberative worker-tenant-led collectives in our buildings and in our neighborhoods—these are tenant associations and Union chapters through which working-class tenants become mass protagonists. In these bodies, which are independent (from the state, from nonprofits, and certainly from landlords and management companies) and forged through struggle against landlord deprivation, we create the space for people to actually practice democratic politics, to be active protagonists in the movements of their lives, and to do so alongside their neighbors. It is within the context of this sort of organization, within the context of these movements, that we in the Union who support Palestinian liberation can engage our neighbors substantively, transparently, and intentionally on the subject of Palestine. We are not interested in television or twitter debates or casual arguments or, even, merely showing up in the streets to showcase our support (though we of course do the latter). Rather, we recognize true class organization—like ours, like rank and file spaces within labor unions—as the site in which the discursive project of spreading the good word of Palestinian liberation must take place. Research like the kind found in this paper is helpful to this end: look at what we in the Union have discovered.
On the other hand, our task is vertical: anchored to the patient and dedicated growth just described, the Union itself and the worker-tenant movement more broadly becomes increasingly relevant at higher levels of political struggle. This requires adept and conscious, democratic, and participatory organization-building. We cannot, we stress, put the cart before the horse. We are building an ecosystem of democracy, from the ground up—and certainly up! But we cannot allow aspects of our organization to drift off unaccountably, without democratic tether to the base of organized working-class tenants that is our Union’s power. Despite the vast majority of our Union’s active organizers expressing deep solidarity with the Palestinian people, we haven’t—as a whole Union—yet endorsed or pledged explicit support for the cause. This is because we haven’t yet garnered, established or recognized active and engaged support for the cause from the base of organized working-class tenants in the more than seventy tenant associations that currently compose the Union. This is not so much a blight or a dark mark on the Union but a conjunctural reflection of where we are at. Ignoring this and superficially, undemocratically plastering onto the edifice of our Union expressions of Palestinian solidarity—despite our desire to support the Palestinian cause in any way we can—only undermines the actual, and long-term project of the Union and it is only through that long-term project that our solidarity with Palestine can be made truly material and consequential.”
Fragments of an article
Comment by F.C.
BED-TU ignores that talking of the Palestinian ‘people’, like that of the Israeli or US-‘people’ implies the unity of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, ignores the exploitation and oppression of the ‘Palestine’ proletariat and its use as cannon fodder by the ‘liberation’ movements in their imperialist aims. Like the 1970-ties US and European left-bourgeois students moved from horror on the US-atrocities in Vietnam to supporting Ho Chi Min’s terror regime, presently they support Hamas, the PLO and the like. We should understand that as in any other inter-imperialist war, a greater number of victims is only used by the ‘loosing’ camp to justify its present and especially future atrocities. This is true for the Palestinian bourgeoisie as for the Israeli bourgeoisie.
Proletarios Hartos de Serlo, 30-4-2024
Boletín] RUPTURA REVOLUCIONARIA N° 1
https://proletariosrevolucionarios.blogspot.com/2024/04/boletin-ruptura-revolucionaria-n-1.html
REVOLUTIONARY BREAK N° 1
Communist Bulletin : Organ of Diffusion of Proletarios Hartos de Serlo (Proletarians Tired of Being Proletarians)
Ecuadorian region : May 1, 2024 : It comes out when it can : Voluntary contribution
CONTENTS
[Editorial] Why Revolutionary Rupture?… p. 1
[Communist ABCs] Labor | Capital | Labor-Capital Contradiction | Communism… p. 2
[Central Theme] May Day: 4 hours to “work”, 8 hours to sleep, 12 hours to do what we want… p. 4
[Local] Hate and class struggle against the exploiter Noboa! | Hourly work and popular consultation: Nothing to celebrate! Exploitation and precariousness advance | Current struggles… p. 6
[Internationalist] From Gaza to Tel Aviv and all over the world: No war but class war!
EDITORIAL. WHY REVOLUTIONARY RUPTURE?
Revolution is the radical and total rupture of the capitalist order: from its material conditions and its most reactionary institutions to its dominant ideas and its false critiques and alternatives. It is not the realization of an ideal. It is the production of a new reality or a new life; rather, of new social relations between new subjects. For history is production, not realization. And the history of all societies up to the present is the history of class struggle. The communist revolution is the abrupt interruption of this history: it is the abolition of class society, beginning with the proletariat itself as a class exploited and dominated by the bourgeoisie. The slave is abolished, the master is abolished. Therefore, what interests us revolutionary proletarians is the production of the revolutionary rupture to stop being proletarians and become a real community of freely associated individuals who develop and live all their potentialities; that is, the production of communism. Only in this historical materialist sense is the revolutionary rupture the principle and method of the revolution that we demand and promote in this Bulletin that goes out on the streets today, May 1st.
Why a Communist Bulletin? On the one hand, because communism is not a utopia, an ideology, much less that state capitalism falsely called “communism” that was the USSR (and all the countries that followed it). Communism is the real movement of the exploited that undermines capitalist conditions and produces new social relations between individuals. In other words, it is the historical and world movement that has the power to destroy capitalism and create a society without classes, without the state, without the market, without wage labor, without national borders, and without any other form of exploitation and domination (gender, “race,” nationality, etc.). The material conditions for this movement have already been created by capitalism itself and class antagonism. In every revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, communism has been, is and will be present.
On the other hand, because in the revolutionary struggle practice and theory, action and word are combined: from wildcat strikes, squats and Molotov bombs to books, bulletins and subversive pamphlets, etc.. All of these are forms of direct or unmediated action by the revolutionary proletariat. Therefore, this paper bulletin that circulates from hand to hand in the streets, stirring minds and bodies, provoking questions and ruptures, creating new links, is also a form of direct action by proletarians in struggle for proletarians in struggle. In fact, the proletarian press has always been a collective organizer of our class and a tool for the production of revolutionary rupture. Today is no exception, despite the current counterrevolutionary context. We are launching it, therefore, with the aim of creating a network of action, reflection, communication, agitation, self-organization and class against class solidarity around this organ of diffusion of the communist perspective -which for us specifically includes from Marx and the Communist Left to the theory of communization- and of the current concrete struggles in the Ecuadorian region.
Why does it come out when it can? Basically and honestly, because the editors do not have enough resources to publish it regularly. Some of us don’t have money because we don’t have work, and others don’t have time because we spend it working. Despite this precariousness, typical of the proletarian condition, we make a passionate effort to publish it “against all odds,” not as a militant or religious sacrifice, but rather as a subversive pleasure: the pleasure of stealing time from wage and nonwage slavery for this creative action and struggle for our total emancipation. We do this because for us rebellion is life.
However, we hope that in time it can become a regular or periodic publication. To this end, we invite readers to play an active role: by contacting us; by subscribing; by supporting us financially; by sending us information on labor situations and conflicts, analyses of the current situation, theoretical texts, or comments, criticisms, and suggestions; by distributing the Bulletin by any means possible.
We also hope that the sections and articles in this first issue will be eloquent enough to speak for themselves and, above all, to make us think and act from and towards the revolutionary break.
Complete editorial. Translated by DeepL.com
Aníbal, 3-5-2024
Una primera observación crítica a este nuevo Boletín en la zona ecuatoriana (Ruptura revolucionaria)
https://inter-rev.foroactivo.com/t12947-palestina-libre-o-palestina-en-manos-de-hamas-y-el-nacionalismo-burgues-palestino
A first critical observation of this new Bulletin in the Ecuadorian zone (Ruptura revolucionaria)
You take for granted that “communism is free time and nothing else” (quoting Jehu), for scientific and revolutionary communism the free time, to be maximized in communism, is necessarily linked to working time, and on the basis of the associated working time it is possible to develop the time “free of necessity” (Marx), therefore in the communist society there is working time and time freed from such necessary work. Therefore in the communist society there is work time and time freed from such necessary work, because every society needs to exist and reproduce itself to generate values and services of use, which are produced by combining human labor and land, therefore to affirm that in communism there is only free time is fallacious and gives an idea of communism that is wrong, a society where everything is free time, what does it live from? In order to maximize free time it is necessary to socially execute the necessary work and all this while controlling the necessary average social work time. The GIC made it very clear, by the way.
Complete comment. Translated by DeepL.com
Receive a message on every update of this news page
Left wing communism 
Recent Comments