Reply on the War in Iraq -A Letter to the ICC
The following letter was sent to Internationalism, the US section
of the International Communist Current. Internationalism had earlier
written an
article assessing two Red & Black Notes leaflets distributed
during the spring of 2003. The article appears in the December
2003-January 2004 issue of Internationalism. The ICC's reply to this
article appears in Internationalism
#130.
Dear comrades.
Thank you for your letter of July 22, 2003 containing a critique
of two leaflets I produced for anti-war rallies in Toronto in the
spring of last year. I regret that until now I have been unable to
reply to the comments and criticisms raised in your letter.
To begin with, I want to agree with you that it is important for
revolutionaries (both those in formal organizations and those
operating as independents) to discuss in a comradely fashion, points
of difference about the world situation and theoretical
interpretations. Such a free exchange of views is important for the
development of political ideas and for the clarification of our
viewpoints. All too often, such debate degenerates into sectarian
sniping and point-scoring, rather than actual discussion. In this
spirit of discussion, I want to reply to the issues you address in
your letter.
The anti-war mobilizations in Toronto in the winter and spring of
2003 were no different from mobilizations in New York and elsewhere.
In terms of the banners carried and leaflets distributed, the spirit
of the events was overwhelmingly of a liberal nature. Indeed, in the
first significant mobilizations, even United Nations banners were
displayed. The incidence of UN banners decreased as the conflict
became imminent, but they were replaced by religious pacifism.
The 'far left', in Toronto, represented mostly by the mainstream
Trotskyist groups, largely promoted these pacifist ideas; although,
if one wanted to look closely, mentions of capitalism could be found.
The largest leftist group, the International Socialists (linked
internationally to the British Socialist Workers Party, whose slogans
and orientation they parroted), were in many cases the marshals of
the parade and the promoters of the worst illusions about the nature
of the war. At the first demonstration after the beginning of the
war, a spokesperson for the IS, masquerading as a spokesperson for
the anti-war coalition called for a boycott of American goods and
services, and urged the crowd to buy Canadian goods because Canada
was not supporting the war!
While many leftists echoed the liberal line "war is not the
answer," others definitively opted to support one side in the
conflict. The International Communist League (the Spartacists) and
the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT) organized around support
for Iraq - the irony of the Spartacists naming their supporters in
these mobilizations "The Revolutionary Internationalist Contingent"
seemed to be lost on them.
However, within these demonstrations, there were small forces of
internationalist opposition to the war. Together with other
communists and some class struggle anarchist in Toronto, I helped to
distribute materials of a revolutionary opposition to the war. In
addition to the two Red & Black Notes statements, material by the
International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party, the International
Communist Current, and Internationalist Perspective was also
distributed. These comrades also organized meetings in Toronto and
Montreal under the heading of "No War But the Class War," which
featured speakers from Red & Black Notes, the IBRP, and the North
Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists. It should also be noted
that the Toronto group also produced its own leaflet in January of
2003 entitled "No to Capitalist War! Not to
Capitalist Peace." This leaflet, along with the ones produced by
Red & Black Notes can be found at the Red & Black Notes web
site along with a reply by the International Bolshevik Tendency and a
rejoinder to them. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that while these
efforts were important, they represented a very small voice in a dark
time.
Before dealing with the criticisms of the leaflets, I want to deal
with a couple of questions you raise. As you correctly assume, I
reject both the "democratic" and the "fascist" sides in the Second
World War, just as it was necessary to reject support for either side
in the current conflict in Iraq. Capital is a global system, and the
cause of the working class is not advanced by support for either the
lesser imperialist powers against the larger ones, or the
"democratic" capitalists against the "dictators." This policy is in
stark contrast to the Trotskyists who, for all their anti-imperialist
rhetoric, see nothing wrong with supporting bourgeois governments in
their conflicts with larger powers. The IBT for its part took no side
in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, yet hurried to defend Iraq
in 1991and again in 2003. Its rationale being, it is about "defeating
imperialism" (in reality, supporting a small imperialist power
against a larger one). In my reply to the IBT I asked, but received
no reply, what would have been the logical extension of this policy
for Iraqi militants: support Saddam Hussein? (militarily not
politically of course). And would they advocate the shooting of
deserters ("like pigeons"?) as scabbing on the defence of an
"oppressed nation?"
It is necessary here to make a small correction in your article.
You quote the leaflet "A Plague on Both Your
Houses" as stating "for some it's about Defending imperialism."
whereas the actual line was "for some it's about defeating
imperialism." referring to the Trotskyist argument that the job of
revolutionaries was to defeat the imperialism (and here they meant
Iraq). My use of the phrase was intended to be ironic; nevertheless,
the error does not affect your point.
Despite the general agreement in the framework of revolutionaries
toward the attitude in the conflict, we clearly have some differences
about the base cause of the war and minor tactical points within it.
In the two leaflets I produced, it is argued that the root cause of
the conflict was the crisis in the American economy, a position you
likened to that of the IBRP who argue that this factor and US control
of the oil markets are the key ideas. In contrast, you assert that
the key factor was the collapse of the other global superpower and
the US' need to assert its hegemony as against its European and
pacific-rim rivals.
To begin with, I do not disagree that there is an element of
"superpower" politics at play in the conflict, just as you do not
deny the importance of economic factors. However, it seems that the
US's actions, despite the national economy's weakness, are dictated
from a position of strength. In your letter, you argue that the US's
decision is based on the lessor imperialist powers challenging the US
leadership, and the US needing to "engage in direct displays of its
military power, as an attempt to keep its erstwhile allies in line."
You further argue that my argument underestimates "the gravity of
imperialist rivalries." However, in the following paragraphs you
admit that "while there is a emerging conflict between the US and the
EU, this is premature and the EU is a "sad fiction when it comes to
exhibiting a united foreign policy." If this rebellion of the lesser
powers was the impetus for the US to act, where was it coming from
and who was leading it? I agree that France and Germany were the
loudest voices in opposition, but as I noted in "A Plague on Both
your Houses" it was because they saw the US designs in strengthening
its economy at their expense. While you argue that I have overstated
the short-term economic impetus to war, it seems that you may have
overstated the political.
Your letter also sees the "economic" explanation my view the
holdouts would eventually fall into line for fear of losing out.
While this expectation was largely unfounded, it has been negatively
confirmed as the US has acted to punish those who did not send troops
by withholding the lucrative contracts. Canada in particular, which
has traditionally played the soft-cop peacekeeper under UN auspices,
has been left whining about being denied contracts. If Germany and
France had too much to lose by not going along, given the US's
initial success, has discipline been strengthened or weakened?
As to the tactics which should be offered, I think you may have
misconstrued their function. In the closing paragraphs of the "No War
But the Class war" Leaflet, I suggested a number of possible
scenarios which could take place. If my leaflet has led to you
believe that I was putting forward a program for the working class to
take up in resistance to the war, then I regret this impression.
Obviously a few leaflets on the Internet or distributed in a crowd of
tens of thousands will not be the "spark" which brings the
revolution. These comments should not be likened to the call to arms
made by many leftist organizations. I do not suggest that the
revolution is around the corner, and to a large extent the actions
did not go beyond the terrain of bourgeois politics.
However, it is important to remember that such actions could have
had an important impact. Even the case of the UK Firefighters'
strike, which did not ultimately transcend the union form, created
panic with the UK's ruling circles as it threatened to interfere with
their war plans. While revolution is not always the end product, the
class struggle can always be seen. As your statement of March 2003
correctly notes:
The working class is not a mere passive victim of war. It was
the mass strikes and mutinies of 1917-18 which brought the first
world war to an end . . . Today the working class struggle can only
be a defensive one. But it contains the seeds of an offensive
revolutionary struggle, of a class war against the whole capitalist
system.
Despite our differences on these questions, I look forward
to further exchanges and discussion.
With comradely greetings
N. / Red & Black Notes
Internationalism can be reached by writing to the following
address ( don't mention the name):
PO Box 288, New York, NY 10018-0288, USA
http://www.internationalism.org
Home Page / Index
/ Articles / Reviews
/ History / Links /
Publications Martin
Glaberman Archive /
Against Capital / What's
New