July 17, 2023 at 10:26 am #245286
(site of the Sander/Milchman(MacIntosh) people.)
And here’s a blurb for the therein mentioned Marxy climate book, ‘Capitalism’s Endgame: The Catastrophe of Accumulation'(which so far as I can see has not been mentioned in the SS). If these people are left-communist then at least the book will not say: ‘Blah, blah, blah, *but in the meantime* there’s nothing for it but the following reforms!’)July 17, 2023 at 6:45 pm #245288robbo203Participant
This might be of interest. I came across it on FB (the Communism 101 FB group). Perhaps the SPGB could officially get in touch with the organisers to see if some kind of collaborative effort is possible, despite our differences with Left Coms. Whatever the differences I think we have a lot more in common with them than almost anyone else I can think of
At any rate, it wouldn’t hurt making inquiries…
“Korean Commission as a class war, not a war (NWBCW KOREA)
It’s been over a year since Russia invaded Ukraine. Like other imperialist wars in the past, this one also demands internationalist solidarity and action from the working class of the world.
Now that the imperialist war is taking place in Ukraine, internationalists in the world are firmly upholding the principle of ‘proletarian internationalism’, despite differences of opinion. This kind of internationalist flow says ‘There is no homeland for the workers! They announced a statement in advance, held a meeting and began a joint response.
We started international action under the principle of “NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR” with internationalists who recognize that the only war worth fighting is a ‘class war’ to end the imperialist war. This action aims to bring together internationalists scattered today to deliver the need for a counterattack to the wider working class and act together on the principles of internationalism.
● I don’t support either side in the war of imperialism. Capitalism and imperialist countries don’t support any “something bad evil”.
● Only the international class struggle to overthrow the capitalist system can end the imperialist war, not through a peace agreement between the ruling classes.
● The current and future wars should be dismantled to counter the economic and political attacks on the working class.
● Class wars can be expanded and developed through self-organized struggles of the working class, i.e. independent strike committees, public rallies, and labor equality councils.
● We are a society where all exploitation, oppression, and discrimination is fundamentally useless! A socialized society that has more means of production are not in the hands of capitalists or countries! We fight for a united world of free producers where production and distribution are in harmony with humanity and nature
Comrades who are interested in 「Korean Committee as a class war, not a war」 or want to participate, please contact us. ( Inquiries : firstname.lastname@example.org )
· ·July 17, 2023 at 7:48 pm #245289
A review of that book will be published in the September Socialist StandardJuly 18, 2023 at 3:05 pm #245296imposs1904Participant
“A MEETING OF 10 LEFT-COMMUNIST GROUPS”
There’s only 9 people at the meeting.July 19, 2023 at 7:27 am #245310
The Korean group Robbo points out is simply part of the NWBCW effort launched by the International Communist Tendency (ie the CWO and its co-groups).
The ICT/CWO site has had a series of articles about NWBCW — what it is and isn’t, misunderstandings about it, etc, and here is the latest one:
https://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2023-07-05/the-no-war-but-the-class-war-initiativeJuly 19, 2023 at 8:50 am #245311robbo203Participant
This caught my eye – in the document ZJW referred to. Whatever differences we may have with the ICT/CWO as far as the basics are concerned we are very much on the same wavelength and that is heartening:
“The first local committee made up of CWO members and others, whether in organisations or not, was formed in Liverpool in March last year(5) on the basis of the five principles below:
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.
We were also aware that any new initiative would face new problems and that setbacks would be inevitable. The first problem came from the fake internationalism of various opportunists of the Capitalist Left (Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc.) who will adorn their documents with NWBCW images or slogans but emptied of any internationalist content.(7) They are flying “under a false flag” (ours!) but can only do so by hiding their real politics which is to support the “underdog imperialism” of “oppressed peoples” (in short, nationalist struggles) or any state opposed to the USA. There is no nation or national struggle which the working class can support today.”July 19, 2023 at 11:49 am #245315
We were invited to a meeting by the CWO a few years ago to discuss setting up a No War But the Class War group. Also present was the Anarchist Communist Group. Here’s the thread about this:July 19, 2023 at 7:45 pm #245319
This seems to be the season for international conferences. We are on the mailing list of one of those invited to this one last weekend in Milan:
JRCL Tankyu-ha; Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA; Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori; JRCL (RMF); League for the Fifth International; Noviy Prometey; Partido Obrero (PO); CoReP; Lotta Comunista; League for the Fourth International (LFI-NIdI); Rivoluzione Comunista; Controcorrente; Internationalist Standpoint; Occhio di Classe; NPA; Committee for a Workers International (CWI); AMR ControVento. Majdoor Samachar-Kamunist Kranti.
We are on the mailing of the last named (from India). It is not clear why they were invited, since the others all seem to be Trotskyists or other vanguardists whereas they are workerists who hold that revolutionaries have nothing to tell workers but should just record what factory workers tell them.
Anyway, here is their contribution on “Lenin’s imperialism thesis”:
“Lenin’s imperialism thesis:
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is moribund capitalism. In the imperialism stage, production relations become fetters on the productive forces…
Some bizarre expressions of this:
In 1938, as per a Trotsky, the productive forces had stopped growing!
And in the 1970s, as per a fringe left group, 1914 onwards the number of wage workers in the world had stopped increasing!
If nothing else, the incomparable leaps in productive forces post-1970 should have sufficed for a decent burial of Lenin’s imperialism thesis. ”
I bet that went down well with the others.July 21, 2023 at 10:44 am #245331
In connection — somehow or another — with the NWBCW Initiative, let us take a look back at the Martov-Luxemburg-Lenin resolution of 1907 at the Stuttgart Congress, how it came about and what it was up against.
It’s here in this Bordigist document titled ‘Anti-militarism in the Second International’. Search for and read from ‘ At the Stuttgart Congress in 1907, 4 motions were presented ‘.
After that, resolutions at Copenhagen (1910) and Basle (1912) are discussed.July 21, 2023 at 12:04 pm #245333
Here is what we said in 1907 on militarism and anti-militarism:July 21, 2023 at 12:43 pm #245334
And here is how the Socialist Standard reported the discussion on the issue at the Copenhagen congress in 1910
In the committee on Disarmament and Peace, Vaillant (France) said: “The abolition of war will naturally only be made possible by Socialism, but for that we cannot wait. It is therefore necessary to make a stand against armaments and militarism in the different Parliaments.” Keir Hardie said: “If now the German and English Governments came to an understanding about the limitation of armaments it would not be due to their
LOVE OF PEACE,
but because these two countries can no longer bear the burden of armaments. The workers are strong enough to prevent war. On the day of the declaration of war the workers must cease work. That is not a general strike. It is also necessary to make a stand against the vile action of the capitalist Press.” Bruce Glasier said : “Christianity has been unable to abolish war. There are already Socialists who are prepared to sacrifice their principles of peace. The fighting instinct can unmistakeably be found in some Social-Democrats. That is the animal instinct which one must overcome. Let us unfold the most far-reaching agitation for peace, then the United States of Europe will soon become an accomplished fact.” Radec (Poland) said : “The attitude of Vorwaerts and of the German Social-Democratic Party in Parliament concerning the Anglo German arrangement is nothing short of an alternative to the defence of naval armaments advocated by Hyndman and Co. which has generally been condemned.” Hillquit (U.S.A.) said : “No word has yet been uttered concerning the main point. The debate has until now only been a continuation of the Stuttgart discussion on anti-militarism.” Dessin (England): ”We must
to ensure peace. But we can already now contribute towards a diminution of the dangers of war, and that is what the resolution of the British delegation is aiming at.”
(. . . )
The resolution on Disarmament and Peace was, like all the other resolutions put before the Congress,
FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS
and inconsistencies. It started with explaining the necessity of war under capitalism, and finished with a demand for suppression of hostilities by the democracy, and giving directions to the International Bureau how to act in case of a declaration of war. Socialism would stand a poor chance indeed if it were as impossible as this resolution. Vaillant and Keir Hardie moved the following amendment: “The Congress regards the General Strike as a means for the prevention of war, more especially a refusal to assist in the production and transport of arms and amnrunition.” This was rejected by a vast majority and the amendment carried.
During this debate Keir Hardie, replying to an attack by Ledebour on the British delegation, stated that the English Labour Party is against war and militarism. Ledebour had taken the attitude of the I.L.P. to be that of Hyndman and Quelch, but his Party had nothing to do with these. If his Party had supported the Liberal Budget that was
NOT A QUESTION OE PRINCIPLE, BUT TACTICS.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.