본문

Egypt: Labor and professional syndicates join popular uprising

 

These protests are said to be linked to the broader uprising against President Hosni Mubarak's regime which has concentrated in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

Protests re-deployed around the nation at a time when proponents of the uprising spoke of the importance of spreading it beyond the square’s territorial limits.

One face of protests on Tuesday was state media organization protests. Around a kilometer away from Tahrir Square, some 500 employees protested outside the headquarters of the state-owned Rose al-Youssef newspaper and magazine. Protesters denounced the operational and editorial policies of their editor-in-chief Abdallah Kamal and administrative chief Karam Gaber, both of whom have waged pro-regime and anti-uprising coverage.

Another protest involving around 200 journalists was staged outside the Journalists' Syndicate in downtown Cairo, where protesters demanded the recall of the syndicate's president Makram Mohamed Ahmed, a member of the ruling National Democratic Party and vehement advocate of Mubarak.

Meanwhile at the headquarters of state-owned Al-Ahram newspaper, Egypt's largest daily, around 500 print-shop employees protested demanding full-time contracts, benefits and bonuses. They continued their protest on Wednesday.

Employee protests also spread around the country. An estimated 5000 employees of the state-owned telecommunications giant, Telecom Egypt, staged protest stands in three different locations across the city--the Smart Village, Ramses Square, and Opera Square. Shady Malek, an engineer with the company said, "We protested today for the establishment of an adequate minimum wage and maximum wage for our company's employees and administrators."

Having concluded his protest stand in Ramses Square, Malek headed out to Tahrir Square to join the mass rally there. "Corruption is part and parcel of our company's administration," he said. "We have not raised any political demands at our workplaces, but the popular uprising has assisted many employees to overcome our fears."

"The employees at Telecom Egypt have also decided to protest in light of the [new' prime minister's announcement about the 15 percent pay raises. At this same time our administration has ordered that our bonuses and incentive pay be slashed. This is what angered us the most," he added.

Meanwhile, more than 6000 protesters belonging to the Suez Canal Authority also staged sit-ins on Tuesday in the cities of Port Said, Ismailia and suez, demanding salary adjustments. Suez Canal revenues are considered one of the top sources of income in the country.

Besides employees, laborers also pursued protests today. Over 100 workers at the state-owned Kafr al-Dawwar Silk Company and over 500 at the state-owned Kafr al-Dawwar Textile Company protested, before and after their work shifts, to demand overdue bonuses and food compensation payments.

Approximately 4000 workers from the Coke Coal and Basic Chemicals company in Helwan--home to several Egyptian industries-- announced a strike today, said sources from trade unions and syndicates.

The protesters called for higher salaries, permanent contracts for temporary workers, the payment of the export bonus and an end to corruption. They also expressed solidarity with protesters in downtown Cairo.

Around 2000 workers from Helwan Silk Factory also staged a protest at the company headquarters to call for the removal of the board of directors.

In the Nile Delta City of Mahalla, some 1500 workers at the private-sector Abul Sebae Textile Company protested to demand their overdue wages and bonuses on Tuesday morning. These workers are also said to have blocked-off a highway. While in the Nile Delta Town of Quesna, some 2000 workers and employees of the Sigma Pharmaceuticals company went on strike Tuesday morning, and the strike there continued Wednesday. These pharmaceutical workers are demanding improved wages, promotions, and the recall of a number of their company's administrative chiefs.

Also in Mahalla, Gharbiya, hundreds of workers from the Mahalla spinning company organized an open-ended sit-in in front of the company's administrative office to call for the delivery of overdue promotions.

The workers said all the company workers joined in the protest after the end of their shift to call for the dismissal of the board after the company suffered heavy losses since that board took charge even though the state has paid the company's debts.

More than 1500 workers at Kafr al-Zayyat hospital, also in Gharbiya, staged a sit-in inside their hospital to call for the payment of their overdue bonuses. The nursing staff started the sit-in and were joined by the physicians and the rest of the workers at the hospital.

Around 350 workers from the Egyptian Cement Company--whose factory is located along the Qattamiya-Ain al-Sokhna Highway--staged protest stands at their factory and outside their company's headquarters in Qattamiya on Tuesday.

According to Ibrahim Abdel Latif, they were "demanding the establishment of a trade union committee at our factory, a right which the company's administration has been denying us." He added, "I was sacked from the company one year ago while serving in the capacity of president of the workers' administrative committee. All 1200 workers at this factory have been demanding the establishment of a union committee, and my reinstatement. Yet not all the workers could join in these protests because of their daytime work shifts."

In Suez, more than 400 workers from the Misr National Steel company began a strike to call for pay raises, saying they have not received any bonuses for years and that the average salary at the company does not exceed LE600.

By Jano Charbel for Al-Masry Al-Youm.

The Cairo Commune

by Nigel Gibson

Quite remarkable (but not surprising) that after less than two weeks Tahrir square has developed a system of participatory. While constantly worrying about the reaction (along the lines Marx describes
in the 18th Brumaire) people are making history and coming up with working forms of decision making. My source is no lefty paper but the Guardian:

‘In Tahrir, the square that has become the focal point for the nationwide struggle against Mubarak’s three-decade dictatorship, groups of protesters have been debating what their precise goals should be in the face of their president’s continuing refusal to stand down.

The Guardian has learned that delegates from these mini-gatherings then come together to discuss the prevailing mood, before potential demands are read out over the square’s makeshift speaker system. The adoption of each proposal is based on the proportion of cheers or boos it receives from the crowd at large.

Delegates have arrived in Tahrir from other parts of the country that have declared themselves liberated from Mubarak’s rule, including the major cities of Alexandria and Suez, and are also providing input into the decisions.

“When the government shut down the web, politics moved on to the street, and that’s where it has stayed,” said one youth involved in the process. “It’s impossible to construct a perfect decision-making mechanism in such a fast-moving environment, but this is as democratic as we can possibly be.”

“Genuine opposition politics in this country has always relied on people taking the initiative, and that’s what we’re seeing here – on a truly astounding level,” said Ahdaf Soueif, an Egyptian author who has been closely monitoring the spontaneous political activity on the ground. “There is more transparency and equality here in Tahrir than anything we’ve ever seen under the Mubarak regime; anyone and everyone can have their say, and that makes the demands that come out of the process even more powerful.”‘
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/05/egypt-protest-demands-mubarak-departure

One example of the flowering of “groups”, discussions, statements, reminiscent of revolutions is below from the brilliantly named ‘coalition of youths of the wrath revolution’,

Press Conference in El-Shorook Newspaper Headquarters

Fellow great Egyptian citizens … We are your your daughters, your brothers and sisters who are protesting in Tahrir square and other squares of Egypt, promise you not to go back to our homes until the demands of your great revolution are realized.

Millions have gone out to overthrow the regime, and so the matter goes beyond figures in particular to the whole administration of the Egyptian State, which was transformed from a servant of the people to a master of the them.

We have heard the president’s disappointing speech. And really someone who has killed more than 300 youths, kidnapped and injured thousands more is not entitled to brag about past glories. Nor are his followers entitled to talk about the President’s dignity, because the dignity life and security of the Egyptian people is far more valuable than any single person’s dignity no matter how high a position he holds.

Our people live though tragedy for a week now, since Mubarak’s regime practiced a siege against us, releasing criminals and outlaws to terrorize us, imposing a curfew, stopping public transportation,
closing banks, cutting off communications and shutting down the internet .. But if it was not for the courage of Egyptian youths who stayed up nights in the People’s Committees it would have been a
terrible tragedy.

We want this crisis to end as soon as possible and for our lives and our families’ lives to get back to normal, but we do not trust Hosni Mubarak in leading the transitional period. He is the same person, who refused over the past 30 years any real political and economic reforms, and he hired criminals to attack Tahrir square and the peaceful demonstrators there, killing dozens and enjuring thousands –
including women, elderly, and children.

Also, we will not allow the corrupt to remain in charge of the state institutions; therefore, we will continue our sit-in until the following demands are realized:

1. The resignation of the President and by the way this does not contradict the peaceful transition of power nor the current constitution which allows and organizes this process.
2. the immediate lifting of the state of emergency and releasing all freedoms and putting an immediate stop to the humiliation and torture that takes place in police stations
3. the immediate dissolve of both the Parliament and Shura Council
4. forming a national unity government that political forces agree upon which manages the processes of constitutional and political reform
5. forming a judicial committee with the participation of some figures from local human rights organizations to investigate the perpetrators of the collapse of state of security this past week and the murder and injury of thousands of our people.
6. Military in charge of protecting peaceful protestors from thugs and criminal affiliated with the corrupt regime and ensuring the safety of medical and nutritional convoys to civilians
7. the immediate release of all political detainees and in their forefront our colleague Wael Ghoneim

본문

Beyond Bourgeois Barriers - For the Class Autonomy of the Egyptian and Maghrebian Proletarian Masses

The Crisis

The knock-on effects from the world capitalist crisis are far from over. The weakest countries of the so-called capitalist periphery are suffering the consequences. At present it is the countries of the Maghreb and the Middle East which are in the eye of the storm. Amongst these is Egypt presided over by Mubarak the Satrap ⁽¹⁾. Mubarak has held uninterrupted power since 1981. Until the present storm burst out on the streets, he was preparing the juridical-constitutional ground for his son to succeed him; as if the Egyptian presidential republic was a kind of absolute monarchy with a family right to succession.

Despite an annual GDP growth of 6%, largely due to oil revenues (not much in absolute terms but enough to satisfy domestic energy requirements) and tourism, (prerogative of the hangers-on at the Presidential court), Egypt has an official unemployment rate of 17%. In fact the figures are an underestimate: at least 30% of the population who are theoretically in work are either unemployed or under-employed. 70% of those without a job include young people, workers, peasants, children of petty bourgeois graduates who, until a few years ago, would have been assured employment with the state. 40% of the population lives under the poverty line, calculated as having a disposable income of no more than two dollars per day. A further 20% is not much above this level, and in danger of falling below it at any time. The crisis has put the intrinsic weakness of the Egyptian ‘system’ into even greater relief. The country’s few exports have diminished while imports have increased both in volume and cost, resulting in a significant balance of payments deficit. The State has ceased providing employment opportunities to youth, many factories have closed down or else markedly reduced their activity, while agriculture — kept at subsistence level — has visibly contracted its productive capacity and opened the door to imports of commercial food products. Moreover, international speculation is once again focussing on strategic raw materials: beyond the usual speculation over oil there is now speculation over grains and cereals with repercussions for the conditions of life of the vast majority of the Egyptian population. With the almost total absence of social welfare and a low level of pensions the picture is complete.

The Response

The streets filled spontaneously. Many are young unemployed, casual, part-time workers and children of workers, disillusioned petty bourgeois becoming proletarian, the despairing of various types, and social sectors without craft or qualifications. In short the usual mixture always present in this type of capitalist reality. The slogans shouted against the dictatorship, against its corruption, have been for bread, work and democracy. At this point the political parties, from the Muslim Brotherhood to the old Stalinists, from the various old democrats to the new Movement for Reform of Mohammed El Baradei, who made a reckless dash from his Vienna residence to be solid with “his” people, were scarcely in sight. Repression was not long in coming. With the Army turning its back on the “Pharaoah” declaring the street protests legitimate, the regime turned to the police. They left at least 150 dead in the streets, decreed a curfew, and blocked all means of communication. Like all threatened regimes, especially where repressive and dictatorial behaviour is normal, it did its job of butchery.

The Imperialist Imperative

The Egyptian crisis, along with that in Jordan and Yemen, is threatening the region’s already precarious imperialist equilibrium. Faced with the tottering Mubarak government the USA and Israel are rushing to take a position. Both Clinton and President Obama have distanced themselves from their old “satrap” who has cost them a great deal. They gave him $1.3 billions a year to reinforce Egypt’s Armed Forces. So far this hasn’t changed. The Americans aim to keep a military and political presence in the southern Mediterranean basin whilst waiting for political change at the top which the revolt on the streets has now made unavoidable. Washington already sees a reassuring substitute in the “squeaky clean” and credible person of El Baradei. He is presented as “new” in a process of change which would leave things as before, both on the domestic front and on the Egypt’s foreign policy alignment. Given the delicacy of the strategic balance this will require some further financial help at the very least.

The Netanyahu Government has identical imperialist concerns but takes the opposite line. It is ready to support the old regime from fear that any new one would eventually contain the Islamic fundamentalists of the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter would tear up the Camp David Accord of 1978, which contains the historic article recognising Israel’s right to exist. Such a move would reopen a bloody front which for Israeli imperialism would be no small matter.

The Future?

For the Egyptian working class, as for all workers in revolt from the East to the West of the Mediterranean basin, the objective cannot be confined to simply overthrowing a corrupt dictatorial regime which is starving the overwhelming majority of the population. That is only the first part. The next target of their struggle has to be the capitalist mechanisms which have produced so much social devastation and so much poverty. One “satrap” gone another can take his place, or rather, it opens the way to a democratic solution more suited to re-establishing social peace which would win approval from many Western capitalist states. But once the dictatorship falls many outcomes are possible. Amongst these is the Islamic solution with its heavy burden of social backwardness and visceral anti-communism.

Any outcome that remains within the capitalist framework will end up responding to the usual need to preserve the dominance of the imperialist boss, in this case American, without removing the real cause of the crisis – capitalism – and without solving any of the problems which the working class masses are forced to put up with. The great Egyptian and Maghrebian revolt will exhaust itself and be reabsorbed by the system, in spite of all the blood shed, if it does not take the road to class struggle, overcoming all bourgeois obstacles, whatever form they take. In the process they need to become politically independent by building their own class vanguard with its own working class programme. Then, and only then, will the rebellious ferment of the whole area from Casablanca to Cairo, from Amman to Beirut, represent a significant step forward for proletarian internationalism.

(1) A satrap was a provincial governor or viceroy in the old Persian Empire. As the reference makes clear later Mubarak is the satrap of the USA.

Revolts in Egypt and the Arab states: The spectre of the development of the class struggle

At the time of writing, the social situation in Egypt remains explosive. Millions of people have been on the streets, braving the curfew, the state regime and its bloody repression. At the same time the social movement in Tunisia has not gone away: the flight of Ben Ali, the government reshuffle and the promise of elections has not succeeded in damping down the deep anger of the population. In Jordan thousands of demonstrators have expressed their discontent with growing poverty. In Algeria the protests seems to have been stifled but there is a powerful international black-out and it seems that there are still struggles going on in Kabylia.

The media and politicians of all kinds talk non-stop about the ‘revolts in the Arab world’, focusing attention on regional specificities, on the lack of local democracy, on the exasperation of the population with seeing the same faces in power for 30 years.

All this is true. Ben Ali, Mubarak, Rifai, Bouteflika and co. are true gangsters, caricatured expressions of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. But above all, these social movements belong to the exploited of all countries. These explosions of anger are rooted in the acceleration of the world economic crisis which is plunging more and more of humanity into grinding poverty.   

After Tunisia, Egypt! The contagion of revolt in the Arab states, especially in North Africa, which the ruling class has feared for so long, has arrived with a bang. Populations who have been faced with the economic hardships caused by the world economic crisis have also had to deal with ruthlessly repressive regimes. And faced with this explosion of anger, the governments and rulers have shown their true colours as a class which reigns through starvation and murder. The only response they can come up with is tear gas and bullets. And we are not just talking about the ‘dictators’ on the spot. Our own ‘democratic’ rulers, right wing and left wing, have long been the friends and allies of these same dictators in the maintenance of capitalist order. The much-vaunted stability of these countries against the danger of radical Islamism has for decades been based on police terror, and our good democrats have happily turned a blind eye to their tortures, their corruption, to the climate of fear in which they have lorded it over the population. In the name of stability, of non-intervention in internal matters, of peace and friendship between peoples, they have supported these regimes for their own sordid imperialist reasons.

The social revolt in Egypt

In Egypt we have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds of deaths, thousands wounded, tens of thousand more wounded or arrested. The fall of Ben Ali was the detonator. It stirred up a huge wave of hope among the population of the Arab regimes. We also saw many outbursts of despair, with a series of suicides in Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, western Sahara, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, particularly among young unemployed people. In Egypt, we heard the same slogans as in Tunisia: “Bread, Freedom, Dignity!” This was clearly a response to the principal effects of the world economic crisis: unemployment (in Egypt it affects 20% of the population); insecurity (in Egypt, 4 out of 10 live below the poverty line and several international documentaries have been made about the people who live by sorting through the Cairo rubbish heaps); the rising price of basic necessities. The slogan ‘Mubarak, dégage’ was taken directly from the Tunisians who called for the departure of Ben Ali. Demonstrators in Cairo proclaimed “It’s not our government, they are our enemies!” An Egyptian journalist said to a correspondent from Figaro: “No political movement can claim to have started these demonstrations. It’s the street which is expressing itself. People have nothing to lose. Things can’t go on any longer”. One phrase is on everyone’s lips: “we are no longer afraid”.

In April 2008, the workers of a textile factor in Mahalla to the north of Cairo came out on strike for better wages and working conditions, To support the workers and call for a general strike on 6 April, a group of young people had organised themselves on Facebook and Twitter. Hundreds of demonstrators were arrested. This time, and in contrast to Tunisia, the Egyptian government blocked internet access in advance.     

On Tuesday 25 January, so-called ‘National Police Day’, tens of thousands of protestors hit the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Tanta and Suez and came up against the forces of order. Four days of confrontations followed; state violence only fuelled the anger. During these days and nights, the riot police used tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition. Standing by was an army of 500,000, very well equipped and trained, a central pillar of the regime, unlike in Tunisia. The power also made extensive use of the ‘baltageyas’, thugs directly controlled by the state and specialising in breaking up demonstrations, as well as numerous agents of the state security wearing civilian clothes and merging with the demonstrators.

On Friday 28 January, a day off work, around noon, despite the banning of public gatherings, demonstrators came out of the mosques and onto the streets in huge numbers, everywhere confronting the police. This day was named ‘The Day of Rage’. The government had already cut off internet and mobile phone networks and even landline telephones. Still the movement swelled: in the evening, the demonstrations defied the curfew in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez....Police trucks used water cannon against the crowds, made up largely of young people. In Cairo, army tanks were at first welcomed as liberating heroes, and there were a number of attempts to fraternise with the army; this was given a lot of publicity and in one case at least it prevented a convoy of armoured cars from supporting the forces of order. Some policemen threw off their arm bands and joined the demonstrators. But very soon, in other areas, armoured cars opened fire on the demonstrators who had come to greet them, or mowed them down. The head of the army, Sami Anan, who led a military delegation to the US for talks at the Pentagon, came back in a hurry to Egypt on the Friday. Police cars and stations, as well as the HQ of the governing party, were torched and the Ministry of Information ransacked. The wounded piled up in overworked hospitals. In Alexandria, the government building was also burned down. In Mansoura on the Nile Delta there were violent confrontations that left several dead. A number of people tried to take over the state television station but were rebuffed by the army.     

Around 11.30 at night Mubarak appeared on TV, announcing the dismissal of his government team and promising political reforms and steps towards democracy, while firmly insisting on the need to maintain the “security and stability of Egypt against attempts at destabilisation”. These proposals merely increased the anger and determination of the protestors.

A worry for the imperialists

But although for the demonstrators Tunisia was a model, the stakes involved in the situation are not the same for the bourgeoisie. Tunisia is a relatively small country and it holds an imperialist interest mainly for a second rate power like France[1]. It’s very different with Egypt which is easily the most densely populated country in the region (over 80 million inhabitants) and which above all occupies a key strategic position in the Middle East, especially for the American bourgeoisie. The fall of the Mubarak regime could result in a regional chaos that would have heavy consequences. Mubarak is the USA’s principal ally in the region next to Israel, playing a preponderant role in Israel-Palestine relations as well as relations between Al Fatah and Hamas. This state has up till now been seen as a stabilising factor in the Middle East. At the same time the political developments in Sudan, which is on the verge of splitting in two, makes a strong Egypt all he more necessary. It is therefore a vital cog in the US strategy towards the Israel-Arab conflict and its destablisation risks spilling over into a number of neighbouring countries, especially Jordan, Libya, Yemen and Syria. This explains the anxieties of the US, whose close relations with the Mubarak regime put it in a very uncomfortable position. Obama and US diplomacy have been trying to put pressure on Mubarak while saving the essentials of the regime. This is why Obama made it public that he had spent half an hour talking to Mubarak and urging him to throw off more ballast. Before that, Hilary Clinton had declared that the forces of order needed to show more restraint and that the government should very quickly restore the means of communication. The next day, probably as a result of American pressure, General Omar Suleiman, head of the powerful military security forces, responsible for negotiations with Israel, was brought in as Vice President.   The army has gained in popularity for having remained in the rear during the demonstrations and for having on numerous occasions taken a friendly attitude towards the crowds. This allowed it to argue in a number of cases that people should go back to their homes to protect them from looters.

And in other Arab countries...

Other expressions of revolt have appeared in Algeria, Yemen and Jordan. In the latter, 4,000 people gathered in Amman for the third time in three weeks to protest against the cost of living and to demand economic and political reforms, in particular the resignation of the prime minister. The authorities made a few gestures, some small economic measures were taken and some political consultations held. But the demonstrations spread to the towns of Irbid and Kerak. In Algeria, on 22 January, a demonstration in the centre of Algiers was brutally repressed, leaving 5 dead and over 800 injured. In Tunisia the fall of Ben Ali has not put an end to the anger, nor to the repression. In the prisons, summary executions since the departure of Ben Ali have added up to more deaths than during the clashes with the police. A ‘liberation caravan’ from the western part of the country, where the movement first started, has defied the curfew and been camped outside the PM’s offices demanding the resignation of a government still made up of the cronies and chiefs of the Ben Ali regime. The anger has not gone away because the same old people are holding onto the reins of power. A government reshuffle finally took place on 27 January, chucking out the most compromised ministers but retaining the same PM. This still didn’t calm things down. Ferocious police repression continues and the situation remains confused.

These explosions of massive, spontaneous revolt reveal that the population is fed up and no longer wants to put up with the poverty and repression doled out by these regimes. But they also show the weight of democratic and nationalist illusions: in numerous demonstrations, the national flags are being brandished very widely. In Egypt as in Tunisia, the anger of the exploited has been quickly pushed towards a struggle for more democracy. The population’s hatred for the regime and the focus on Mubarak (as on Ben Ali in Tunisia) has meant that the economic demands against poverty and unemployment have been relegated into the background by all the bourgeois media. This obviously makes it possible for the ruling class in the democratic countries to sell the idea to the working class, especially in the central countries, that these ‘popular uprisings’ don’t have the same fundamental causes as the workers’ struggles going on here: the bankruptcy of world capitalism.

Towards the development of the class struggle

This eruption of the social anger engendered by the aggravation of the world crisis of capitalism in the countries at the peripheries of the system, which up until now have almost exclusively been dominated by war and imperialist tensions, is a major new political factor which the world bourgeoisie will have to reckon with more and more. The rise of these revolts against the corruption of leaders who are pocketing vast fortunes while the great majority of the population goes hungry, can’t lead to a solution in these countries on their own. But they are signs of the ripening of social conflicts that cannot fail to burst to the surface in the most developed countries in response to the same evils: falling living standards, growing poverty, massive youth unemployment.   

We are already beginning to see the rebellion of young people in Europe against the failure of world capitalism, with the students’ struggles in France, Britain and Italy. The most recent example is Holland: in The Hague on 22 January, 20,000 students and teachers gathered in front of the parliament building and the ministry of education. They were protesting against the sharp rise in university entrance fees, which will in the first place hit those repeating their second year, which is often the case with students who have to work to pay for their studies. They will have to pay an extra 300 euro a year, while the latest budgets envisage cutting 7000 jobs in this sector. This was one of the most important student demos in the country for 20 years. It was also brutally attacked by the police.

These social movements are the symptom of the international development of the class struggle, even if, in the Arab countries, the working class has not yet clearly appeared as an autonomous force and is mixed up in a movement of popular protest.

All over the world, the gulf is widening between a ruling class, the bourgeoisie, which displays its wealth with indecent arrogance, and on the other hand the mass of the exploited falling deeper and deeper into deprivation. This gulf is tending to unite proletarians of all countries, to forge them into a common front, while the bourgeoisie can only respond to the indignation of those it exploits with new austerity measures, with truncheons and bullets.   

Revolts and social struggles will inevitably take on different forms in the years to come and in different regions. The strengths and weaknesses of these social movements will not be the same everywhere. In some cases, their anger, militancy and courage will be exemplary. In others, the methods and massive nature of the struggle will make it possible to open new perspectives and establish a balance of forces in favour of the working class, the only social force that can offer a future to humanity. In particular, the concentration and experience of the proletariat of the countries at the heart of world capitalism will be decisive. Without the massive mobilisation of the workers in the central countries, the social revolts in the peripheries of capitalism will be condemned to impotence and will fall under the domination of this or that faction of the ruling class. Only the international struggle of the working class, its solidarity, its unity, its organisation and its consciousness of what’s at stake in its combat will be able to draw all the oppressed layers of society into a fight to put an end to dying capitalism and build a new world in its place.  

RI 30/01/11

[1] France was one of Ben Ali’s main supporters although it has now made its mea culpas about this. However it is once again covering itself in ridicule by continuing to back Mubarak

본문

  북아프리카와 중동의 프롤레타리아 봉기의 국제주의적 연대

이번 봉기의 조류는 튀니지에서 알제리, 이집트, 그리고 요르단과 예멘까지 휩쓸고 있다. 시리아 정권은 봉기의 확산이 그들에게까지 번질 것을 두려워해 인터넷을 차단시켜버렸다.

그런데 이번에는 무바라크의 지지세력 이라 주장해왔던 이슬람교도는 움직이지 않았다. 오히려  종교문제에 대한 자신들의 엄격한 태도와 관계없이 모든 주민이 봉기에 참여했다. 이집트에서는 수천 명이 그들의 이맘(성직자)들이 거리시위에 나가지 말라고 지시하는 것을 거부했다 : 이것은 또한 이슬람교도와 기독교인 사이의 종파적 분열을 의식적으로 거부하는 본보기가 되었다. 그것도 아주 최근 후자의 소수파들이 학살당할 수도 있었던 나라에서 말이다.

(한편 전통적인 스탈린주의 강령을 채택하고 있는 튀니지 노동자공산당은 단계론에 기초해 먼저 부르주아 민주주의를 이룬 후 다음 사회주의 혁명을 주장하며, 이슬람 운동을 민주주의를 위한 정치적 투쟁에서 동반자로서 인정하며 그들 없이 민주주의로의 이행은 없을 것이라고 내다보고 있다)

하지만 그들의 운동은 비록 운동 참가자의 다수가 부르주아 민주주의의 환상에 방해받을 지라도, 의회민주주의를 위한 것도, 붕괴에 임박한 사회시스템의 허울뿐인 정치개혁을 위한 것도 아니다.

그들의 운동은‘중산층’운동이 아니다: 여기서 봉기를 일으킨 학생들과 마찬가지로 튀니지, 이집트, 프랑스, 그리스 대학생의 다수는, 오늘날 노동자계급의 일부이다.

(튀니지와 이집트의 봉기는 의심할 여지 없이 몇해전부터 최근까지의 유럽과 중동의 노동자와 청년 학생들의 투쟁과 연결되어 있다)

이 반란들은 착취 받는 프롤레타리아트, 노동자계급의 세계적인 운동의 일부이다. 자본주의 경제위기에 맞서, 지배계급의 비열한 부패와 위선에 맞서, 우파 혹은 좌파의 모든 정부들의 무자비한 긴축정책에 맞서 그리스에서, 프랑스에서, 이곳 영국에서 일어났던 같은 프롤레타리아트 계급의 운동이다.

(튀니지에서 무너진 정부는 벤 알리의 친위대를 포함 무장한 민병대를 풀어놓으며, 예전처럼 지역에서 두려움을 확산시키려 시도했다. 이에 맞서 튀니지 전역에서는 지역 주민을 보호하기 위한 자발적인 '주민평의회'가 조직되었다. 이집트에서도 이미 주민들의 자치기관인 '지역위원회'가 교통정리, 의약품 분배, 식량공급등 자치활동을 벌이고 있다. 하지만 아직 이들기관이 노동자평의회와 같은 혁명의 기관, 봉기의 중심이 되지는 못하고 있다.)

이것이 우리가 노동자계급과 실업자, 학생 그리고 이 반란들을 이끌고 있는 사람들과 우리의 총 단결을 선언해야하는 이유이다. 그리고 그 반란의 전진을 방해하려하는 모든 세력에 대해 강력히 저항하고,  프롤레타리아트의 봉기를 그들 자신의 목적을 위해  이용하려하는 이슬람 정치가들과, 부르주아 민주주의 제도의 거짓약속일뿐인 '독재자들'의 노골적인 경찰의 폭력에 대해 격렬하게 저항하는 이유이다.

이러한 운동들은 시위와 공공집회에서의 논의와, 그곳이 어디든 우리자신들의 투쟁을 시작하기 위해 아주 중요하다.

(종교적 차이를 극복하고, 부르주아 민주주의 환상을 깨트리고, 전체 프롤레타리아트의 단결과 무장력을 갖춘 노동자평의회의 건설을 통해 실질적으로 노동자계급이 권력을 장악하는 투쟁과, 프롤레타리아 국제주의에 입각한 주변국가와 유럽국가 노동자계급의 강력한 연대투쟁(자본가정부들의 압력이 아닌)을 통해 혁명을 지지, 엄호하는 투쟁들을 시작하는것이 무엇보다 중요하다)

과연 어떠한 계획들이 가능한지 유용한지를 논의하기 위해서는, 우리에게 이메일을 보낼 수 있고, 우리의 웹사이트상의 포럼에 게재할 수 있다. 또한 리브컴(http://www.libcom.org)과 같은 다른 계급투쟁의 포럼에도 문제제기를 할 수 있다.

World Revolution(WR), 2011.01.29   (번역 lee)

본문

Cancun World Climate Conference - Another Predictable Capitalist Failure

Many people might not even have noticed that the latest UN climate conference was held in the Mexican resort of Cancun during the first 2 weeks of December. It was hardly reported in the bourgeois press and where it was mentioned the expectations of success were well and truly damped down. After the fiasco of the 2009 Copenhagen conference, which was supposedly “the last chance to save the planet”, but which nonetheless ended in complete failure, this conference was a low key affair and major political leaders kept well away. The failure of Copenhagen was not, of course, accidental but clearly reflected the views of a powerful sector of the capitalist class who wish to carry on polluting as usual and have a direct interest in undermining the scientific basis of global warming.

The challenges, which their paid prize fighters have mounted to the science, have succeeded in taking the issue out of the headlines and producing a more widespread scepticism about climate change than existed before Copenhagen. Global warming now appears as something we don’t need to worry about any longer.1 This is absolutely not the case. There is general agreement among climate scientists that the threats to life on earth, posed by climate change, are now more severe than a year ago. Capitalist “civilisation” is like a juggernaut, out of control and heading for a precipice.

The Cancun conference was the 16th conference the UN has held to try to control man-made (anthropogenic) global warming and, like the preceding conferences, failed to do this. No binding agreement to do anything about emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) was reached. Today, the only international agreement for reducing the emission of GHGs, which are the principal cause of global warming, remains the Kyoto agreement. This agreement, which expires in 2012, and which covers only a quarter of global GHG emissions, because the US has refused to ratify it and countries such as China, India and Brazil were excluded from the start, is virtually useless. The Cancun conference committed the 200 participating countries to keep talking about the issues while agreeing to some fairly ill defined proposals. It is a measure of the inability of the main capitalist powers to address climate change that the pathetic outcome of this conference was described in the press as a “victory for multilateralism” or to quote UK Prime Minister Cameron a “significant” step forward.

The main conference agreements were:

• To limit the increase in average global temperature to 2oC during the 21st century, with consideration being given to a 1.5oC rise. However since the means of achieving this, namely a 15% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, remain completely voluntary such an ambition is virtually meaningless.
• The creation of a “Green Fund” to provide loans for developing countries. The fund is supposed to provide $30bn by 2012 and $100bn annually by 2020. Where the funds are to come from is not made clear but its creation was advocated by the World Bank and the World Bank is to manage it. It is intended to provide loans to peripheral countries to buy green technology or employ consultants from the central capitalist countries The fund is likely to operate as a type of export credit fund for the metropolitan capitalists and will principally benefit them. The World Bank funded $6.3bn of fossil fuel developments in 2009 so does not exactly have a record of combating climate change ⁽²⁾.
• A scheme for providing finance to developing countries for forest protection called “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation “(REDD) and another for Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM). These schemes serve to promote and prepare the ground for carbon offsetting schemes aimed at enhancing carbon trading. Finance to be provided to poor countries induced many countries to accept these schemes. Wikileaks has exposed the process of bullying and bribing by which the US and other metropolitan capitalist countries cajoled peripheral countries into accepting these schemes ⁽³⁾.
• To keep talking and hope that a binding agreement could reached at next years talks in Durban. This was undoubtedly the main achievement of the conference. However the minor agreements reached set the parameters for future negotiations and are likely to result in future agreements on GHG reduction being based on Carbon trading and offsetting.

Looming ecological disaster

Climate change is only part of a general ecological disaster which capitalism is inflicting on the planet. According to the US National Academy of Sciences report of 2002 the world economy’s demands on the planet exceeded the earth’s regenerative capacity in 1980 and by 1999 it had exceeded it by 20%. ⁽⁴⁾ The current figure is 30%. ⁽⁵⁾ This means it would take 1.3 years for the planet to regenerate what we use in a year! In other words regeneration is not occurring. It is little wonder that 60% of the world’s ecosystems, such as coral reefs, mangrove swamps and wetlands, are in now degraded and in decline. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that 15 out of the 24 natural processes on which our survival depends are in decline or are becoming unsustainable. Key processes under threat are provision of water via the water cycle, provision of food and timber, pollination of all types including crops, soil formation, photo synthesis and nutrient recycling. ⁽⁶⁾ Global warming, which itself represents a breakdown in another natural cycle, the carbon cycle, is making all this a lot worse. It is estimated, for example, that for each 1°C rise in temperature yields of major cereals’ such as wheat and rice will drop by 10%. If the Cancun ambition of a 2°C rise in temperature is achieved there is, therefore, likely to be a drop in food production of at least 12%. Many species alive only a few decades ago are now extinct, while others are heading for extinction and if we continue on the present trajectory Homo sapiens will also be added to the list.7 The simple truth is that instead of living in a sustainable metabolic relationship with nature, as we did in the hunter gather epoch or to a lesser extent in slave and feudal societies, capitalist society is trashing the planet, and this cannot continue indefinitely.

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is now 390 parts per million (ppm) a rise of 3 ppm from the time of the Copenhagen conference. This concentration is 20% more than it was in 2000 and 40% more than it was in 1990. The principal concern of climate scientists is that if the concentration of GHGs rises above 450 ppm the process of global warming will spin out of control and nothing human beings do will any longer have any effect. The so called “tipping point” will have been reached.

This point is also, according to climate scientists, equivalent to a 2°C rise in temperature. This means the upper limit of temperature rise adopted by the Cancun Conference would put us at the tipping point. However, scientists calculate that even if the voluntary Copenhagen and Cancun reductions are met they will lead to a 4 to 5oC rise in temperature, and if they are not met we can expect a 7°C rise. ⁽⁸⁾ When one considers that the average temperature difference between that of the last ice age 12 000 years ago and the and average for the last 500 years is only 3oC9 one can imagine the catastrophic effects such temperature rises will create.

What exactly do the capitalist class propose to do about all this?

Capitalist responses to global warming

The capitalist class is divided in its response to this issue along three broad lines:

1. A powerful section of capitalists headed by the energy sector, particularly the oil sector, want to take no action whatsoever. This sector is behind the attempts to deny global warming even exists. They have succeeded in undermining the Kyoto protocols and sabotaging any meaningful agreements at the subsequent climate change conferences. At present they have prevented the US “cap and trade” carbon trading scheme being passed by the US senate.
2. Another sector, while recognising global warming is occurring; wish to combat it with green technology, carbon trading schemes and carbon taxes. Capitalist growth and accumulation, they argue, can continue as usual but must metamorphose into a “green” capitalism. Neo liberalism is to be coloured green.
3. A small minority wish to impose a state capitalist solution with state enforced GHG reductions worldwide. This group, championed by Bolivia which opposed the Cancun agreement, includes the peasant movement “La Via Campesina” and groups of indigenous peoples immediately threatened by climate change and its consequences.

The first grouping do not hold out any solution whatsoever to the ecological crisis and if they retain their grip on the global political response to this problem the world will probably reach the “tipping point” in one or two decades. It seems likely, however, that as the global situation deteriorates their influence will decrease and the second grouping will become the most important.

The second group wish to rely on carbon trading and green technology.

As we have pointed out in previous texts10 , carbon trading is a complete swindle. The key issue remains the consideration that emissions trading schemes are controlled by the capitalist class and it is they who determine the carbon caps. The way the world’s major scheme, that in the EU, works it is at present more profitable to pollute than to install non-polluting technology. The carbon market is a capitalist market like any other and prices of carbon go up and down. At present 1 tonne of carbon, which in 2008 was traded at €30, is valued at €15. This makes it cheaper to offset and keep polluting, which is precisely what is happening. The offset mechanism, far from increasing the carbon sinks in the developing countries, often results in destruction of natural forests by imported timber plantations and displacement of indigenous peoples.

It is also allowing the major polluting nations to gain control of swathes of land in the peripheral countries. The scheme serves mainly to transfer the burden of the effects of global warming from the metropolitan capitalist countries to the peripheral countries.

Green technology can, at best, mitigate the problems of ecological destruction it cannot prevent them. As will be discussed below, capitalist society demands continual accumulation of capital and consequently continual growth. There is thus an absolute contradiction between a social system which demands continual, i.e. infinite, growth and a planet with finite resources. The capitalist system is simply incompatible with preservation of the earth’s ecosystem and any solution of the problems we face must start with the overthrow of capitalist production. Green technology, under capitalism represents a new field of profit generation and a new field of capital accumulation and must inevitably run up against the same problems of continual accumulation versus finite resources. Green technology served up as a solution to global warming is a fraud.

The third group held an alternative Climate Conference of its own at Cochabamba in Bolivia in April 2010 and produced a manifesto. The main items the manifesto calls for are:

• 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2017
• stabilising temperature rises at 1°C above pre industrial levels and reducing GHG concentrations to 300 ppm
• acknowledging the climate debt owed by developed countries
• full respect for the rights of indigenous peoples
• a universal declaration of the rights of Mother Earth
• establishment of an international court of climate justice
• rejection of carbon markets and commodification of nature and forests through REDD
• promotion of measures that change the consumption patterns of developed countries
• end of intellectual property rights for technologies useful for mitigating climate change
• payment of 6% of developed countries’ GDP to address climate change.

The demands for the reduction of GHG emissions and temperature stabilisation would have to be imposed by the state and would demand statecapitalist control of the economy on a global scale. While it is true that the demands for GHG reduction and limitation of temperature rise are ones which could reverse the trend towards runaway global warming, they remain reforms within the compass of the capitalist system of production.

They would not be able to overcome the contradiction between the need for continual accumulation and the finite nature of the earth and would not be able to solve the ecological crisis in the longer term. The Bolivian president, Morales and his Venezuelan counterpart, Chavez, have nationalised the energy resources of their countries in defiance of the US. This has enabled them to present their anti-Americanism as anti-imperialism, and their versions of state capitalism as different from that of the former Soviet Union, and as a movement toward socialism. But state capitalism remains capitalism and workers remain wage labourers separated from the means of production and the dynamics of capitalism remain intact. The Cochabamba demands were, needless to say, completely rejected by the Cancun Conference.

“La Via Campesina” group in its statement following the conference called again for acceptance of the Cochabamba manifesto but added its own demand for something called a “cosmovision”. They stated: “We must go beyond the anthropocentric model. We must rebuild the cosmovision of our peoples, based on a holistic view of the relationship between the cosmos, mother earth, the air, the water and all living beings. Human beings do not own nature but rather form part of all that lives.” Such a vision is one which predates class society. Unfortunately we live in class society and we cannot go back to previous forms of existence. To get out of the mess we are in we need to move forward to socialist production and a classless society. The amorphous nature of such statements illustrate how the peasantry is unable to see a future beyond their doomed way of life. Where the solutions they offer are not reactionary, they are utopian.

Capitalism — the real threat to humanity’s future

It is the capitalist system of production which has led us into this mess and continuing with capitalism will only take us into worse trouble still. The capitalist system is a system in which production is for profit not for human needs. One of the consequences of this is that capitalism has a continual need to accumulate capital. This means it needs to grow continually. When growth stalls the system collapses into crisis. Empirical studies have shown that since the start of capitalism in the late 18th century, capitalism has grown at an average rate of 2.25% per year. ⁽¹¹⁾ This means that the global economy doubles in size on average every 30 years. The period since World War 2 has seen much more rapid growth as shown in Table 1 below: In the 50 years since the war the world economy grew by a factor of approximately 7.

Table 1. Gross Domestic Product in $bn at 1990 purchasing power parity ⁽¹²⁾

Capitalism has always treated nature as a resource to be exploited mercilessly to maximise profits. Bellamy Foster, in his book “The Ecological Revolution” expressed this as follows:

The class/imperial war which defines capitalism as a world system, and that governs its system of accumulation, is a juggernaut that knows no limits. In this deadly conflict the natural world is seen as a mere instrument of world social domination. Hence, capital by its very logic imposes what is in effect a scorched earth strategy. The planetary ecological crisis is increasingly allencompassing, the product of the destructive uncontrollability of a rapidly globalising economy, which knows no law other than its own drive to exponential expansion ⁽¹³⁾.

 

Exponential growth is not compatible with finite resources. This alone shows how futile it is to try and reform aspects of the system and deal with its worst excesses while the central dynamic tendencies of the system remain intact.

Any slowing down of emissions of GHG represents a threat to accumulation and a threat to growth. It is for this reason that even the more intelligent members of the capitalist class cannot countenance this. Nicholas Stern, for example, in his 2006 report for the UK government admits that GHG emissions are driven by economic growth yet he proposes to continue accumulation as usual and concludes that GHG concentrations will have to rise to between 500 and 550 ppm before they can be stabilised, because anything else would be too costly.

This level is, of course, well beyond the tipping point and would have catastrophic effects, but for capitalism doing anything about it is considered too costly.

The capitalist system is leading us to ruin and the task of replacing it is becoming ever more urgent. As we wrote in RP 53:

There is a glaring need for a new world order: a global community without national borders where production can be planned directly to meet human needs and can take account of environmental consequences of alternative courses of action; a community without the intermediary of money and commodity production, where economics becomes a question of social allocation of time, particularly working time, and no longer a question of what is immediately financially profitable….Capitalism remains, by definition, a system dependent on generating profit, the source of which is the surplus labour workers are obliged to yield to capital over and above the wages they receive. It is this system which has to be abolished and only the concerted force of an internationally unified and politically conscious working class will have the power to do so…. a new world is possible — and necessary. Perpetually campaigning to reform this or that aspect of capitalism is not the way forward. The only way to halt capitalist ‘business as usual’ and save the planet for humanity is by world working class revolution. The spark for that will come from the politically conscious minority who have organised to campaign in the only revolutionary way possible: amongst the working class for the communist political programme.

 

 

(1) Minor errors which have come to light in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 4th report such as locations of temperature readings in China or predictions of shrinking Himalayan glaciers have been used to discredit the whole report.

(2) According to Grace Garcia from Friends of the Earth Costa Rica, “Only a gang of lunatics would think it is a good idea to invite the World Bank to receive climate funds, with their longstanding track record of financing the world’s dirtiest projects and imposition of death-sentencing conditionalities on our peoples.” Quoted by Patrick Bond see links.org.au .

(3) See Patrick Bond links.org.au .

(4) Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 99 No 14.

(5) See Water and Environment Management WEM Vol 14 No 8.

(6) See Millennium Ecosystem Assessment UN 2005 7 The latest update of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ shows that 17,291 species out of the 47,677 assessed species are threatened with extinction. The results confirm that 21% of all known mammals, 30% of all known amphibians, 12 per cent of all known birds and 32% of all known gymnosperms (conifers and cycads) are threatened with extinction.

(7) “The scientific evidence of a serious extinction crisis is mounting,” says Jane Smart, Director of IUCN’s Biodiversity Conservation Group. “January sees the launch of the International Year of Biodiversity. The latest analysis of the IUCN Red List shows the 2010 target to reduce biodiversity loss will not be met.

(8) See Patrick Bond links.org.au node/2041 .

(9) See James Lovelock “Revenge of Gaia” pg 67.

(10) See RP 52 “Environmental Disaster or Communism” and RP 53 “After all the hot air at Copenhagen Global Warming is set to continue” available at leftcom.org .

(11) See David Harvey “The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism” pg 27.

(12) See David Harvey “The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism” pg 27.

(13) J Bellamy Foster “The Ecological Revolution” pg 46.

본문

한국의 지배계급,“민주주의”라는 그들의 가면을 찢어버리다

우리는 한국에서 사노련 동지들 8명이 악명 높은 “국가보안법”의 명목으로 체포, 기소되었다는 소식을 들었습니다. 그들에게는 1월 27일 판결이 내려질 예정입니다. 이것이 정치적인 재판이며 지배계급이 “정의”라고 부르는 것이 얼마나 웃긴 것인지 보여주는 사건이라는 것에는 의심할 여지가 없습니다. 세 가지 사실이 이를 증명합니다.

첫 째, 한국의 법원은 이들에 대한 경찰의 기소를 두 번이나 기각했습니다.

둘 째, 이 동지들은 “적(북한)을 이롭게 하는 단체를 조직했다”고 기소되었다는 사실입니다. 그들 중 오세철, 남궁원 동지는 2006년 10월, 북한의 핵 실험을 비판하고, 특히 “자본주의 북한은 노동 계급이나 공산주의와는 전혀 관련이 없으며, 군국주의 야만으로 향하는 쇠퇴기 자본주의 일반 경향의 가장 극단적이고 기괴한 형식일 뿐”이라고까지 선언한 “한국에서의 전쟁 위협 반대 국제주의자 선언”에 서명한 이들이었습니다.

세 째, 오세철의 연설을 보면 그는 자본주의 북한을 포함한 모든 종류의 자본주의에 반대하고 있다는 데 의심의 여지가 없습니다.

이 동지들은 다른 것도 아닌 사회주의자라고 생각했다는 범죄를 저질렀다고 기소된 것입니다. 다시 말해 노동자들이 스스로와 가족, 그리고 그들의 삶의 조건을 방어하도록 촉구했다는 이유로, 그리고 자본주의의 진정한 본질을 공개적으로 폭로했다고, 그들은 고발되었습니다. 검사가 요구한 이 형은, 한국의 지배계급의 그들의 방식에 감히 반대하는 이들을 향한 억압의 또 다른 예일 뿐입니다. 이 야만적인 억압은 2008년 촛불집회에 자신의 아이들을 데리고 나온 젊은 여성들의 “유모차 부대”를 표적으로 삼았고, 이후 법적으로, 경찰을 통해 이들을 괴롭혔습니다.또한 쌍용 자동차의 노동자들이 그들이 점거한 공장으로 침입한 폭력 경찰에 의해 구타당했을 때에도 이 억압은 이들을 노리고 있었습니다.

무거운 실형이 예상되는 가운데서도 체포된 동지들은 법정에서 존엄을 갖고 모범적으로 행동했으며, 이 재판의 정치적인 본질을 명백하게 폭로하는 기회를 활용하기도 했습니다. 우리는 아래에 재판 전 오세철 동지의 최후진술을 번역하여 실어놓았습니다.

이 지역의 군사적 긴장은 나날이 높아지고 있습니다. 작년 11월 연평도에서의 북한의 도발 포격과 그로 인한 시민들의 죽음은, 한국 군대와의 합동 군사 훈련을 실시하기 위한 미국의 핵 폭격기의 배치를 가져왔다. 이런 상황에서 오늘날의 인류가 사회주의냐 야만이냐의 선택에 직면해 있다는 주장은 그 어느 때 보다도 진실되게 울려퍼지고 있습니다.

미국과 그의 동맹들은 북한을 “깡패 국가”로 묘사하여 선전하는데, 북한의 지배 도당들이 그들의 굶주리는 인민들을 억압한 덕분에 호화롭게 지낸다는 것입니다. 그것은 확실히 사실이긴 합니다. 그러나 한국 정부가 어머니들, 아이들, 투쟁하는 노동자들 그리고 현재 사회주의자 동지들에게 보여주고 있는 억압은 궁극적으로는 국가 부르주아지의 공포와 짐승같은 폭력에 의한 지배와 같습니다.

이러한 상황에 직면하여 우리는 체포된 동지들에 대해 비록 정치적으로 동의할 수 없는 지점이 있다고 해도 온전한 지지를 선언합니다. 그들의 투쟁은 우리들의 투쟁입니다. 우리는 그들의 가족과 동지들에 대한 진심에서 우러난 공감과 연대를 표현합니다. 우리는 internationalism.org에서 받는 지지와 연대의 메시지들을 기쁘게 전할 것입니다.

2011년 1월11일

국제공산주의흐름 International Communist Current

http://en.internationalism.org

The South Korean ruling class tears aside the veil of its “democracy”

We have just received news from Korea that eight militants of the “Socialist Workers’ League of Korea” (Sanoryun) have been arrested and charged under South Korea’s infamous “National Security Law”.1 They are due to be sentenced on 27th January.

There can be no doubt that this is a political trial, and a travesty of what the ruling class likes to call its “justice”. Three facts bear witness to this:

• First, the fact that South Korea’s own courts have twice thrown out the police charges against those arrested.2
• Second, the fact that the militants are charged with “forming a group benefiting the enemy” (ie North Korea), despite the fact that Oh Se-Cheol and Nam Goong Won, amongst others, were signatories of the October 2006 “Internationalist Declaration from Korea against the threat of war” which denounced North Korea’s nuclear tests and declared in particular that: “the capitalist North Korean state (...) has absolutely nothing to do with the working class or communism, and is nothing but a most extreme and grotesque version of decadent capitalism's general tendency towards militaristic barbarism”.3
• Third, Oh Se-Cheol’s speech leaves no doubt that he opposes all forms of capitalism, including North Korean state capitalism.

These militants are accused of nothing other than the thought crime of being socialists. In other words, they stand accused of urging workers to defend themselves, their families, and their living conditions, and of exposing openly the real nature of capitalism. The sentences required by the prosecution are only one more example of the repression meted out by the South Korea ruling class against those who dare to stand in its way. This brutal repression has already targeted the young mothers of the “baby strollers’ brigade” who took their children to the 2008 Candlelight demonstrations and later faced legal and police harassment;4 it has targeted the Ssangyong workers who were beaten up by the riot police who invaded their occupied factory.5

Faced with the prospect of heavy jail sentences, the arrested militants have conducted themselves in court with exemplary dignity, and have used the opportunity to expose clearly the political nature of this trial. We reproduce below a translation of Oh Se-Cheol’s last speech before the tribunal.

Military tensions in the region are on the rise, following the provocative shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in November last year and the killing of civilians by the North Korean regime’s canon, answered by the despatch of an American nuclear aircraft carrier to the region to conduct joint military exercises with the South Korean armed forces. In this situation, the statement that humanity today faces a choice between socialism and barbarism rings truer than ever.

The propaganda of the US and its allies likes to portray North Korea as a “gangster state”, whose ruling clique lives in luxury thanks to the ruthless repression of its starving population. This is certainly true. But the repression meted out by the South Korean government to mothers, children, struggling workers, and now socialist militants shows clearly enough that, in the final analysis, every national bourgeoisie rules by fear and brute force.

Faced with this situation we declare our complete solidarity with the arrested militants, notwithstanding the political disagreements we may have with them. Their struggle is our struggle. We address our heartfelt sympathy and solidarity to their families and comrades. We will gladly forward on to the comrades any messages of support and solidarity that we may receive at international [at] internationalism.org.6

1 Oh Se-Cheol, Yang Hyo-sik, Yang Jun-seok, and Choi Young-ik face seven years in prison, while Nam Goong Won, Park Jun-Seon, Jeong Won-Hyung, and Oh Min-Gyu are facing five years. At its most extreme, the National Security Law provides for the death penalty against the accused.

2 See this article in Hankyoreh English edition

3 See the text of the declaration.

4 See Hankyoreh.

5 See the police assault filmed on YouTube.

6 We also draw our readers' attention to the protest initiative launched by Loren Goldner. While we share Loren’s scepticism about the effectiveness of “write-in” mail campaigns, we agree with him that “an international spotlight on this case just might have an effect on the final sentencing of these exemplary militants”. Letters of protest should be sent to Judge Hyung Doo Kim at this address: swlk [at] jinbo.net (messages must be received by 17th January for them to be forwarded on to Judge Kim).

본문

Revolutionary Communist Tradition : ICT 

혁명적 공산주의 운동의 전통  I C T

by 이형로

 ICT(공산주의 국제주의자 경향)는 1983년 IBRP(혁명당 국제서기국)로 결성되었다가, 2009년 ICT로 이름을 바꾸었고 현재 6개국(영국,이태리,프랑스,독일,미국,캐나다)에 지부를 두고 있다. IBRP는 1983년 이탈리아의 PCint(국제공산주의자당)와 영국의 CWO(공산주의노동자조직)에 의해 결성되었는데, 이것은 PCint의 제안으로 1977년부터 열린 좌익공산주의 국제대회의 과정에서 얻은 결실이었다.

이탈리아 좌익공산주의 전통과 PCint

프로메테오와 빌랑

이탈리아 좌익공산주의는 1928년 팡탱(Pantin)에서 이탈리아공산당(PCI)의 좌익분파가 결성되면서 시작되는데, 이 대회의 목적은 새로운 당을 만드는 것이 아니라 “중도주의”를 제거함으로써 인터내셔널에 재결합하는 것이었다. 즉 “이태리분파”로서가 아니라 “코민테른의 좌익분파”로서 자신을 규정하는 대회였다. 이들은 프로메테오(Prometeo)와 빌랑((Bilan)을 발행했는데, 프로메테오는 원래 이탈리아공산당 나폴리 지역의 보르디가 분파의 혁명적 잡지였다. 당시 이탈리아 좌익분파는 일국사회주의 건설 노선에 반대했던 국제 좌익반대파에 동의했지만, 그것을 주도한 트로츠키와의 강령적 차이¹⁾에 의해 1930년대부터 선을 긋게 되고, 특정경향의 국제적 분파를 거부하며 1933년 제4인터내셔널을 만들려는 트로츠키의 시도에 반대한다.

한편, 벨지움과 프랑스에서는 이런 흐름이 1930년대에 걸쳐 나타나게 되는데, 1933년 브러셀에서 좌익분파의 이론지인 빌랑을 발간한다. 빌랑 주변의 이탈리아 좌익분파는 당시의 임무들을 정확히 정의했는데, 첫째, 전쟁에 직면해서, 국제주의의 기본적인 원칙들을 배신하지 않을 것, 둘째, 러시아 혁명의 실패의 대차 대조표를 작성할 것, 그리고 미래의 계급투쟁 부활시 나타나게 될 새로운 당들에게 이론적인 기초 역할을 할 수 있도록 적절한 교훈들을 이끌어낼 것 이었다. 스페인 내전은 당시 혁명가들에게 혹독한 시험대였고, 많은 혁명가들이 반파시즘의 나팔소리에 사로잡혀, 그 전쟁이 제국주의적이며 다가올 세계전쟁의 예행연습에 불과하다는 사실을 깨닫지 못했다. 하지만 빌랑은 이에 흔들리지 않고 1차대전시에 레닌이 양쪽진영 모두를 비판했듯이, 파시스트들과 부르주아의 공화파들 양자 모두에 대항하는 계급투쟁을 호소했다. 이러한 비타협적 투쟁과 미래의 프롤레타리아 당을 위한 강령적 기초를 세우는 임무를 가장 충실히 수행했음에도 불구하고, 이탈리아 좌익분파는 파시스트와 공산당의 2중 탄압 속에 고립될 수밖에 없었고, 1943년 전쟁의 시기에 다시 부활하게 된다.

전쟁중에 창설 된 PCint

전쟁 시기 감옥이나 가택연금 상태 속에서도 데이먼(Onorato Damen) 주변의 핵심활동가들은 2년 동안 비밀리에 파시스트 하에 생존하면서 1945년 PCInt를 창설한다. PCInt는 2차 제국주의 학살전쟁이 끝난 후 프랑스에서 망명생활을 하고 있던 이탈리아 좌파의 많은 멤버들이 다시 이탈리아로 돌아오고, 전후 계급투쟁의 파고 속에서 금 새 수천 명의 당원을 얻게 된다.

이때 망명중인 프랑스 동지들의 대부분이 돌아왔지만,  ICC의 창설자인 Marc Chirik 주변의 프랑스 좌익공산주의자들은 1944년 파리에서 별도의 분파인 GCF를 창설한다. GCF 또한 강령적 기반은 빌랑과 좌익분파의 전통을 계승하고 있었다. 이들은 PCInt의 창설에 대해 반혁명의 시기에 당을 건설한다는 것과, 당의 성격이 모호하다는 비판을 하면서 당 참여를 거부했는데, 많이 알려지지 않은 실제 이유 중의 하나는 새로운 세계대전이 임박했다고 판단하여 당을 건설하는 것이 시기상조라 생각했기 때문이었다.

그리고 이탈리아 공산당의 주류였던 보르디가는, 스탈린주의를 이탈리아 공산당에 이식한 그람시에 의해 축출된 이래 파시스트 시절과 전쟁기간 동안 집에만 머물러 있었고, 당의 출판물 발행에만 협조를 했을 뿐 결코 당에는 가입하지 않았었다. 단지 1945년 전쟁의 끝 무렵에 이탈리아 남부로부터 보르디가 주위에 모여 있던 수많은 동지들이 당에 가입했을 뿐이다. 1948년 선거 참여를 두고 ‘혁명적 의회주의’에 대한 견해 차이로 데이먼 그룹과 보르디가 그룹은 대립하기 시작했는데, 이후 소련 제국주의의 특징, 공산당의 성격, 노조개입, 당과 계급의 문제 등에서 대립하게 되고, 데이먼 그룹이 다수의 지지를 얻는다. 하지만 1949년 이후 보르디가의 노골적인 개입은 당내 반대 블록을 형성하는데 성공했고 결국, 3년 후에 또 하나의 국제공산주의자당을 분리시키는데 성공한다. 보르디가는 1952년 자신의 조직을 설립²⁾하고 Il Programma Comunista를 발간한다.

1930~40년대 반혁명과 전쟁의 암흑 속에서도 진정한 이탈리아의 좌익분파들은 프롤레타리아트 혁명의 본질과 공산주의 운동의 전망을 세우는데 공헌했고, 그곳에서 살아남은 PCInt는 단지 양적으로만 성장한 것이 아니라, 오늘날 국제적인 혁명적 공산주의 운동의 흐름으로 자리 잡게 된다. 트로츠키의 반스탈린주의 대오에 가려지고, 1921년 좌익에 의해 세워진 이탈리아 공산당(PCI)과 그 주류인 보르디가의 명성에 축소되어 제대로 된 평가를 받을 수 없었던 PCInt야 말로 이탈리아 좌익공산주의로부터 직접 탄생했으며, 자본주의와의 피할 수 없는 결전의 과정을 비타협적 투쟁과 혁명적 전통을 지키면서 이어오고 있다.      

좌익공산주의 국제대회와 국제서기국(IBRP)의 건설

고립을 넘어 국제대회로

좌익공산주의자들은 19세기말부터 기회주의에 대항해 투쟁해 온 제2인터내셔널의 좌익분파에 기원을 두고 있는데, 당시부터 그 투쟁이 분산된 형태로 이루어져왔다. 이러한 좌익공산주의 세력의 분산은 코민테른과 반혁명기를 거쳐 1970년대까지 지속되었는데, 68년의 파업투쟁과 함께 프롤레타리아트 계급이 역사의 무대에 부활하면서, 수많은 그룹들로부터 새로운 사회에 대한 문제제기가 시작된다. 그 중에서도 유일하게 혁명적 일관성을 추구한 좌익공산주의의 전통이 새롭게 조명되었는데, 옛 GCF(프랑스 좌익공산주의 분파)의 공산주의자들은 이탈리아 좌익분파의 옛 그룹들을 고무시켰고, 1975년 프랑스, 이탈리아 등의 6개 그룹이 ICC를 창설한다.

한편, PCInt도 이탈리아에서의 고립으로부터 벗어나 세계의 여러 좌익공산주의 그룹들에게 국제회의를 제안한다. 1차대회는 1977년 밀란에서 열렸는데 이는 단순히“좌익공산주의 세력의 국제 연결망”을 만들기 위해서가 아니라, 전 세계 공산주의 혁명운동의 분산을 극복하고 집중화와 재구성을 위한 PCInt의 노력이었다. 대회에서는 1936년 그들의 국제대회에서 채택한 정치조직의 계급적 성격을 판단하는 기준을 토론했다. 2차대회는 6개 조직의 참여와 3개 조직의 동의 속에서 1978년 파리에서 열렸는데, 대회 주제는 자본주의 위기와 자본주의 사멸의 경제적 기초, 당의 역할이었고, 보르디가주의 전통의 많은 그룹에게 걸림돌이었던 민족해방투쟁에 대한 토론이 있었다.

3차대회는 1980년 파리에서 있었는데 자본주의의 위기상황과 제국주의 전쟁에 대한 전면적 반대, 노동자계급으로부터 노동자정당과 노조의 영향의 제거를 합의했다. 하지만 당에 대한 논쟁은 합의점을 찾지 못한 채 대회가 끝나갈 무렵, PCInt와 CWO는“혁명적 계급운동과 혁명적 권력의 전체 지도력이 필수불가결한 조직으로서의 프롤레타리아트당”이라는 새로운 기준을 제시했는데, 이것은 '평의회주의'에 대한 정확한 반대였다. 즉 당 문제에 대한 ICC의 명료하지 못한 입장과 혁명당 건설에 관심이 있는 세력들과 함께 하려는 PCInt의 의도 때문에 그랬던 것이다. 제4차대회는 1982년 런던에서 열렸고, CWO는 2차대회에서 4차대회까지 참석하면서 PCInt와의 토론을 통해 IBRP(혁명당국제서기국)를 결성하는 계기를 만든다.

독일과 이탈리아 좌익공산주의의 만남, 그리고 혁명당 국제서기국의 건설

좌익공산주의 국제대회의 역사가 말해주듯이 서기국의 결성은 하루아침에 이루어진 것이 아니었다. CWO(공산주의노동자조직)는 1975년 영국에서 만들었고, 륄레, 호르터, 판네쿡 등의 독일 좌익공산주의의 영향을 강하게 받았다. KAPD(독일공산주의노동자당)를 계승하여 CWO가 만들어지기 시작한 것을‘공산주의노동자조직’이라는 조직이름이 증명해준다. CWO는 독일 좌익공산주의의 전통으로부터 시작되었지만, 앞서 말한 3차례의 국제대회를 거치면서 PCInt로부터 자신들의 강령에 대한 비판을 받게 된다. 그것은 CWO가 독일 좌익공산주의에 기원을 둔 평의회주의에 강한 영향을 받아서, 프롤레타리아혁명에서 당의 중요한 역할을 이해하지 못하고 있다는 것이었다. 결국 미래의 단일조직을 위한 길을 열어놓기 위해 CWO는 아주 기나긴 토론의 과정을 거쳐 이 비판에 대해 점진적인 수용을 하게 된다.

1984년에 작성된 IBRP의 강령은 다른 나라의 혁명적공산주의 그룹들이 결합하는데 기본적으로 인정할만한 원칙적인 내용으로 작성되었고, IBRP의 입장을 다른 지역에 이식하기 위한 PCInt나 CWO의 복제물을 만드는 것이 아니라, 다른 그룹들이 관계를 맺을 수 있는 기준역할을 하고자 했다. 자본주의의 위기가 심화될 때 이러한 그룹들이 지역의 조건들을 기반으로 자신들의 영역에서 노동자계급의 투쟁 속에서 뿌리를 내리고 생겨나기를 기대한 것이다. 서기국에는 1984년 이후 프랑스와 독일, 미국, 캐나다와 남미의 그룹들이 가입하게 되고, ICC와 함께 현재 최대의 국제적인 좌익공산주의 조직의 위치를 차지하고 있다.

ICT의 정치입장

ICT의 정치입장은 강령에 잘 나타나 있고, 웹사이트(http://www.leftcom.org/ko)에 한국어로 번역되어 있기 때문에 여기서는 당 문제에 관련된 주장을 몇 가지 소개하겠다.

먼저 ICT의 정치적 입장은 기본적으로 이탈리아 좌익공산주의 전통에 기반 하는데, 이는 독일 좌익공산주의 전통에 기반 한 다른 조직들과 차이점으로 나타난다. 특히 ICT는 이탈리아 좌익의 주류였던 보르디가주의를 극복하고 독자적 좌익분파를 형성한 데이먼주의를 전통으로 하고 있다. 그래서 당 문제 등에 있어서 레닌주의와 보르디가주의 모두를 극복했다고 하는 데이먼의 영향을 많이 받았고, 경제이론은 폴 매틱의 이론을 일부 수용하고 있다. 정치적 입장에 대한 이런 점들이 ICT를 좌익공산주의 경향 내에서의 레닌주의 경향으로 보이게도 한다. 물론 ICT의 다른 한축인 CWO는 출발이 독일 좌익공산주의 전통이었기 때문에, 양쪽의 장점을 모두 받아들인 것도 사실이다. 특히 좌익공산주의 그룹 중 유일하게 노조문제에 대해 그것의 자본주의적 본질과 자본의 기구화를 인정하면서도, 적극적으로 노조를 이용(노조자체의 이용이나 노조개조·장악은 반대함)하여 광범위하게 노동자계급을 만나고 그들 안에서 공산주의 그룹을 만들 것을 주장한다.

당 문제에 대하여

첫째, 데이먼은 당은 계급이 아니라 계급의 가장 의식적인 부분이라고 주장했다. 또한 프롤레타리아계급의 독재는 노동자계급의 평의회나 소비에트를 통해서만 전체 계급을 위해 실현될 수 있기 때문에, 당이 더 이상 그것을 지배할 권리를 갖지 않는다고 했다. 왜냐하면 당은 이미 공산주의의 필요성을 깨달은 가장 의식적인 노동자계급을 재구성하는 계급의 안내자이기 때문에, 당이 권력을 갖는 것이 아니라 단지 평의회 안에서 공산주의 강령을 위해 싸워야 한다고 했다. 반면 보르디가는 당이 곧 계급이기 때문에, 당과 계급사이에 구분이 있을 수 없다고 하면서 혁명정당이 존재하지 않는 한 계급에 대해 말할 수 없다고 했다. 이것은 계급의식의 조건과 관계없이 공산주의 사상을 외부로부터 계급내부로 들여올 수 있다는 것을 의미했으며, 당이 권력을 장악하는 것을 의미 했다.

둘째, 당 조직에 대해 데이먼은 혁명가 조직의 기본원리는 민주집중제 라고 주장했다. 즉, 하부모임에서 상부모임을 선출하고 상부모임은 다수의 구성원에 의해 거부될 때까지 모든 구성원들을 강제해내는 방법으로 이끄는 방식을 주장했다. 반면 보르디가는 이 민주집중제를 "민주주의 제도"일 뿐이라고 비난하면서, 오직 공산주의 강령에 대한 충성만이 혁명가 조직의 성격을 규정한다고 주장했다. 그것은 불변의 공산주의 강령이 1848년 이후 여전히 바뀌지 않았음을 의미했고, 노동자계급이 러시아혁명의 경험에서 배웠던 것들이 강령에 포함되지 않았음을 보여준 것이다. 보르디가주의자들이 처음에 공산주의강령을 공표했던 국제공산주의자당을 새롭게 건설하기 위해 떠났던 1951년까지 이 논쟁은 3년 가까이 계속되었었다. 그 후 보르디가주의자들은 몇 차례 분리되었고, 오직 자신들만이 진정한 프롤레타리아트당이라고 주장하는 4개의 서로 다른 보르디가주의 그룹들이 현재까지 존재한다.

셋째, 당과 계급의식에 대해 ICT는, 계급의식은 쉽게 깨지고 일시적이며 결국 소멸해버리기 때문에, 계급의식은 노동자계급의 모든 이론적인 성과들을 압축시키는 강령을 가진 조직(혁명정당)의 물질적 토대를 취해야 한다고 주장한다. 이때 당은 프롤레타리아 계급과 조직적으로 함께 해야만 유지될 수 있고, 계급의식을 발전시키기 위해 모든 프롤레타리아의 계급투쟁에 복무해야 한다고 했다. 그리고 당이 없다면 혁명은 불가능하다면서, 노동자계급의 역사는 계급을 지도하고 이끌어가는 역할을 하는 의식적인 당이 있어야 혁명이 성공할 수 있다는 것을 보여주었다고 한다. 판네쿡도 혁명에 있어서 노동자계급이 단지 두개의 무기만을 가지고 있다고 했다. 그것은 계급의식과 그들의 조직(당)이다. 물론 판네쿡과 그 후예들이 스탈린주의 반혁명의 중압 아래서 조직문제에 대한 한 가지 관점인 당을 버렸지만, 공산주의 혁명의 최후의 승리에 있어 당은 평의회만큼 필수적인 것이라 했다.

마지막으로 ICT는, 러시아에서 소비에트가 몰락하고 볼셰비키당이 권력을 장악한 것은 문제였지만, 러시아혁명의 실패가 볼셰비키당 때문이었다는 주장에는 반대한다. 비록 당이 반혁명의 도구가 되었을 지라도, 당이 평의회와 함께 혁명의 필수적인 도구라는 사실은 변하지 않았고, 단지 당이 프롤레타리아트와 조직적으로 함께 하지 않았을 때 반드시 실패한다는 사실을 보여주었다고 주장한다. ICT의 관점에서는 혁명이 진행되고 있을 때 당과 계급 그리고 평의회 사이의 간격은 매우 좁혀져서 구분하기 어려워진다는 것이며, 여기서의 계급의식은 당과 혁명 강령에 가까워진다는 것이다. 그런데 당과 함께 가야할 혁명적 프롤레타리아트 계급이 러시아에서는 "내전"(실제로 러시아 땅에서 벌인 국제 자본주의의 신흥 소비에트국가에 대한 전쟁)이라 불리는 동안에 급감한다. 전쟁으로 인한 견딜 수 없는 경제적 곤궁과 시골로의 많은 프롤레타리아들의 탈출은 평의회를 약화시켰고, 1921년 3월 권력의 실제중심에서 그들은 소멸에 이르게 된다. 이 때 볼셰비키당은 전체 노동자계급의 역할을 하는 일에 착수하지는 않았지만, 국제 자본주의에 대항한 세계노동자계급의 투쟁이 중단된 상태에서, 특히 독일혁명의 실패로 인한 고립 속에서 독자적으로 싸울 수밖에 없었다. 이것이 실제 상황이자 결과였으며, 그 속에서 볼셰비키는 수많은 오류를 범했고, 결국 반혁명의 도구가 되었다. 하지만 만약 세계혁명이 그들을 도와줬다면 그들은 그 반대의 상황을 만들었을 수도 있었을 것이다.

세계혁명당 건설을 위하여

우리는 오늘날에도 여전히 이 참담한 결과 속에서 함께 살고 있으며, 그중 하나는 수많은 사회주의자들과 전투적 노동자들이 역사를 왜곡하고 계급을 배신한 세력들의 그늘에 놓여있다는 것이다. 따라서 러시아 혁명의 실패를 가장 최초로 객관적으로 분석하고, 반혁명의 암흑 속에서도 비타협적으로 투쟁하며 원칙을 지켜왔던, 이탈리아 좌익공산주의의 전통에서 미래의 혁명을 전망하는 것은 오늘날 혁명가들의 기본임무가 되었다.

그곳에서 직접 탄생하고 그 전통을 이어가고 있는 ICT는, 자본주의 최대의 위기상황에 직면하여 세계적인 계급투쟁과 세계혁명당을 위한 진전된 행보와 새로운 공헌을 위해 혁명적 공산주의자들과 함께 혁명적 계급투쟁의 전면에 나서고 있다. 이 시기에 전 세계에 걸쳐 성장해나가는 전투적 노동자계급과 새로운 혁명가들이 좌익공산주의자들과 만나 소통하고 서로 논쟁하면서, 궁극적으로 하나의 대오로 모여 혁명적 공산주의 진영을 공고히 한다면, 세계의 프롤레타리아 계급에게 세계혁명의 전망을 만나게 해주는 가교역할을 할 것이며, 세계혁명당의 건설에 스스로 공헌하게 될 것이다. 한국의 사회주의자들은 이제 서야 혁명정당을 향한 발걸음을 힘겹게 시작하고 있다. 하지만 다수의 사회주의자들은 아직까지 어느 곳에서도 혁명적 전통을 접하지 못한 채, 심지어 왜곡된 써클주의 운동의 구조 속에서 반혁명적 변종 사상들에 상시적으로 노출되어 있다. 이렇게 척박한 환경에서 자라나고 계급투쟁의 과정에서 스스로 노동자계급 속에 뿌리내리고 있는 한국의 공산주의자들이야 말로, ICT와 같은 좌익공산주의자들과 함께 세계혁명당을 건설하는 씨앗이 될 수 있을 것이다. 

1) 프로메테오는 첫째, 스페인 문제와 민주적 슬로건에 대해 트로츠키가 ｢스페인 혁명과 공산주의자의 임무｣에 “공화국 슬로건은 자연적으로 프롤레타리아트의 슬로건”이라고 한 것에 대해 이탈리아 좌익분파는 트로츠키가 코민테른의 프롤레타리아트 독재체제를 포기했다고 비판하고 제국주의 시대에는 전쟁 아니면 혁명이라는 하나의 구호 밖에 없다고 주장했다.

둘째, 독일 문제와 통일전선에 대해 1931년 트로츠키가 독일공산당과 독일사민당의 통일선선을 주장한 것에 대해 이탈리아 좌익분파는 “중도주의 혁명”은 이루어질 수 없다고 비판한다.

셋째, 분파와 당 문제에 대해 1931-32년에 러시아 국가에 모든 공산당들이 복속한 것에 대해 이탈리아 좌익분파는 모든 나라의 좌익분파의 실질적 발전이 당이며 혁명적 상황에서만 존재할 인터내셔널의 인위적 구성이 당이 될 수 없다고 비판한다.

2) 보르디가주의자들은 그 후에 경직된 분파주의를 위한 이론적 정당화를 하면서 스스로를 지구상의 가장 유일한 프롤레타리아트당으로 간주했다. 이러한 분파주의는 분명히 반혁명의 대가중의 하나였다. 한편으로는 어렵게 성취한 정치적 입장 주위에 불변하는 공식의 벽을 쌓음으로써 적대적 환경 속에서 원칙을 고수하는 시도였고, 다른 한편으로는 계급으로부터 고립되고 소그룹의 세계 속에 존재하는 혁명가들을 프롤레타리아 운동의 진정한 요구로부터 분리시킨 써클 정신을 강화시켰다.

본문

the truth about julian assange and wikileaks

by Adam Ford

Okay, beyond the provocative title, I’m as much in the dark as you are on this one. But I would like to start the article by listing the only things I hold to be self-evident in regards to the Julian Assange story.

One: WikiLeaks is a great thing, providing us with documentary proof of government collusion against the interests of the general public, in favour of the super-rich. Two: we cannot be sure that Julian Assange did not sexually assault either or both of the women at the centre of the allegations against him, because we were not there. Three: the criminal action against Assange is politically motivated, whether he assaulted the women or not. Four: WikiLeaks must be defended from those in positions of power who wish to shut it down and intimidate would-be whistleblowers.

The first statement should be non-controversial amongst likely readers of this article, even though we may not have been surprised by many of the revelations. For those of us with a radical perspective on the relationship between the capitalist class, the state, and the working class, it can’t have been a shock to learn – as we did this week from WikiLeaks – that US ambassador April Glaspie gave then ally Saddam Hussein to understand that the US would stand aside if Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990. As we already knew, Iraq did attack Kuwait, the first Gulf War began, and Hussein’s grip on Iraq’s oil resources was loosened. Neither should we be stunned thatBritish police forces have been training Bangladeshi death squads since the days of Tony Blair and Robin Cook’s ‘ethical foreign policy’ in the late 1990s. Still, if the international working class ever brings the Bushes and Blairs of this world to trial, we now have lots of evidence to back up a prosecution case. The service that WikiLeaks provides is therefore invaluable, and John Pilger is clearly correct, it does represent a “landmark in journalism”.

Statement two should be very obvious. As with any rape or sexual assault case, the only people who can be certain of the truth are those who were present. No matter how much we don’t want the founder and public face of WikiLeaks to have committed sexual assault, we don’t know either way. And yet many on what might be called ‘the left’ say they are certain that Assange is innocent, that he’s been framed, and is in fact the victim of a smear campaign. Pilger, Ken Loach and Michael Moore all stood bail for Assange, as they had every right to do, but the internet has also been abuzz with proclamations of Assange’s definite purity, and therefore the horrible corollary in all rape cases – the guilt of the accusers. If Pilger, Loach, Moore and thousands of people on the internet were in those rooms on the nights in question, then it must have got very crowded. When one in four surveyed women report being a victim of rape or attempted rape, it follows that some ‘good guys’ rape too. Such is the uncomfortable reality of life in a patriarchal society. As Laurie Penny put it, “If global justice movements had to rely solely on people of impeccable character to further their cause, we would probably still be trying to end slavery.”

Having said all that, it might seem strange to argue that the case against Assange is definitely political in nature. After all, it could be argued that if such accusations have been made, then the accused person has a case to answer. I would agree with that. But extradition for rape is very rare in ‘normal circumstances’. Even more importantly than this, rape statistics show that it is extremely unusual for prosecutors to take such an active interest in a case. Research indicates that an overwhelming majority of rapes are never even reported to police, but when they are, two-thirds are dropped by the cops before a single court date, and only around 5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. We need a new way of dealing with rapes and sexual assaults, but that is a big topic in of itself, and beyond the scope of this article.

In the Assange case, with the extradition hearing less than a week away at the time of going to press, it is understood that he is yet to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors, despite his claims that he offered to meet them during his bail period, and even checked with them before he left Sweden in September. The Swedish prosecutors initially dropped the case, and it was only resurrected when a politician picked it up as part of his re-election campaign. There are many other apparent irregularities and inconsistencies. For example, the day after a magistrate initially denied bail to the as yet uncharged Julian Assange, he granted it to a businessman charged with conspiracy to murder his wife. Considering the type of enemies that Assange has made through his work, it seems highly likely that US officials have pressured their Swedish and British ‘war on terror’ allies to make more of the Assange allegations than they otherwise would have. If that is true, then mud has undoubtedly stuck, whether Assange is actually guilty or not. A Google search shows that 38,400,000 web pages refer to rape, while nearly a quarter (7,900,000) also mention Assange.

On to statement four, and of course communists should stand for free speech – that is, the freedom to say or write anything without fear of what the state will do in response. It is essential that we defend whistleblowing on the pernicious role of corporations and governments in our society. We must do whatever we can to act in solidarity with those under threat from the imperialist war machine that is the US government. While Assange is facing court dates in connection with the sexual assault allegations, his lawyer Mark Stephens has claimed that a secret grand jury is being set up in Alexandria, Virginia, near to the Pentagon. Stephens told al-Jazeera that:

“[T]he Swedes, we understand, have said that if he comes to Sweden, they will defer their interest in him to the Americans. Now that shows some level of collusion and embarrassment, so it does seem to me what we have here is nothing more than holding charges…so ultimately they can get their mitts on him.”

 

Assange could therefore even face terrorism charges, like Zacarias Moussaoui, an Al Qaeda member who was prosecuted a few years ago in the Virginia East District. Such charges against Assange would be the most direct American attack on freedom of speech since the McCarthy era. He could face imprisonment or indefinite detention, like Private Bradley Manning – who passed the ‘Collateral Murder’ tapes to WikiLeaks – is currently enduring.

As the ruling classes of all nations try to impose the burden of the economic crisis on the rest of us, even ‘liberals’ within the political elites can no longer tolerate any open dissent. The supposed commitment of Western politicians to freedom and democracy is increasingly being exposed for the sham that it always was. We now live in a world where governments can commit terrorist acts on a daily basis, but if journalists tell us about it then they are the ones labelled terrorists. The same label will soon be applied to working class people standing up for their living conditions. It is perfectly possible – indeed under the circumstances it is necessary – to value Julian Assange’s work with WikiLeaks, and keep an open mind on what he did in private.

본문

Whose future is it? Tomorrow is ours if we know how to build it

Whose future is it? Looking around at how workers (whether permanent, casual, temporary) are living the response isn’t encouraging. Wages and earnings have been falling for years. This is so extreme that the army of those who slave away to find that their wages don’t reach the fourth, or third, or even second, week of the month is increasing. Casualisation is widening, especially amongst the young. Unemployment is increasing by leaps and bounds though hidden a little by the cassa integrazione ⁽¹⁾ (for those who can get it) which means a drastic lowering in the quality of life.

On the other hand those who have the “good luck” to keep their jobs (permanent or temporary) are forced to submit to a clear worsening of working, and thus living, conditions. It is not just that they have inadequate wages they have to work faster and longer with more hours, more effort, fewer wages and lower pensions. The bosses’ frame of reference is the “global worker”, of relocated factories (and services) to places where labour costs are less, a lot less; where the bosses’ tyranny is absolute; where not only organised protests but even simple complaints are punished with the sack, prison or worse. The condition of the global worker, of immigrants exploited like slaves, tricked and beaten by the bosses and the forces of the state as at Pomigliano ⁽²⁾; this is the model for the “new” working relationship.

We thus in a paradox of a society where thirty somethings (or even older) are maintained by parents who are forced, sometimes literally to die in their workplace. This paradox is called capitalism. A capitalism which, in order to find a way to overcome the crisis by attacked wage workers for decades, blew up speculative bubbles until they inevitably exploded, antagonising growing sectors of the proletariat and petty bourgeoisie to whom the traditional occupational ways out have been blocked through cuts in social services, culture and research.

The intensification of exploitation, the plundering of resources (from so-called “community goods” to indirect and deferred wages) the the devaluing of studying (graduates whatever their degree get ridiculous incomes) the capitalist class cannot do anything else in order to breathe life into a rate of profit needing oxygen. All this is on the agenda of every government whatever its political colour.

Capitalism decrees and the Government executes. The unions convince the workers of the need for sacrifices haggling only over details in order to put a (partial) brake on the stinginess of the bosses and to save face. At least until yesterday. Today CISL-UIL are only an affiliate of Confindustria and the Government whilst eh CIGL want to go down the road of negotiations ⁽³⁾ but it has been this policy which has brought us to this point with concession after concession.

What therefore is to be done? It is right to demonstrate but it is not enough. A demonstration only means something when it is part of a real struggle, of an intensity at least equal to the social war which gave rise to it. But the unions don’t want this or are incapable of it (the two go together) so the working class has to takes defence of its own class interests into its own hands in this crisis these are even more implacably opposed to that of the capitalist class.

In what way? The most combative workers must create struggle committees to begin to break the sense of resignation, in order to stimulate and organise other workers, outs die of and if necessary against the unions whether we like it or not. Workers’ assemblies have to decide the manner and goals of the struggle. Let’s unite the various disputes in the enterprises in crisis, let’s fight all layoffs and casualisation. Let’s make the workers’ strength against the bosses felt, let’s create coordinating bodies during the struggle, independent of the unions in order to unite all the workers whether full time or temporary in struggle in every sector. For us it also indispensable to root this process in the internationalist and communist class party which will unite the most aware workers who are not simply resigned to the blackmail of this rotten society in order to radically question this system of exploitation – capitalism.

The future will be ours if we know how to prepare for it.

(1) Literally “integration cash” – money paid for a certain period to those laid off. Originally in the 70s it was assumed that workers in this state would be re-employed (re-integrated). Now it is just one step on the way to total unemployment.

(2) This refers to the struggle of the FIAT workers at the Pomigliano factory near Naples for more information of our comrades involvement see leftcom.org and leftcom.org

(3) CISL, UIL and CIGL are the three main union confederations which used to be linked to the Catholics, Socialists and old Communist Party. The policy of doing deals with bosses via negotiation is called “concertazione”. Confindustria is the bosses’ organisation like the CBI in the UK.

본문

1919년 <공산주의 인터내셔널>의 창설

국제공산주의흐름¹⁾

2009년에 기념해야 할 수많은 기념일 가운데 매체와 역사가들이 짧게 언급하고 그 의미를 의도적으로 왜곡하면서 제대로 다루지 않는 기념일이 있다. 1919년 3월 열린 <공산주의 인터내셔널(이하 코민테른)>의 창립대회가 그것이다.

코민테른 창설의 기념은 계급투쟁이 오늘날 위기로 고통받는 자본주의의 현실이며, 프롤레타리아트가 착취받는 계급일 뿐 아니라 혁명계급으로 존재하고 있으며, 이는 부르주아지 자체의 종말을 예고하고 있다는 점을 2009년의 부르주아지에게 상기시키고 있다.

1. 1919년 국제적인 혁명물결

코민테른의 창설은 전체 자본가계급과 그들의 열광적 하수인들에게는 불쾌한 기억을 일깨우고 있다. 특히 그들에게는 국제적인 혁명 물결의 솟구치고 피할 수 없는 조류에 직면한 1차 세계대전 말의 공포를 상기시키고 있다. 그것은 1917년 10월 러시아에서 프롤레타리아 혁명의 승리, 참호에서의 반란, 독일에서 빌헬름 황제의 퇴위와 노동계급의 반란과 폭동에 직면한 휴전 서명, 그리고 독일 노동자들의 봉기, 러시아 노선에 따른 바바리아와 헝가리에서의 노동자평의회 공화국 건설, 영국과 이탈리아에서 노동 대중 사이의 파업, 소비에트 러시아에 대한 적대적 개입을 거부한 몇몇 영국 군대뿐만 아니라 프랑스 함대와 군대의 반란 등이었다.

그 당시 영국 정부의 수상인 로이드 죠지는 만일 그가 러시아 정복을 돕기 위해 천 명의 영국 군대를 파견한다면 그 군대는 반란을 일으킬 것이라고 했다. 그리고 만약 영국의 군사점령이 볼셰비키에 맞서 이루어진다면 영국은 볼셰비키가 되고 런던에 소비에트가 건설될 것이라고 1919년 1월 선언했다. 그것은 러시아 노동자평의회 권력에 대한 국제 부르주아지의 경악을 가장 잘 표현한 것이었다.

“유럽 전체는 혁명정신으로 가득 찼다. 노동자들 사이에는 전쟁 조건에 반대하는 불만감뿐만 아니라 분노와 반항감이 깊이 쌓여 있다. 정치적·사회경제적 측면에서 모든 기존 질서에 대해 유럽의 이 끝에서 저 끝까지 모든 인민대중이 의문을 제기하고 있다” (E. H. 카의 「볼셰비키 혁명」 3권, 135쪽에서 인용)

우리는 오늘날 코민테른의 창설이 1917년으로부터 적어도 1923년 말까지, 유럽으로부터 아시아(중국)로, 그리고 캐나다(위니페그)와 미국(시애틀)의 ‘신’세계로부터 라틴아메리카에 이르는 전 세계의 혁명물결에서 정점이었다고 알고 있다. 이러한 혁명 물결은 세계를 자본주의 국가들 사이의 분할로 이끈 1차 세계대전, 4년간의 제국주의 전쟁에 대한 국제 프롤레타리아트의 응답이었다. 1914년 전쟁이 꿀꺽 삼킨 제2인터내셔널 사회민주주의의 당들과 개별 투사들이 제국주의 전쟁에 대해 취한 태도는 그들이 혁명과 코민테른을 맞아 어떤 태도를 취할 것인가를 결정했다.

“코민테른은 각기 다른 나라들의 제국주의 부르주아지가 2천만 명을 희생시킨 1914~18년의 제국주의 전쟁이 끝난 후 만들어졌다. ‘제국주의 전쟁을 기억하라’ 이 말은 코민테른이 모든 남성 노동자와 모든 여성 노동자에게 한 첫 번째 말이다. 그들이 어디에 살건 어떤 언어로 말하든지 그들에게 한 말이다. 자본주의 사회가 존재하기 때문에 한줌의 제국주의자들이 4년이라는 긴 세월 동안 각기 다른 나라들의 노동자들이 서로의 목을 베도록 강제했다는 점을 기억하라. 부르주아지의 전쟁이 유럽과 전 세계에서 가장 가공할 기근과 가장 소름끼치는 참상을 불러일으켰다는 점을 기억하라. 자본주의를 전복하지 않고는 이러한 강도 같은 전쟁의 반복이 가능할 뿐 아니라 불가피함을 기억하라” (2차 대회에서 채택한 코민테른의 문건, 제인 데그라스, 「코민테른 1919-43: 문헌집」)

2. 코민테른의 제2인터내셔널과의 연속성

(1) 제2인터내셔널과 제국주의 전쟁

1848년 「공산주의자 선언」에서 칼 맑스는 “노동자는 조국이 없다”라고 자본주의에 맞서는 프롤레타리아트 투쟁의 근본적 원칙 하나를 정립했다. 이 원칙은 노동자들이 민족 국가의 문제에 관심을 갖지 말아야 한다는 뜻이 아니라 반대로 민족문제와 그들의 역사적 투쟁의 하나의 기능으로서 민족 전쟁의 문제에 대해 노동자의 입장과 태도를 규정해야 한다는 뜻이다. 전쟁의 문제와 프롤레타리아트의 태도는 제1인터내셔널(1864~73)과 제2인터내셔널(1889~1914)에서 논쟁의 중심에 있었다. 19세기 동안 프롤레타리아트는 특히 러시아 짜르 체제와 같은 봉건적이고 군주적 반동에 맞서는 민족해방 전쟁에 무관심할 수 없었다.

제2인터내셔널 내에서 레닌과 로자 룩셈부르크는 선두에 서서 20세기 벽두에 발생한 자본주의의 시기 변화를 인식할 수 있었다. 자본주의 생산양식은 정점에 다다랐으며 전 지구를 지배하게 되었다. 이제 레닌이 말한 것처럼 “자본주의의 가장 높은 단계인 제국주의”의 시기가 시작되었다. 이 시기에 다가올 유럽전쟁은 식민지의 분할과 그 영향력을 둘러싼 자본주의 국가들 사이의 제국주의 세계 전쟁일 것이었다. 날이 갈수록 프롤레타리아 투쟁의 원칙을 저버렸던 기회주의 진영에 맞서서, 이러한 새로운 상황에서 인터내셔널과 프롤레타리아트가 무장하는 전투로 이끈 것은 제2인터내셔널의 좌익이었다. 이 투쟁의 중대한 순간에 러시아 1905년 대중파업 경험으로부터 교훈을 이끌어낸 로자 룩셈부르크가 제국주의 전쟁을 대중파업과 프롤레타리아 혁명과 연결시킨 1907년 슈투트가르트의 인터내셔널 대회가 있었다.

“나는 이 문제[러시아에서의 대중파업과 전쟁(편집자)]에 대해서 우리가 위대한 러시아 혁명[1905년(편집자)]의 교훈을 이끌어내야 한다는 것을 여러 동지들에게 상기시키는 것을 러시아와 폴란드 대표들의 이름으로 말하라고 요청받았습니다. … 러시아 혁명은 전쟁의 결과로 일어났을 뿐만 아니라 그 전쟁을 끝내려고 일어났습니다. 혁명이 없었다면 짜르 체제는 의심할 여지없이 전쟁을 지속시켰을 것입니다.” (로자 룩셈부르크, BD 울프 「레닌, 트로츠키, 스탈린」에서 인용)

좌파는 룩셈부르크와 레닌이 제출한 대회의 중대한 수정결의안을 채택했다.

“그래도 전쟁이 일어난다면, 사회주의자들은 가능한 한 빨리 그 전쟁을 끝내고 전쟁이 촉발시킨 경제적·정치적 위기를 모든 수단을 동원하여 인민에게 일깨우고, 그럼으로써 자본주의 지배의 몰락을 서두를 의무가 있다.” (코민테른 1차 대회에서 채택한 ｢사회주의 경향들과 그들의 베른대회에 대한 결의문｣에서 인용)

1912년 제2인터의 바젤 대회는 유럽에서 점증하는 제국주의 전쟁의 위협에 맞서는 위와 같은 입장을 다시 확인했다.

“프랑스-프러시아 전쟁이 코뮌의 혁명적 반란을 탄생시켰고, 러일전쟁이 러시아에서 혁명세력을 움직였다는 것을 부르주아 정부들이 잊지 않게 하자. 노동자계급의 눈으로 볼 때, 자본가들의 이익, 왕조의 경쟁, 그리고 외교 협정의 남발을 위해 노동자계급이 스스로를 학살하는 것은 범죄다.” (앞 글)

(2) 제2인터내셔널의 배반과 죽음

1914년 8월 4일 1차 세계대전이 일어났다. 기회주의 때문에 구멍이 숭숭 뚫리고 애국주의 홍수와 전쟁열에 쓸려 제2인터는 깨어져 부끄럽게 목숨을 다했다. 주요 당들은 (특히 누구보다 기회주의자들 수중에 있었던 프랑스와 독일 사민당과 영국의 노동당은) ‘조국방어’와 ‘외세침략’에 맞서기 위한 부르주아지와의 ‘신성한 동맹’을 요구하며 전쟁채권에 찬성표를 던졌다. 프랑스에서는 계급투쟁을 포기하면서 장관직을 보상으로 받기까지 했다. 그들은 “맑스주의의 황제”라고 불렸던 카우츠키가 계급투쟁은 “평화 시기”에만 가능하고 “전쟁이 끝날 때까지는” 불가능하다고 선언하면서 전쟁과 계급투쟁을 구분했을 때, “중도주의”(인터내셔널의 좌파와 우파 사이의 중간)로부터 이론적 지원을 받았다.

“계급의식이 있는 노동자들은 인터내셔널 붕괴에 대해 슈투트가르트와 바젤에서 열린 인터내셔널 대회의 발언들과 결의문들 속에 담긴 가장 거룩한 선언들, 그리고 그들의 신념을 공식 사민당들의 다수가 명백하게 배신한 것으로 이해한다.” (레닌, 「제2인터내셔널의 몰락」)

소수의 당들만이 이러한 폭풍 속에서 우뚝 섰다. 특히 이탈리아, 세르비아, 불가리아 그리고 러시아의 당들이 그랬다. 다른 곳에서는 고립된 혁명가들과 혁명 그룹이 있었는데, 로자 룩셈부르크와 호르터와 판네쿡 주위의 네덜란드 “트리뷴주의자들”은 프롤레타리아 국제주의와 계급투쟁에 충실했으며 재조직화를 시도했다.

제2인터내셔널의 죽음은 프롤레타리아트에게는 심대한 패배였다. 이는 그들이 참호 속에서 피를 흘리게 했다. 수많은 혁명적 노동자들이 살육당했다. “혁명적 사회민주주의자들”은 그들의 국제 조직을 잃어버렸다. 그것은 재건해야 했다.

“제2인터는 기회주의에 패배해 죽었다. 기회주의자를 타도하자. 변절자뿐 아니라 기회주의로부터 해방된 제3 인터내셔널 만세!” (레닌, 「사회주의 인터내셔널의 정세와 임무」, 1914. 1. 10)

(3) 찌머발트와 키엔탈 대회: 공산주의 인터내셔널의 건설을 향한 발걸음

1915년 9월 “국제사회주의자들의 찌머발트 대회”가 열렸다. 이어서 스위스의 키엔탈에서 1916년 4월 2차 대회가 열렸다. 전쟁과 억압이라는 어려운 조건에도 불구하고 독일, 이탈리아, 러시아, 프랑스를 포함한 11개국의 대표들이 참여했다. 찌머발트 대회는 전쟁을 제국주의 전쟁으로 인식했다. 대회의 다수파는 ‘거룩한 동맹’의 진영으로 넘어갔거나 그들과 분리되어 관망하는 사민당들의 기회주의 우파를 비난하기를 거부했다. 이러한 중도주의 다수파는 “평화”라는 표어를 방어하는 평화주의자였다.

볼셰비키 분파의 대표인 레닌과 지노비예프의 주도 아래 통일된 “찌머발트 좌파”는 분립의 필요성과 제3인터내셔널의 건설을 주창했다. 평화주의에 맞서 그들은 “혁명적 행동이 없는 평화 투쟁은 공허하고 기만적인 문구”(레닌)라고 선언하고, “제국주의 전쟁을 내전으로 전환하자”는 슬로건으로 중도주의를 반대했다. “이 슬로건은 구체적으로 슈투트가르트와 바젤대회의 결의문으로 나타난다.”(레닌)

이들 대회를 통해 <좌파>는 힘을 얻었지만, 다른 대표들을 깨닫게 할 수 없어 소수파로 남았다. 그렇지만 이에 대한 평가는 긍정적이었다.

“두 번째 찌머발트 대회(키엔탈)는 의심할 여지없이 한 걸음 진전이다. (…) 그러면 앞으로 우리는 무엇을 해야 하는가? 앞으로 우리는 우리의 결의와 혁명적 사회민주주의 제3인터내셔널을 위한 투쟁을 지속해야 한다. 찌머발트와 키엔탈 대회는 우리의 길이 올바르다는 것을 보여주었다.” (지노비예프, 1916. 10. 6)

지노비예프가 1918년 3월에 말했듯이, 각기 다른 나라 좌파 사이의 회의와 그들 사이의 공동투쟁을 통해 “형성 중인 제3인터내셔널의 첫 번째 핵”을 만들 수 있었다.

(4) 프롤레타리아트가 슈투트가르트와 바젤 대회의 결의문을 수행하다

1917년 러시아 프롤레타리아 혁명은 유럽 전역에 혁명적 물결을 열어 젖혔다. 프롤레타리아의 위협은 제국주의 대학살이 종지부를 찍었다는 점을 국제 부르주아지에게 확인시켰다. 레닌의 슬로건은 현실이 되었다. 러시아 그리고 국제 프롤레타리아트가 제국주의 전쟁을 내전으로 전환시켰다. 이처럼 프롤레타리아트는 유명한 슈투트가르트 결의를 적용함으로써 제2인터내셔널 좌파의 명예를 드높였다.

1차 세계대전은 사회민주당의 의회주의적 우파를 부르주아지 진영으로 결정적으로 몰아넣었다. 혁명적 물결은 중도주의의 평화주의자들이 부르주아지에 맞서 싸우도록 했지만 그들의 다수는 특히 카우츠키 같은 지도자들은 부르주아지 진영으로 뛰어들었다. 더 이상 인터내셔널은 존재하지 않았다. 사회민주주의로부터 분리된 분리파들이 만든 새로운 당들은 “공산주의”당이라는 이름을 채택하기 시작했다.

혁명적 물결은 고무되었으며 프롤레타리아트의 세계당, 제3인터내셔널의 건설을 요구했다.

(5) 코민테른의 건설 : 제2인터내셔널의 정치와 원칙과의 연속성

코민테른[공산주의 인터내셔널]이라는 이름을 채택한 새로운 인터내셔널은 이미 죽은 제2인터내셔널 당들의 우파로부터 조직적으로 분리하는 것을 기반으로 1919년 3월에 건설되었다. 그러나 제2인터내셔널의 원칙과 그 공헌을 거부하지 않았다.

“이에 생명을 다한 공식적 사회주의당들의 냉담, 거짓 그리고 부패를 쓸어버리면서, 우리 공산주의자들은 제3인터내셔널에서 하나가 되어 바베프로부터 칼 리프크네히트, 그리고 로자 룩셈부르크로 기다랗게 이어지는 혁명 세대들의 영웅적 노력과 순교의 직접적 계승자라고 우리를 생각한다.

제1인터내셔널이 발전의 미래 경로를 미리 비추고 그 도정을 가리켰다면, 그리고 제2인터내셔널이 수백만의 노동자들을 모으고 조직했다면, 제3인터내셔널은 열린 대중행동의 인터내셔널이고 혁명적 실현의 인터내셔널이며, 행위[실천]의 인터내셔널이다.” (코민테른의 선언)

코민테른의 기반을 이룬 흐름, 분파, 전통 그리고 입장은 제2인터내셔널의 좌파가 발전시키고 방어한 것들이었다.

“1차 대전 이전에 프롤레타리아트가 발전시킨 제2인터내셔널이라는 역사적 대열로부터 선발해 재편한 그룹을 통해서만, 제국주의 전쟁에 맞서는 프롤레타리아 투쟁을 끝까지 밀어붙일 수 있음을 우리의 경험은 증명하고 있다. 왜냐하면 이 그룹만이 프롤레타리아 혁명을 위한 선진적 강령을 만들 수 있고 그래서 새로운 프롤레타리아 운동의 기초를 놓을 수 있기 때문이다.” (������빌랑������(공산주의 좌파의 이탈리아 분파의 이론지), 1936년 8월, 34호, 1128쪽)

레닌, 로자 룩셈부르크, 안톤 판네쿡 같은 개인은 물론이고 볼셰비키, 독일, 네덜란드, 이탈리아 좌파 같은 사회민주당들의 그룹과 분파를 보더라도, 제2인터내셔널과 찌머발트의 좌파와 제3인터내셔널의 좌파 사이에는 정치적이고 유기적인 연속성이 있다. 코민테른의 첫 번째 대회는 제2인터내셔널의 부분이었던 러시아 공산주의당(볼셰비키)(이전의 러시아 노동자 사회민주주의당(볼셰비키))과 독일 공산주의당(이전의 스파르타쿠스)의 주도로 소집되었다. 볼셰비키는 찌머발트 좌파의 주도 세력이었다. 찌머발트 좌파는 제2인터내셔널과 제3인터내셔널 사이의 진정한 유기적·정치적 연결고리였는데, 그들은 제2인터내셔널의 좌익으로서 과거에 벌였던 투쟁을 평가하면서 그 시대의 요구를 다음과 같이 정립했다.

“찌머발트와 키엔탈 대회는 제국주의 살육에 항의하기 위해, 결의가 있는 모든 프롤레타리아 세력을 이런저런 방식으로 통일시키는 것이 필요했던 상황에서 열린 매우 중요한 대회였다. (…) 찌머발트 그룹은 자기 전성기를 가졌다. 찌머발트에 모인 진실로 혁명적인 세력은 모두 더 전진해 코민테른에 합류한다.” (찌머발트 대회 참가자 선언)

우리는 두 인터내셔널 사이의 연속성을 강력히 주장한다. 우리가 계통적 측면에서 살펴본 바와 같이 코민테른은 느닷없이 나타나지는 않았다. 그 강령과 정치적 원칙도 마찬가지다. 두 인터내셔널 사이의 역사적 연결고리를 인식하지 못하는 것은 역사가 어떻게 작동하는지 이해하지 못하는 무정부주의에 굴복하는 것이다. 또한 코민테른을 단지 노동자 대중의 혁명운동의 산물로만 바라보는 것이다.

이러한 연속성을 인식하지 못한다면 코민테른이 왜 그리고 어떻게 제2인터내셔널과 결별했는지를 이해할 수 없다. 왜냐하면 슈투트가르트 결의에 표현된 두 인터내셔널 사이의 연속성이 있지만, 두 인터내셔널 사이에는 단절도 있기 때문이다. 그 단절은 코민테른의 정치 강령 속에, 그 정치적 입장에, 그리고 “세계 공산주의당”으로서의 조직적이고 전투적인 실천 속에 구체화되었다. 사실 단절은 물리적인 유혈 탄압을 통해 이루어졌다. 그것은 제2인터내셔널의 성원인 멘셰비키와 사회혁명당이 참여한 케렌스키 정부가 러시아 프롤레타리아트와 볼셰비키를 억압하고, 독일에서는 노스케-샤이드만 사민주의 정부가 프롤레타리아트와 공산주의당을 억압해서 단절이 이루어졌다.

이러한 “연속성 속의 단절”을 인식하지 않으면, 1920년대의 코민테른의 퇴행, 그리고 그 내부의 투쟁, 그리고 1930년대 ‘이탈리아’, ‘독일’ 및 ‘네덜란드’ 공산주의 좌파의 외부투쟁 및 그들 세력의 배제를 이해할 수 없다. 오늘날 공산주의 그룹들과 그들이 방어하는 입장은 이런 좌파들이 공산주의 원칙을 지키고, 코민테른 및 1917~23년의 혁명적 물결을 비판적으로 재평가했던 그들의 노력의 산물이었다.

프롤레타리아트의 정치적 유산인 제2인터내셔널의 유산을 인식하지 않으면, 코민테른의 기반, 오늘날까지 중요한 몇몇 기반의 타당성, 1930년대 공산주의 좌파의 공헌을 이해할 수 없다. 다른 말로 그것은 오늘날 혁명적 입장을 지속적으로, 확신과 결단을 가지고 방어할 수 없음을 뜻한다.

3. 코민테른의 제2인터내셔널과의 단절

(1) 코민테른의 정치 강령

1919년 1월 말 트로츠키는 코민테른 창립대회의 초대장을 썼다. 그 대회는 새로운 인터내셔널이 채택할 정치 강령의 원칙을 결정했다. 사실 이 편지는 제안된 ‘코민테른 강령’이고 그를 잘 요약하고 있다. 그것은 두 개의 주요 공산주의당들의 강령에 기초하고 있다.

“우리 의견으로는 새로운 인터내셔널은 여기서 강령으로 제시되었고, 독일 스파르타쿠스 동맹과 러시아 공산당(볼셰비키)의 강령에 기초해서 구성된 다음의 제안들에 기초해야만 한다.” (데그라스, 앞글)

사실 스파르타쿠스 동맹은 1918년 12월 29일 독일 공산주의당이 창설된 이후에는 존재하지 않았다.  1919년 1월 베를린 프롤레타리아트에 대한 끔찍한 탄압기 동안에, 사민주의 세력이 로자 룩셈부르크와 칼 리프크네히트를 죽여 독일 공산주의당은 두 명의 주요 지도자를 잃었다. 이처럼 바로 창립 순간에 코민테른은 국제 프롤레타리아트와 함께 첫 번째 패배의 고통을 겪었다. 창립 두 달 전 코민테른은 그의 명성, 힘 그리고 이론적 능력에서 레닌과 트로츠키에 필적할 두 명의 지도자를 잃었다. 지난 세기 말 그녀의 저작에서 코민테른의 정치 강령의 기초가 될 핵심들을 가장 많이 발전시킨 사람은 로자 룩셈부르크였다.

(2) 돌이킬 수 없는 자본주의의 역사적 쇠퇴

로자 룩셈부르크에게는 1914년 전쟁이 자본주의 생산양식의 쇠퇴기를 열어 놓았다는 점이 명백했다. 제국주의 살육 이후 이러한 입장은 더 이상 논쟁의 여지가 없었다.

“오늘날 인류는 둘 중 하나를 선택해야 하는 상황에까지 이르렀다: 혼돈 속에서 멸망하느냐 아니면 사회주의에서 구원을 발견하느냐” (독일 공산주의당 창립대회에서 강령에 대한 연설)

이러한 입장은 코민테른에서 강력하게 재확인되었다.

“1. 현 시대는 해결할 수 없는 모순을 지닌 자본주의가 파괴되지 않는다면, 그와 함께 유럽 문명의 전체를 끌어내릴, 전체 자본주의 세계체제의 몰락과 해체의 시대이다.” (「초청장」, 데그라스, 앞글)

“새로운 시대가 태어난다! 자본주의 소멸과 내부 해체의 시대가! 프롤레타리아트의 공산주의 혁명의 시대가!” (코민테른 강령, 앞글)

(3) 자본주의 쇠퇴 시대의 정치적 함의

코민테른의 지형 위에 서 있는 모든 사람들에게 자본주의의 쇠퇴는 삶의 조건과 프롤레타리아트의 투쟁에 중요한 결과를 가져왔다. 보기를 들어 카우츠키와 같은 중도주의 평화주의의 사상과는 반대로 전쟁의 끝은 전쟁 전 시기의 삶과 강령으로 회귀하는 걸 의미할 수 없었다. 이는 죽은 제2인터내셔널과 코민테른 사이의 단절의 한 지점이었다.

“한 가지는 분명하다. 세계대전은 세상의 전환점이다. (…) 우리의 투쟁을 위한 조건과 우리들 자신은 세계대전으로 발본적으로 변화되었다.” (룩셈부르크, ｢유니우스 팜플렛｣으로 알려진 ｢사회민주주의의 위기｣, 1915)

제국주의 전쟁으로 자본주의 사회의 쇠퇴기가 열렸다는 것은 국제 프롤레타리아트에게 삶과 투쟁의 새로운 조건을 의미했다. 1905년 러시아 대중파업, 그리고 노동대중 단일 조직의 새로운 형태인 소비에트가 최초로 등장한 것이 자본주의 쇠퇴기의 개막을 예고했다. 룩셈부르크(｢대중파업, 당 그리고 노동조합｣, 1906)와 트로츠키(1905년 그의 책)는 이러한 대중운동의 본질적 교훈을 끌어냈다. 룩셈부르크와 함께 모든 좌파는 제2인터내셔널 내에서 대중파업에 대한 논쟁을 이끌었으며 노동조합과 사민당 지도부의 기회주의에 맞서서 그리고 사회주의로의 평화적이고 점진적 진화라는 그들의 전망에 맞서서 정치 투쟁을 전개할 수 있었다. 사민주의적 실천과 결별하면서 코민테른은 다음과 같이 선언했다.

“기본적인 투쟁방법은 자본의 정치권력에 맞서 공개적인 무장투쟁으로 나아가는 프롤레타리아트의 대중행동이다” (｢초청장｣, 데그라스, 윗글)

(4) 혁명과 프롤레타리아트의 독재

노동대중의 행동은 부르주아 국가와의 충돌로 나아간다. 코민테른의 가장 소중한 공헌은 국가에 대한 혁명적 프롤레타리아트의 태도에 대한 것이다. 사민주의의 “개량주의”와 결별하고 파리코뮨과 1905년 러시아 그리고 무엇보다 자본주의 국가를 파괴하고 노동자 평의회로 권력을 행사한 1917년 10월 혁명의 역사적 경험의 교훈과 맑스주의 방법을 새롭게 함으로써, 코민테른은 스스로 명쾌하게 그리고 어떠한 모호함도 없이 프롤레타리아트의 독재, 노동자 평의회 안에 조직된 노동대중의 독재를 선언했다.

“2. 프롤레타리아트의 임무는 지금 즉각 권력을 장악하는 것이다. 국가권력의 장악은 부르주아지의 국가기구의 파괴와 새로운 프롤레타리아 권력기구의 조직을 의미한다.

3. 이러한 새로운 권력기구는 노동계급의 독재를 구현해야 하고 몇몇 곳에서는 농촌의 반(半)프롤레타리아트, 빈민의 독재를 구현해야 한다. (…) 소비에트 및 그와 비슷한 기구의 권력을 통해 그 구체적 형식을 확인할 수 있다.

4. 프롤레타리아트의 독재는 자본의 즉각적 전유와 생산수단의 사적 소유의 폐지와 국가 재산으로의 전환을 위한 지렛대여야 한다.” (윗글)

이 문제는 레닌이 제안한 “부르주아 민주주의와 프롤레타리아 독재에 대한 테제”를 채택했던 창립대회에서 본질적인 문제였다.

(5) 부르주아 민주주의와 프롤레타리아트의 독재에 대한 테제

이 테제는 민주주의와 독재 사이의 그릇된 대립을 비난하면서 시작한다.

“어떤 문명화된 자본주의 국가에서도 ‘추상 속의 민주주의’는 없다. 오직 부르주아 민주주의만 있을 뿐이다” (윗글)

파리코뮌은 부르주아 민주주의의 독재적 성격을 드러냈다. 자본주의에서 ‘순수한’ 민주주의를 방어하는 것은 사실 기껏해야 자본의 독재의 형식인 부르주아 민주주의를 방어한다는 것을 의미한다. 집회의 자유나 출판의 자유는 노동자들에게 무엇인가?

“‘출판의 자유’는 ‘순수 민주주의’의 또 다른 대표적 슬로건이다. 여기에서도 또 가장 좋은 인쇄소와 막대한 종이더미를 자본가가 장악하고 있는 한, 또 자본이 신문·잡지에 대한 권력을 유지하고 있는 한, 그리고 이 권력은 세계에서, 예를 들어 미국처럼 민주주의와 공화제도가 발전하면 할수록, 더욱 더 명확하게, 더욱 더 첨예하게, 더욱 더 냉소적으로 나타나는데, 이런 조건이 계속되는 한 이 자유가 기만이라는 것을 … 노동자는 알고 있다. 노동자를 위한, 노동자와 농민을 위한 참된 평등과 진정한 민주주의를 쟁취하기 위해서는 우선 먼저 문필가를 고용하거나 출판소를 사들이거나 신문을 매수할 수 있는 가능성을 자본으로부터 박탈해야 한다. 그러기 위해서는 자본의 멍에를 뒤집어버리고, 착취자를 타도하고 그들의 반항을 분쇄할 필요가 있다.” (「테제」, 윗글)

전쟁과 혁명을 경험한 후 카우츠키주의자들이 한 것처럼 순수한 민주주의를 요구하고 방어하는 것은 프롤레타리아트에 맞서는 범죄라고 「테제」는 계속 말하고 있다. 각기 다른 제국주의와 소수 자본가들의 이해 때문에 수백만의 인민이 참호에서 학살당했고 ‘부르주아지의 군사독재’는 민주적이건 아니건 간에 모든 나라에 세워졌다. 사민주의 정부가 칼 리프크네히트와 로자 룩셈부르크를 체포하고 투옥한 것처럼 부르주아 민주주의가 그들을 학살했다.

“이러한 사태 하에서는 프롤레타리아의 독재가 착취자를 압도하고, 그들의 저항을 극복하는 수단으로서 완전히 정당할 뿐만 아니라, 전쟁을 일으켰고 지금도 새로운 전쟁을 준비하고 있는 부르주아 독재에 대한 유일한 방위수단으로서 노동대중 전체에게 절대로 필요하다.

프롤레타리아 독재와 다른 계급의 독재 사이의 근본적 차이는 (…) 이를 포함한다. 즉 (…) 프롤레타리아의 독재는 착취자 즉 주민 중에서 극소수인 대지주와 자본가의 반항을 무력으로 억누르는 것이다. (…)

사실, 이미 실제로 창출되어 있는 프롤레타리아 독재의 여러 형태, 즉 러시아 소비에트권력, 독일의 노동자평의회, 직장위원회, 이와 유사한 다른 나라의 또 다른 소비에트적 제도, 이 모두는 다름 아닌 노동자계급, 즉 주민 대다수에게 민주적 권리와 자유를 누릴 수 있게 한다. 그것은 가장 민주적인 부르주아 공화국조차 전혀 보장할 수 없었던 또 그와 유사한 것조차 존재하지 않았던 민주적 권리와 자유가 실제로 가능해진다는 것을 뜻한다.” (윗글)

오직 세계적 차원의 프롤레타리아 독재만이 자본주의를 파괴하고, 계급을 폐지하며 공산주의로 가는 길을 보증할 수 있다.

“국가권력의 폐지는 맑스를 포함해서 모든 사회주의자들의 목표다. 이러한 목표가 달성되지 않으면 자유와 평등의 진정한 민주주의는 달성될 수 없다. 그러나 오직 소비에트와 프롤레타리아 민주주의만이 실제로 이 목표로 나아가게 한다. 왜냐하면 노동인민의 대중조직을 국가행정에 지속적이고 제한 없이 참여하게 함으로써 어떤 종류의 국가도 완전히 소멸시킬 준비를 시작할 수 있기 때문이다” (윗글)

국가의 문제는 혁명적 물결이 유럽을 휩쓸고 모든 나라의 부르주아지가 러시아의 프롤레타리아트에 맞서 내전을 벌일 때, 그리고 자본과 노동, 부르주아지와 프롤레타리아트 사이의 적대감이 극에 달할 때 중요한 문제였다. 러시아 프롤레타리아트의 독재와 혁명의 확장, 즉 소비에트 권력을 유럽에 국제적으로 확장할 필요성은 혁명가들에게 구체적으로 제기되었다. 그것은 러시아 프롤레타리아 독재의 국가와 혁명적 물결의 편에 설 것인가 아니면 그에 맞설 것인가의 문제였다. ‘[프롤레타리아 독재]편에 선다는 것’은 코민테른에 가입해 사회민주주의와는 체계적으로 정치적으로 단절한다는 것을 의미했다. ‘맞선다는 것’은 부르주아 국가를 방어하고 결정적으로 반혁명 진영을 선택한다는 것을 의미했다. 이 둘 사이에서 머뭇거렸던 중도주의 흐름에게는 그것이 단절과 소멸을 뜻했다. 혁명 시기는 ‘중도 기반’의 멍청한 정책을 가질 어떤 틈도 남겨두지 않았다.

4. 오늘과 내일 : 코민테른의 과업을 지속하기

1914~18년 전쟁이 결정적으로 보여준 시기 변화는 제2인터내셔널과 제3인터내셔널 사이의 단절을 결정짓는다. 우리는 이를 국가의 문제에서 살펴보았다. 자본주의의 쇠퇴, 그것이 프롤레타리아트의 삶과 투쟁 조건에 미친 결과는 일련의 새로운 문제를 제기했다. 즉, 아직도 선거 참여와 의회의 활용이 가능한가, 노동자평의회가 출현했는데도, 자본가들과 ‘성스런 동맹’에 참여했던 노동조합이 아직도 노동계급의 조직인가, 제국주의 전쟁의 시대에 민족해방투쟁에 대해서는 어떤 태도를 취해야 하는가가 그런 문제들이었다.

코민테른은 이러한 새로운 문제에 응답할 수 없었다. 그것은 1917년 10월 혁명 1년여 뒤, 그리고 베를린 프롤레타리아트가 겪은 첫 번째 패배로부터 두 달 뒤에 창설되었다. 그 뒤를 이은 여러 해 동안 국제 혁명의 물결은 패배하고 쇠퇴했으며 러시아의 프롤레타리아트는 점점 고립되었다. 이러한 고립은 프롤레타리아 독재 국가의 퇴행에서 결정적 요인이었다. 이러한 사태들 때문에 코민테른은 기회주의의 성장에 저항할 수 없었다. 반대로 코민테른은 죽었다.

코민테른을 평가할 때, 우리는 그것이 <국제공산주의당>이었다고 명확하게 인식해야 한다. 그것의 실질적 퇴행 때문에 그것을 부르주아 조직으로만 보려는 사람은 그걸 제대로 평가할 수 없고, 그 경험으로부터 교훈을 끌어낼 수도 없다. 트로츠키주의는 초기 4차 대회를 계승해야 한다고 무비판적으로 주장한다. 창립대회가 제2인터내셔널과 단절했던 지점들에서, 그 후속 대회는 퇴행했다는 점을 그들은 결코 보지 못했다. 1차 대회는 사회민주주의로부터 분리했다. 그런데 3차 대회는 그에 반대해 ‘통일전선’ 속에서 사회민주주의와 함께 할 것을 제안했다. 사회민주주의가 부르주아 진영으로 결정적으로 넘어갔다는 것을 인식한 후인데도, 코민테른은 3차대회에서 사회민주주의를 부활시켰다. 사민주의당과의 동맹정책은 1930년대에 트로츠키주의가 ‘입당주의’ 정책을 채택하게 했다. 입당주의란 곧 코민테른 1차 대회의 원칙을 정면으로 무시하면서, 사민주의당에 들어가는 것이었다. 레닌이 말한 것처럼 이러한 동맹 또는 항복의 정책은 스페인 내전에서 부르주아 공화 정부를 지지하고, 찌머발트와 인터내셔널을 배신하고 제국주의 2차 세계대전에 참여하는 반혁명으로 트로츠키 흐름을 빠져들게 만들었다.

이미 1920년대에 코민테른 내부에서 이러한 퇴행에 맞서 투쟁하려는 새로운 좌파가 만들어졌다. 그들은 특히 이탈리아, 네덜란드 그리고 독일 좌파였다. 1920년대 동안 배제된 이러한 좌익 분파들은 코민테른과 혁명적 물결을 비판적으로 재평가함으로써 죽어가는 코민테른과 ‘미래의 당’ 사이에서 연속성을 보증할 정치투쟁을 지속했다. 1930년대에 공산주의 좌파의 이탈리아 분파의 잡지가 「빌랑(Bilan)」(“평가”)이었다는 것도 나름대로 이유가 있었던 것이다.

인터내셔널의 원칙과 연속성을 갖고, 이들 그룹들은 제2인터내셔널과 단절하는 데에서 나타난 약점을 비판했다. 1930년대 동안의 반혁명과 2차 제국주의 전쟁의 암흑기 속에서 그들이 펼쳤던 이름 없는 노력 덕분에 오늘날 공산주의 그룹들이 부활해서 존재할 수 있게 됐다. 그들은 코민테른과 조직적 연속성을 지니지 않지만 정치적 연속성은 지니고 있다. 이들 그룹들이 만들어내고 방어한 입장들은 자본주의 쇠퇴의 새로운 시기를 맞아 코민테른 안에서 제기된 문제들에 답을 주고 있다.

따라서 ‘공산주의 좌파 분파들’이 이루어낸 비판적 재평가의 기초 위에서 코민테른은 오늘날 살아 있고, 미래의 <세계공산주의당>에서 살아있게 될 것이다.

오늘날 점증하는 착취와 가난에 직면해 프롤레타리아트는 다음과 같은 <찌머발트 좌파>의 입장과 동일한 입장을 채택해야 한다.

경제 전쟁에서 부르주아지와는 어떠한 신성한 동맹도 없다!

민족 경제를 구하기 위한 어떤 희생도 반대한다!

계급투쟁 만세!

경제 전쟁을 내전으로 전환하라!

경제적 파국, 사회적 해체 그리고 제국주의 전쟁의 전망에 직면해 1919년에서와 같이 오늘날도 역사적 대안은 똑같다. 그것은 자본주의 파괴와 전 세계 프롤레타리아 독재의 수립인가 아니면 인간성의 파괴인가, 사회주의인가 아니면 야만인가다.

미래는 공산주의의 것이다.

<번역 : 오세철>

본문

The National Question Today and the Poisonous Legacy of the Counter-revolution 

In September 2009 the Anarchist Federation (AF) published a pamphlet entitled “Against Nationalism”. The pamphlet was produced as a response to wave of support for Palestinian nationalism and its political expression, in the shape of HAMAS, which the Israeli invasion of Gaza in 2008/2009, elicited from the so-called “left”.

 

The pamphlet considers the historical evolution of nationalism and imperialism and some of the arguments advanced by socialists for supporting or opposing national struggles. The AF makes clear from the outset that they have always opposed national struggles even those of “oppressed nations.” The pamphlet also correctly identifies national struggles as interclass struggles which undermine the workers’ struggles, which, in contrast, are international. The reservoir of support for bourgeois nationalism in the British “left” ensured that voices were raised against the conclusions of this pamphlet. David Broder, of the Commune group responded with a critical review of the pamphlet in a text entitled “the earth is not flat” and the issue was made a subject of debate in the Commune’s day school in June. At the day school, which the CWO attended, the key issues were raised with different members of the Commune taking totally opposing positions on this question. Left Communists in general and the CWO in particular, consider that history has settled the issue of the national question and the theorists who have given their support to national struggles in the period from the First World War onwards have been shown to be decisively wrong. Today support for nationalism is no longer a mistaken tactic, as might have been argued in the period leading up the World War 1, it is counter-revolutionary.

 

We are therefore taking this opportunity to comment on the pamphlet and the issues which have been raised in the review and the subsequent debates.

 

 

“Against Nationalism”

 

The AF pamphlet looks at nationalism as an ideology described as a “narrative constructed by the capitalist state.” It exposes its use in creating class collaboration and inducing the working class to fight the capitalist’s wars and points out that the interests of wage workers “stand in opposition to those of the capitalist nation state.” It, correctly points out that successful national struggles result in a re-ordering of the machinery of exploitation of the working class and do not in any way bring liberation to the working class, giving the examples of Vietnam and Zimbabwe to illustrate the point. The pamphlet calls for “class struggle in the arena of war and in the antagonist nations” as the only strategy which could be supported. Generally we endorse the political conclusions reached by the pamphlet.

 

However, the pamphlet has a number of weaknesses which make it unable to adequately refute the politics of the bourgeois left.

 

 

Economic Roots of Nationalism

 

The principal weakness of the pamphlet is that it examines nationalism as “ideology” but does not attempt to expose the material roots of this ideology or see it in its historical perspective.

 

The analysis therefore fails to take into account the dynamics of capitalism as an economic system, and the developments which it has undergone from the 19th century to the present, developments which are reflected in ideological changes in the key ideas of nationalism.

 

In the 19th century, formation of national states served the purpose of developing the national capital, often behind protective tariff barriers, capitalising agriculture and converting the agricultural population and artisans into wage labourers. In doing this capitalism was eradicating feudalism and creating the proletariat as a class within capitalism, thereby carrying out a progressive role. This role could be described as progressive since it was creating the class of wage labourers as a distinct class within capitalist society. This class was an exploited class on which the whole capitalist system depended and a class with a clear interest in ending their exploitation. It was, therefore, a class in “radical chains” which could be the agent for the socialisation of the means of production and the construction of a higher form of social organisation, namely communism. The general content of the nationalist struggle was the consolidation of the national state through a struggle against feudalism and consequent development of the capitalist system and the working class. While this was the content of nationalism, proletarian political organisations could give political support to the bourgeoisie in carrying out these tasks. The nationalist struggle could, therefore, be supported where it favoured the interest of the working class. Support for the national bourgeoisie was, in this period, a tactical issue. However, at the end of the 19th century the phase of formation and consolidation of capitalist states was, in Europe at least, generally completed. For the major capitalist states there was now a need for the national capital to secure sources of raw materials, theatres for export of capital, markets and trade routes on a worldwide scale. Capitalism, as a global system, had entered a new phase, that of imperialism.

 

Wars of national formation gave way to imperialist wars, of which the First World War was the most dramatic manifestation. Changes in the material needs of the major capitalist states produced a change in the ideological content of nationalism. In the period from the start of 20th century to the present, nationalism became synonymous with support for the imperialist struggle to project the interests of the national capital worldwide, that is, a struggle against other capitalist states. The change in the content of nationalism demanded that the political attitude of communists to national struggles had to be re-evaluated. Whereas, in the earlier period communists could give tactical support to bourgeois national struggles, because of their generally progressive character, in the later period these struggles became part and parcel of wider imperialist struggles in which workers slaughtered each other in the interest of their national bourgeoisie. National struggles were now directly opposed to the interests of the working class and were counter-revolutionary.

 

By seeing nationalism as an ideology or “a narrative constructed by the capitalist class” the AF loses sight of its historical dimension and declares that they have always opposed it. In a similar way the Stalinists, Trotskyists and various leftists, not recognising the historical character of nationalism, see the present as basis of nationalism as essentially the same as that of the 19th century.

 

They conclude that support for nationalist struggles is still a tactical question and consequently pick and choose which nationalist gang they support on a tactical basis. The tactic is generally based on their assessment of how a particular bourgeois nationalist struggle would weaken the interests of the major imperialist powers. If we leave aside, for the time being, the argument advanced for this tactical support, it is clear that it is the same failure to understand the historical nature of nationalism underlies both the positions of the AF and the “leftists” against whom the pamphlet is directed.

 

This is the case despite the oposing conclusions they reach.

 

 

Imperialism and the State

 

The AF characterises all nation states as imperialist and see the state as being essentially imperialist.

 

The state — they argue — secures the material basis of its own power: it increases its own resources, wealth and ability to protect itself. It is therefore not simply a puppet of corporate interests but is an interested party in its own right… the nation state has imperialism in its very blood ⁽¹⁾.

 

This passage highlights two key issues which run through the pamphlet, the nature of imperialism and the nature of the state. We will consider the issue of imperialism first. The AF’s characterisation of all states as imperialist is too simplistic to stand serious scrutiny2. While it is true that imperialism stems from the operation of capitalism and so all states have a drive to imperialism, in practice, for the lesser states these ambitions are unrealisable.

 

Imperialism is a global system, a phase in the global operation of capitalism, and all states are therefore forced to participate in the system and do so, in one way or other. However, this participation is not the participation of equals. The minor powers participate as junior partners of the major powers or junior members of a bloc of powers.

 

What underlies imperialism is a process of transfer of surplus value to the dominant imperialist powers and it is clear that this transfer cannot benefit all states. The major beneficiaries and controllers of this process have been in the past and today still are the metropolitan capitals of the Europe and North America and Japan. The role of the minor powers is that of lieutenants of the major powers. Often their role is principally to ensure the smooth transfer of surplus value from their workers to the metropolitan capitals which exploit them. In other words to ensure the rule of capital is not threatened in their area of the globe. Although the dominance of the powers controlling the system, and their resulting privileges, are always under threat from rising powers such as Russia, China, India and others, this challenge of rising powers in no way changes the operation of the system as a whole. It simply means new powers rise to dominate the system. As we have seen in the 20th century, although the top dogs of imperialism have been changed by world wars the global system has remained essentially unchanged.

 

Since all states participate in this system the only real anti-imperialist struggle is a struggle to overturn the whole system. Of course, the only struggle capable of doing this is a class struggle directed to the overthrow capitalism. The so-called “anti-imperialist” struggles, so beloved of the leftists, are in reality inter imperialist struggles. Their real content is the alteration of a nation’s status within the concert of imperialism. The famous liberation struggles of Africa, South America and Vietnam have really been struggles to change the position of the various states from that of being clients of US imperialism to that of being clients of Russian imperialism. The same goes for the more recent struggles of countries in Africa, Asia or South America to reorient themselves from the US towards China…

 

Although the AF reaches a similar conclusion to the above, this conclusion is reached empirically.

 

There is no understanding of the global systemic nature of imperialism and the consequent impossibility of individual nations to free themselves from it. The arguments of the leftists that there are imperialist nations and dominated nations, and support for the dominated nation weakens imperialism, similarly stems from a failure to understand imperialism as a phase of capitalism from which there is no escape, short of the system’s overthrow. The weakening of one imperialist power simply means the strengthening of another. Although the AF ridicules the arguments of the leftists, it cannot expose the false premise on which these arguments are constructed because it does not itself understand why this premise is false.

 

Instead of seeing imperialism as a global phase of capitalism, the AF attempt to argue it emanates from the state, or in their words the “state has imperialism in its blood.” Throughout the pamphlet there is a tendency to see the state as the root of all that is wrong with the world. Hamas, for example, is condemned because it is a “proto-state force” rather than because it is a bourgeois political force. However, at the same time the pamphlet recognises that the principal axis, around which social struggles revolve today, is the class struggle within capitalism. The pamphlet also recognises that most of the imperialist actions carried out by the state are dictated by the needs of capitalism. A dual explanation of imperialism is thus presented, firstly as something resulting from the forces of capitalism and secondly resulting from the inherent imperialist tendencies of the state. This simply confuses the explanations which the pamphlet offers. In reality,

excluding periods of revolution, the state can only be an expression of the economic structure of society, and can only reflect the interests and needs of the dominant class in society. When this class is progressive the state is progressive and when it is reactionary the state is reactionary. The state has no inherent qualities in the way the AF claims. In the last analysis, despite the AF’s denials, the state in the present world is the expression of the interests of national capital as a whole. However, with increased globalisation of capitalism, states are no longer simply expressions of the national capital since the national capital has been replaced by international capital3. States have become agents of international capital and the imperialist bloc to which they belong.

 

 

National Liberation — the Debate on the Left of Social Democracy

 

Lenin lost the argument in the Bolshevik Party in 1919 but the Comintern followed him after 1921

The imperialist phase of capitalism was ushered in by the First World War. Left Communists view this war as a critical turning point, a turning point which indicated that the progressive phase of capitalism was clearly over and that the world, not just the metropolitan countries of Europe and America, was ripe for proletarian revolution and the establishment of a higher form of economic and social organisation, namely communism. It is from this premise that we argue the Bolsheviks were justified in fighting for an immediate proletarian revolution in 1917, since revolutions in Europe could have transformed the Russian revolution into a stage in a world communist revolution.

 

If the proletarian revolution was on the agenda in 1917, it followed that workers should now struggle to achieve this and could no longer give support, of any kind whatsoever, to their class enemies, the national bourgeoisie. This was recognised by Lenin in his April Theses of 1917 which led to the Bolsheviks dropping their programmatic support for the national bourgeoisie in creating bourgeois democracy in Russia.

Instead they saw the October Revolution as a first step in the world revolution.

 

Lenin however, despite having an analysis of capitalism after 1916 which demonstrated that that it had entered a new epoch “of parasitism and decay” tended to argue that the national question was a political and not economic issue. Indeed he had polemicised with his comrades Bukharin and Piatakov in 1915- 16 who, sharing Lenin’s analysis of imperialism argued that there was no longer any right to selfdetermination.

They argued:

 

The task of the workers is to mobilise the proletariat of both the oppressing nation and the oppressed, under the slogan of a civil, class war for socialism ⁽⁴⁾.

 

 

Lenin, arguing from his disgust with the old Tsarist Empire, the “prison house” of more than 200 nationalities, maintained the abstract right of self-determination.5 At the height of the Russian Revolution Lenin lost the argument. At the 1919 Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) the views of Bukharin and Piatakov won the day and all reference to “self-determination” was removed from the Party programme.

 

Bukharin and Piatakov were not alone in opposing the rights of nations to self-determination. It was opposed on a class basis by many revolutionaries in the period leading up to the First World War.

 

The clearest opponent of this policy was Rosa Luxemburg who argued that workers should now fight on the basis of class, not nationality, and that national liberation divided the working class and left national workers at the mercy of their own bourgeoisie. She had herself concluded in a polemic over her native Poland in 1896 that the Polish bourgeoisie was “tied to Russia with chains of gold”. She even split from the Polish Socialist Party (PSP) over its out and out nationalism (with no reference to socialism) to form the Social Democratic Party of the Kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL) on internationalist positions. This party grew rapidly in the 1905 revolution as workers “flocked into the SDKPiL and made common cause with the Russian workers ⁽⁶⁾”. The workers and Luxemburg had both witnessed how the Polish national bourgeoisie in 1905 broke worker’s strikes, which were at the time combined with strikes by Russian workers, to further their nationalist cause. Small wonder that the SDKPiL won over the majority of the PSP. Its minority under Pilsudski became openly chauvinist and later would join the Western powers in attacking Soviet Russia militarily. There can be no clearer example of the incompatibility of socialism and nationalism. However this is to anticipate. In December 1905, Luxemburg described how, in practice, the national cause was used to defeat that of the working class.

 

Under the slogan ‘National Democratic Railroad’ railroad workers broke the railroad strike forcing the striking workers to return to work at gun point. Under the national slogan, the National Democracy began a crusade against the general strike and other forms of strikes claiming they were ruining ‘the country’s national wealth’…Under the national slogan, the National Democracy organised… ‘Polish Falcons’ …armed fighting squads destined for murdering socialists and making strikes impossible… ⁽⁷⁾

 

 

How familiar such a description sounds to us today. These words could have been written about Turkey in 1920, China in 1927, the liberated colonies, Zimbabwe, South Africa; in short, they apply to most of the significant national liberation struggles from the Second World War to the present day.

 

Rosa Luxemburg had the clearest position on the national question

The Bolsheviks may have outlawed national self determination from their programme in 1919 but still allowed the right of secession to the outlying areas of the former Tsarist Empire, including Poland. At the time it was mercilessly criticised by Rosa Luxemburg. She wrote:

 

The nations (granted national self determination) used their freshly granted freedom to ally themselves with German imperialism against the Russian Revolution as its mortal enemy, and, under German protection to carry the banner of counter-revolution into Russia itself….The Bolsheviks were to be taught, to their own great hurt and that of the revolution, that under the rule of capitalism there is no self determination of peoples, that in a class society each class of the nation strives to “determine itself ” in a different fashion; and that for the bourgeois classes the standpoint of national freedom is fully subordinated to that of class rule. The Finnish bourgeoisie, like the Ukrainian petite bourgeoisie, was unanimous in preferring the violent rule of Germany to national freedom, if the latter should be bound up with Bolshevism ⁽⁸⁾.

 

 

Some have argued that the Bolsheviks had little choice and that Luxemburg’s argument is unfair but in this they are missing her point.

 

Not one of these nations was really independent but as she makes clear they were all the tools of imperialist powers. The clarity of her position was best summed up in 1916 in Either-Or

In this era of unfettered imperialism there can be longer be national wars … For no suppressed nation can freedom and independence blossom forth from the politics of imperialist states and the imperialist war. Small nations, whose ruling classes are appendages and accessories of their class comrades in the large nations, are merely pawns in the imperialist game played by the major powers.

from Rosa Luxemburg, Selected Writings, ed. R. Looker, p.223

 

 

National Liberation — a Poisonous Legacy

 

The majority of Bolsheviks had accepted this in 1919 but as the revolutionary tide in Europe ebbed away and the Russian Revolution remained isolated, the Bolsheviks searched for desperate expedients which could maintain the revolutionary momentum.

 

One of these was to support national bourgeois movements in colonies or semi-colonies of the major powers. Lenin, in line with what he had written at the end of his pamphlet on Imperialism — the Highest Stage of Capitalism, now argued that such movements would weaken the imperialist powers by cutting off the “super profits” they extracted from the colonies.

 

Without these super profits the imperial powers would be unable to bribe the “workers aristocracy” in the imperial countries to head off the revolutionary ambitions of the metropolitan workers.

 

The Comintern adopted this policy (despite the opposition of communists like M.N.Roy and Sultan Zade who held positions close to that of Luxemburg) and its political conclusion was that the workers’ political organisations in the colonies should put themselves at the disposal and under the control of the national bourgeois forces.

 

The theoretical basis of this policy was that bourgeois revolutions were still on the agenda in certain parts of the world and were progressive.

 

It was in clear contradiction to the April Theses which saw capitalism as ripe for revolution in 1917 and so called into question the whole basis of the October Revolution. If bourgeois revolutions could take place in one part of the world and socialist revolutions in another then capitalism was not yet a global system ripe for revolution, as was claimed in the founding theses of the Comintern. Such a perspective also opened the door to the possibility of constructing socialism in one country since the bourgeois revolutions in the colonies or semi-colonies, were supposed to support the socialist revolution in the metropolitan capitalist countries. We will not comment here on the theoretical issues of “super profits” and “workers aristocracy” beyond noting that history has shown these ideas to be wrong. Since the Second World War we have seen decolonisation and national bourgeois revolutions throughout the colonial and semi colonial world and imperialism has not been significantly affected.

 

The major imperialist powers no longer directly administer these areas, this is now carried out by a local section of the bourgeois class, but the surplus value still keeps flowing to the metropolitan countries. These regions are today dominated by international capital more thoroughly than ever before, despite their nominal independence.

 

The policy of subordination of the proletarian political forces to the national bourgeoisie was a complete disaster and led to the massacre of tens of thousands of workers by the national bourgeoisie, the destruction of workers organisations and the extinction of revolutionary struggle. The most tragic example of this was in China in 1927.9 This is the legacy which the counterrevolution has handed down to their inheritors in the Stalinist and Trotskyist movements, and it has underpinned their policies on the national question since the Second World War. Trotsky, himself, reiterates these policies clearly reproducing all the contradictions they contain. In 1939, 12 years after the Chinese disaster, he could still write:

 

Imperialism is that stage of capitalism when the latter, after fulfilling everything in its power, begins to decline. The cause of this decline lies in this, that the productive forces are fettered by the framework of private property as well as the boundaries of the national state. Imperialism seeks to divide and re-divide the world. In place of national wars there come imperialist wars. They are utterly reactionary… ⁽¹⁰⁾

 

 

Yet on the next page we read:

 

The struggle of oppressed peoples for national unification and national independence is doubly progressive because, on the one side, this prepares more favourable conditions for their own development, while, on the other side, this deals blows to imperialism ⁽¹¹⁾.

 

 

If the nation state is a fetter to capitalism, as the first quotation clearly states, how could creation of new nation states prepare favourable conditions for national development? How could such struggles be progressive? If capitalism is in decline, as the first passage states, then workers should be struggling for socialist revolution not national bourgeois revolution. Further, if imperialist wars are utterly reactionary, as Trotsky clearly states, how, one might ask, could the Trotskyist movement support the Second World War, which was quite clearly an imperialist war? We are dealing here with a mass of contradictions rather than a theory ⁽¹²⁾. Much effort has been spent by Trotsky’s successors trying to make these contradictions less apparent.

 

Theories have been developed proposing that certain types of support for the bourgeoisie are not full support, but rather critical support, which we are told is quite different from support. Distinctions have been drawn between the national movement and the agents of that movement enabling one to support the movement but not the national bourgeoisie who stand behind it. However, all such sophistry cannot hide the fundamentally bourgeois nature of these political positions.

 

However, despite the reactionary nature of these positions, they have retained a wide following in the socalled “left.”

 

 

The Earth is not Flat

 

The Commune’s review of the AF pamphlet, written by David Broder, criticises it from the positions of the Comintern and the “leftists” described above. He argues that European nationalism and colonial or semi-colonial nationalism are different since they are different in origin. From this he concludes that the national bourgeoisie can be progressive in the peripheral countries. He gives Cuba as an example and argues that statecapitalist development in Columbia would undermine the Columbian bourgeoisie’s alliance with the US and so, presumably, also be progressive. He attempts to draw a distinction between the nationalist cause and the nationalist movement which supports it, thereby opening the door to support for Palestinian nationalism and critical support for Hamas etc.

 

Seizing on the AF categorising of all states as imperialist, he rhetorically asks where Bolivian, Congolese or Afghan imperialism is to be found.

 

Concluding it is non-existent, he opens the door for the support of these nations, and their national bourgeoisie, against the US. All these arguments have been dealt with above and are not worth reconsidering.

 

The issue of political support by workers organisations for the national bourgeoisie is the critical question. Although it is not specifically stated the review implies that support for the national bourgeoisie is a tactical issue and must be given in certain cases. The review concludes that,

 

Communists must not sideline or dismiss the national question in order to focus solely on class politics ⁽¹³⁾.

 

 

Communists should therefore, in his view, support bourgeois nationalist politics.

 

In opposition to support for bourgeois nationalist politics the AF advocates, as we have noted above, class struggle as the only means to overcome nationalism and achieve class unity. This is actually criticised by Broder! He argues it is wrong for 3 reasons. Firstly workers can struggle for class interests and still be racist or xenophobic. He cites Lindsey oil refinery workers striking under the slogan “British jobs for British workers.” Secondly, he argues, class concerns are not the only concerns workers have.

 

Palestinian workers, for example, share no class interests with Israeli workers; their primary concern must be to end national oppression by the Israeli state. Thirdly, he claims, obtaining better living conditions in capitalist society is “not communistic as such.” These arguments are profoundly wrong.

 

Firstly racism, xenophobia, sexism etc. are all ideological weapons of the bourgeoisie whose very purpose is to divide workers and weaken class struggle. What binds workers together is their position as wage labourers in capitalist society. This is based on class and only class. It is precisely in class struggle that this unity becomes apparent since the fight is from a common position for a common cause. Similarly it is only in the heat of class struggle that what Marx called the “muck of ages” which includes racism, nationalism, sexism etc. can be repudiated.

 

Secondly it is quite wrong to claim that Palestinian and Israeli workers have no common interests. They share common class interests. These common interests are the only path to breaking the nationalist prisons which have led to the present appalling situation. To advocate Gazan workers support their national bourgeoisie in the shape of Hamas is utterly reactionary. The case of South Africa is worth posing as a counter example. Before 1994 it was argued that white and black workers shared no common interests whatsoever yet today, as they together face a bourgeoisie reducing their living conditions and breaking their strikes, a bourgeoisie at whose head stands the ANC, the common interests that existed all along are glaring apparent.

 

The tragedy, which also applies to Palestine, is that this was disguised so effectively by leftism. The result was that workers were used on both sides to fight the bourgeoisie’s battles and kill each other in the name of nationalism, and this has sown nothing but confusion.

 

Broder’s third objection appears to come from a complete misunderstanding of the circumstances which could provoke revolution. It is obvious that workers will not make the revolution if capitalism is able to grant them improved living conditions. The revolution will only be made when workers understand that capitalism offers them nothing but deprivation and war. There has to be a total crisis of the economic and social system before it becomes clear to workers that they need to overthrow it. Before this stage can be reached international class unity and class consciousness has to be generated. This can only come from a long series of struggles in which obstacles along the road one of which is “nationalism” are exposed, both practically and theoretically, as complete lies.

 

 

Class Struggle against Nationalist struggle

 

The ICT ⁽¹⁴⁾, of which the CWO is a part, argues that nationalist struggles are simply disguised imperialist struggles and the wars they provoke are imperialist wars.

 

The only response communists can give to imperialist wars is the adoption of the politics of revolutionary defeatism. That is:

 

• Opposition to the war on the basis of class
• No support to either side in the struggle
• Workers should continue the class struggle against their own bourgeoisie
• Workers should give solidarity to workers from the opposing side in their struggle against their own bourgeoisie.
•  

The orientation of this policy is towards turning the imperialist war into a civil war and the overthrow of bourgeois power. This was the policy adopted by the Bolsheviks during the First World War which was a decisive step towards the October Revolution. Today it remains the only proletarian response able to open the way to a communist world.

 

CP

 

(1) Against Nationalism

(2) Counter examples can be given. How, for example, are states like Lesotho or Bangladesh imperialist?

(3) An indication of the international nature of capital can be seen from a few statistics of the UK and US. In the UK for example 42% of the shares on the London Stock Market are foreign owned. An iconic company such as BP is 60% foreign owned 39% of this by US capitalists. Many other previously famous UK companies are now foreign owned, ICI, Pilkington, Powergen,, Corus, BAA, P&O, Cadbury, Thames Water, to name only a few. While in the US the three largest providers of direct investment at the end of 2009 were France, UK and Germany having cumulative investments of $1.19 trillion, $1.0tn and $1.00tn respectively.

(4) See Horace B Davis’ introduction to The National Question selected writings of Rosa Luxemburg. Monthly Review Press. 1976 p. 27

(5) For a more detailed critique of Lenin’s fears about “great Russian chauvinism” (especially in relation to Stalin), see Georgia on His Mind, Lenin’s Final Fight against Great Russian Chauvinism in Revolutionary Perspectives 47 or leftcom.org

(6) op.cit p.13

(7) “The Nation State and the Proletariat”. in The National Question selected writings of Rosa Luxemburg.

Monthly Review Press.

(8) “The Nationalities Question in the Russian Revolution” in The National Question selected writings of Rosa Luxemburg. Monthly Review Press.

(9) For a good description of these events see The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution by Harold Isaacs and for a comment on Turkey see Publications from Left Communists in Turkey in Revolutionary Perspectives 48.

(10) L Trotsky Lenin on Imperialism

(11) Ibid

(12) For more on these contradictions ee our pamphlet Trotsky, Trotskyism, Trotskyists. £3 from the CWO address.

(13) See D Broder “The earth is not flat.” thecommune.wordpress.com

(14) Internationalist Communist Tendency previously known as the IBRP.