We remarked above that centrism is not capable of taking a consistent internationalist position because it reflects in one form or another a petty-bourgeois class viewpoint, in particular the pressure of the labor bureaucracy and the labor aristocracy which again adapts to the capitalist class and its state. We demonstrated in previous chapters how this leads various centrists to open rejection or gross distortions of key aspects of the Marxist theory of imperialism – like on the questions of semi-colonial countries, super-exploitation, “sub-imperialism”, labor aristocracy, etc.
Naturally adaption to the petty-bourgeois reformism expresses itself not only in the theoretical and analytical sphere. It has inevitable important consequences for the practical position of centrism in the international class struggle, for the tactics which these organizations advocate. And indeed, as we will show, this happens to be the case.
What nearly all centrists in the imperialist countries have in common is a platonic “Anti-Imperialism”. This means a social-pacifist or even social-imperialist capitulation to the pressure of their imperialist bourgeoisie transmitted via the labour bureaucracy and the left-liberal intelligentsia – covered by a formal opposition to imperialism and wars in words. They adapt to the imperialist pressure of their own bourgeoisie by failing to call and work for the defeat of their own ruling class, by failing to call and work for the victory of the oppressed people in the semi-colonial world against their own imperialism. We will see this if we look at a number of imperialist wars against oppressed people in the last three decades. 1
i) The Malvinas War in 1982
In the spring of 1982 Argentina – ruled by a reactionary military dictatorship at that time – took back the Malvinas Islands which are in front of its coast but occupied by British imperialism. The right-wing Tory government of Margret Thatcher sent the British Navy and troops and – after a 74-day war with more than 900 dead – they re-occupied the islands. Militant – the mother section of the CWI (which at that time also had the leading cadre of the later split IMT, Ted Grant and Alan Woods, in its ranks) – completely capitulated to the imperialist pressure. The CWI supported and still supports until today Britain’s claims on the Malvinas. It not only failed to support Argentina but even failed to call for an end of the war and a withdrawal of the British troops! It slanders opponents of the imperialist war as “the ultra-left sects who, all forlorn, cry ‘Stop the war!’” 2 Instead the centrist CWI called for new elections to bring the Labour Party into power and ... to continue the war against Argentina “on socialist lines”!
“The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines.” 3
While formally opposing the right-wing Thatcher government, the CWI called for alternative measures to fight against semi-colonial Argentina and to support British imperialism’s claims on the Malvinas: “As an alternative to Thatcher's war, we called for international class action against the junta such as trade union blacking of trade.” 4 And this at the same time as the British government was waging an imperialist war against Argentina!
As a justification it referred to the right of national self-determination ... of the 1.800 British colonial settlers living on the Malvinas Islands! The CWI leadership defends their capitulation until today. In his book on the history of Militant, CWI leader Peter Taaffe argues: “The democratic rights of the 1,800 Falklanders, including the right to self-determination, if they so desired, was a key question in the consciousness of British workers. (…) Marxists could not be indifferent to the fate of the Falklanders, particularly given the consciousness of the British working class as it developed over this issue.” 5
In other words, since the CWI leadership believes that British imperialism has succeeded in poising the consciousness of the British working class by colonial, aristocratic prejudices, it considers itself impotent to oppose this but rather joins British imperialism’s “care” for the settlers! Naturally such an ill-concealed support for the logic of colonialism is a shame for any group which calls itself “Marxist”. The CWI propaganda is exactly a reflection of the imperialist propaganda to justify its global interventions by referring to the fate of their settlers. We will later see that the CWI repeats this reactionary logic in its support for Zionism and Israel’s right to exist.
The same supposed backward consciousness of the British working class was utilized by the CWI leadership to justify its refusal to mobilize for an end of the war: “To force the withdrawal of the Task Force would have involved the organization of a general strike, which itself would have posed the question of the coming to power of a socialist government. Yet at the outset of the war, such a demand would have received no support from the British workers. (…) Nor would the call to stop the war or to withdraw the fleet have provided a basis even for a mass campaign of demonstrations, meetings and agitation.” 6
Another argument which the CWI leaders invented was the supposed “imperialist” character of Argentina: “The Argentine regime's invasion was not a war of 'national liberation' against imperialism. On the contrary, in seizing the Falklands/Malvinas the Argentine Junta was pursuing the 'imperialist' aims of Argentine capitalism.” 7 We have dealt with this nonsense already in chapter 9 in this book.
The CWI leaders also tried to justify their support for “our boys” – i.e. the soldiers of the imperialist British army – by referring to them as “workers in uniform”. This was used as an argument to oppose calls that Labor Party Members of Parliament should vote against any war credits since they would leave “our boys” defenseless. 8
All this is a graphic example that centrism shares a common ground with left-reformism and social-imperialism.
The Cliffite SWP/IST did also not side with Argentina against its „own“ British imperialism but took a neutral position in the war. As we have quoted above, its leadership justified such a social-pacifist position in a war against an oppressed country by claiming that Argentina was supposedly a “sub-imperialist” country. 9
Hence for these centrists the war between Britain and Argentina over the Malvinas in 1982 was reactionary on both sides. The SWP leadership stated: "It was neither an anti-colonial struggle nor a struggle between oppressed and oppressor nations. The contending parties were an emergent capitalist country with regional and continental imperialist features, and a longstanding imperialist power which, though in marked decline, is still a powerful force. There was not a progressive and a reactionary camp." 10
The SWP leadership managed to deny any anti-colonial aspect in the Malvinas war on the Argentinean side – despite the fact that the Malvinas are obviously only under British control because of its past as having been the biggest colonial empire for a long time and despite the fact that Argentina is obviously a dependent, super-exploited country! By denying the decisive class difference between semi-colonial Argentina and imperialist Britain, the British centrists manage to justify a neutral position. They are opposed to both sides and compare their stand with the position of socialists in World War One, when they also opposed both the Entente and the Central Powers as imperialist camps:
“We are not pacifists, we detest the Galtieri dictatorship, we dismiss the notion that the Argentinian seizure of the Falklands is progressive on anti-colonialist grounds. Nevertheless we believe that, in a war between Britain and Argentina, the defeat of British imperialism is the lesser evil. The main enemy is at home.
We support anti-colonial movements as movements of struggle by oppressed people against their oppressors and we support them because, as Marx said, “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”
None of this has much relevance to the Falklands. (…) We are irreconcilably hostile to both governments and both regimes. But we are in Britain and not Argentina and therefore the British government, the British state, is the main enemy for us. (…)
Lenin and Trotsky and Rosmer and Connolly and MacLean and Debs all said, with appropriate national variations, exactly the same thing. All opposed their “own” government and its war. And they were absolutely right. Support for “one’s own” ruling class in such a war is tantamount to abandoning the struggle for socialism. For their war is a continuation of their politics by other means. And so, exactly, with the War of Thatcher’s Face.” 11
The IST leadership rejected the applicability of Trotsky’s anti-imperialist method by remarking on his statement on a potential war between a semi-fascist Brazil and a democratic imperialist Britain – which we quoted above – that “Leon Trotsky showed some confusion over these matters.” 12 Unfortunately it is rather the IST, not Trotsky, who is confused on anti-imperialism.
To summarize, the Malvinas War with British imperialism at its centre showed the true social-pacifist or even social-imperialist color of centrist tendencies which have – like the CWI, IMT or IST – their biggest section in Britain. Their policy had nothing to do with the necessary proletarian internationalism which supports the struggles of the oppressed people and which Trotsky considered as the duty of all socialists:
„Imperialism can exist only because there are backward nations on our planet, colonial and semi-colonial countries. The struggle of these oppressed peoples for national unity and independence has a twofold progressive character, since, on the one hand, it prepares favorable conditions of development for their own use, and on the other, it strikes blows at imperialism. Hence, in part, the conclusion that in a war between a civilized imperialist democratic republic and the backward barbarian monarchy of a colonial country, the socialists will be entirely on the side of the oppressed country, notwithstanding its monarchy, and against the oppressor country, notwithstanding its “democracy”.” 13
ii) The Gulf War in 1991
When the imperialists under the leadership of the USA attacked Iraq in January 1991, the Stalinists played a pathetic role. Most Stalinists supported the UN embargo against Iraq imposed in autumn 1990 and which prepared the imperialist onslaught. They followed the leadership of the Stalinist states. The Stalinist bureaucracy of the USSR voted for all UN resolutions concerning the Gulf crisis up to the war in January 1991 including the authorisation of the imperialist armies to attack Iraq. The Chinese Stalinist bureaucracy voted for the imperialist sanctions against Iraq and abstained on the question of war authorisation. The Cuban Stalinist bureaucracy abstained on the question of sanctions (so much for Castro’s “anti-imperialism”!) and voted against war authorisation.
However, the main centrist currents in the West also failed again to defend the semi-colonial country. Of course they opposed the war – as nearly all pacifists did too. Of course, they went not so far as the Stalinists did and therefore did not support the imperialist sanctions. But they refused to take a side in the war between the biggest powers on earth and a single classic semi-colonial country.
The CWI leadership justified their abstentionist position by arguing that Saddam Hussein’s foreign policy was “aggressive”, “expansionist” or even “imperialist” too. For some time they even went so far to claim that Iraq was a “regional imperialist powers” as we have shown in the quote above. 14
The SWP/IST mentioned a few times before the war started, that they “would be for an American defeat and therefore an Iraqi victory“. However, when the war actually started, this pledge was forgotten and the SWP failed to publicly stand for the imperialists defeat by the Iraqi forces. 15
This was obviously the result of the pressure from the left-liberal pacifists and the reformists. Hence the SWP in Britain even refused to fight for the slogan “Troops Out of the Gulf” to become part of the official platform of the “Committee to Stop War in the Gulf” – the main anti-war alliance. They opposed this because it would have endangered their alliance with petty-bourgeois pacifists and labor bureaucrats. They also helped to make sure that no one could speak in defense of Iraq from the platform at the demonstrations and rallies – because this would have shocked the petty-bourgeois allies in the anti-war movement. 16
Trotsky once characterised this fear to break with the bureaucracy and to make unprincipled concessions in order to avoid such a rupture as an essential feature of centrism:
“The left centrists, who are in turn distinguished by a great number of shadings (SAP in Germany, OSP in Holland, ILP in England, the Zyromsky and Marceau Pivert groups in France and others) arrive in words at the renunciation of the defence of the fatherland. But from this bare renunciation they do not draw the necessary practical conclusions. The greater half of their internationalism, if not nine-tenths of it, bears a platonic character. They fear to break away from the right centrists; in the name of the struggle with “sectarianism,” they carry on a struggle against Marxism, refuse to fight for a revolutionary International and continue to remain in the Second International, at the head of which stands the king’s footman, Vandervelde. Expressing at certain moments the leftward shift of the masses, in the final analysis the centrists put a brake upon the revolutionary regrouping within the proletariat and consequently also upon the struggle against war.
In its very essence, centrism means half-heartedness and vacillation. But the problem of war is least of all favourable for the policy of vacillation. For the masses, centrism is always only a short transition stage. The growing danger of war will make for ever-sharper differentiation within the centrist groupings that now dominate the workers’ movement. The proletarian vanguard will be the better armed for the struggle against war the sooner and more fully it will free its mind from the web of centrism. A necessary condition for success on this road is to pose clearly and irreconcilably all questions connected with war.” 17
iii) The imperialist War on Terror since 2001
When the imperialist “war on terror” – initiated by the US-administration of George Bush – started, it provoked a world-wide mass movement. Already the imperialist USA/EU attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 met mass opposition. This was however dwarfed by the huge movement which emerged against the threat of the war against Iraq. At its highpoint, 15-20 million people marched on 15th February 2003. Later the Zionist Apartheid state Israel, which already faced the second Intifada beginning in 2000, launched several wars – first against Hezbollah in Lebanon and later twice against Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009 and in November 2012. And in January 2013, French imperialism – with support by the EU and the USA – invaded Mali in the name of “War on Terror”.
The Stalinist and ex-Stalinist parties in Europe – most of them are united in the European Left Party (ELP) – played a double role. On one hand they participated in the anti-war movement in order to raise their profile and also to spread pacifist ideas and to contain anti-imperialist voices. However, while many rank and file members of these parties honestly participated in these anti-war activities, the leaders of the Communist Parties had a different, cynical calculation. For them anti-war activities were manoeuvres to boost their weight in the political establishment. Where they could enter the capitalist government, they became active supporters of the imperialist war on terror.
For example the Parti Communiste Français (Communist Party of France, PCF) was part of the Jospin government 1997-2002 which actively participated in the NATO wars against Serbia in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001. In Italy the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista of Fausto Bertinotti too joined the neoliberal government of Prodi and supported the Italian participation in the imperialist occupation of Afghanistan. Such is the “principled opposition” of the “Communist” Parties against imperialist wars and occupations. It is only logical that they collaborated and praised the Iraqi Communist Party, which – as we already said – supported the US occupation of Iraq.
Faced with the French imperialist intervention in Mali since 10.1.2013 the PCF demonstrates again its social-imperialism. The PCF – a constituent party of the reformist European Left Party as well as of the Front de Gauche in France – expressed in their public statements that they “share the goals of the Mali government to defeat the Jihadist terrorists in the North”. These social-democratised ex-Stalinists are cynically worried that the French intervention “might risk a war”, so they “request that the French authorities respond to questions posed by heavy military intervention”. 18 In other words, they are true social-imperialists which implicitly support the war goals of its ruling class. The Front de Gauche of Jean-Luc Mélenchon goes even further and explicitly supports the war!
Another example of the social-imperialist policy of the European Left Party is their position on the Zionist Apartheid state Israel. In their official statements they naturally oppose war and occupation. But they support – in classic Stalinist tradition – the existence of the colonial settler state Israel and endorse a Palestinian state only in the West Bank and Gaza alongside the much more powerful and richer Israel. Indeed leading figures like Gregor Gysi, the chairman of the German LINKE parliamentary group, proudly refer to the fact that the Stalinist Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia were the first states to recognize Israel during its war of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians in 1948 – the an-Nakba as the Arabs call it – and to deliver substantial military aid. 19
The ELP’s recognition of Apartheid state Israel’s “right to exist” leads it to a refusal to support the Palestinian resistance. 20 It rather takes a neutral position in the decades-long struggle between the imperialist Goliath and the colonial David – a shameful stand for a so-called “Left Party”!
Its pro-Israeli social-imperialist position makes it only natural that it looks to the imperialist Great powers and their United Nations talking shop to solve the “conflicts in the Middle East”. This could be seen, for example, in various statements that the ELP leadership published during the Gaza war in 2008/09:
“Fully committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the EL calls upon the UN Security Council to adopt concrete measures to end the massacre, lift the blockade, and promote peace on the basis of the UN resolutions.” 21
“We call the European governments to do its utmost to strive for the immediate interference of the UN to stop the war. The cornerstones for a political solution and the necessary political negotiations, the conditions for such talks – all these aspects are know for a long time –and therefore the EL is demanding from the EU and the EU-countries’ governments to play finally an active role in this direction - as voted by large majority in the European Parliament several times.” 22
Similarly, the ELP leadership called during and after the Lebanon war – in which it naturally took a neutral position instead of siding with Hezbollah – repeatedly for the creation of an “UN-controlled buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon” and an “international peace-keeping force” of the UN. 23
While the ELP condemns the Israeli wars, it is also unambiguously in solidarity with the Zionist Apartheid state itself. Indeed important parties like the German LINKE repeatedly state that they are in “Solidarity with Israel”. Gregor Gysi stated this repeatedly and even labeled „the solidarity with Israel as a well-founded moral element for the German reason of state”. 24
Leading figures of the ELP like Petra Pau, a leader of the German LINKE and vice-president of the German parliament, and Walter Baier, the Coordinator of the network transform! Europe – the Think Tank of the European Left Party – are supporters of the notorious campaign “Stop the Bomb”. This is an aggressive Zionist campaign which demands that the Great Powers pressurize and isolate Iran and includes proponents of a nuclear pre-emptive strike against Iran. 25 This is only a slightly hidden campaign for an imperialist interference and war and it is no accident that it is also supported by famous right-wing extremists like the Dutch politician Leon de Winter. 26
During the Gaza war in 2008/09, the chairman of the LINKE in Berlin, Klaus Lederer, joined a demonstration with the slogan „Support Israel - Operation Cast-Lead“ and was – alongside with politicians from the other bourgeois parties – one of the main speakers.
The German LINKE even goes so far as to denounce support for a one-state in Palestine, calls to boycott Israeli commodities or the participation in Gaza solidarity convoys and associates them with “Anti-Semitism”. It also declares support for such positions as incompatible with membership in the parliamentary group! 27 These positions were adopted in 2011 unanimously by the leadership, respectively the parliamentary group, of the LINKE!
As a particular disgusting form of cynicism, the ELP leaders present their pro-Zionism as a form of struggle against Anti-Semitism. It goes without saying that every serious progressive organization must make not the slightest concession to Anti-Semitism and fight against any such sentiments. That’s why we always say that we fight against Zionism and the Apartheid state Israel, not against the Jewish people in Israel. However, confusing Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism is nothing but a capitulation to imperialism and Zionism.
What is the reason for this reactionary position of the LINKE which is even more right-wing then that of other parties in the ELP (of which some deputies participated in the Gaza solidarity convoys)? The reason is simply that German imperialism has a very close relationship with Israel. It is impossible for a party to become part of a government without an unambiguously pro-Israel position. Since joining a coalition government is the strategic goal of the LINKE, they must prove to the other parties that they are prepared to sacrifice international solidarity with the Palestinian people. Decisions like those mentioned above are steps in this direction. There is no doubt that the LINKE will drop much more formal internationalist positions if the time comes to achieve some posts in a government.
So, we see with the examples of Germany, France and Italy that the ex-Stalinists of the ELP are against wars but support them if that is the price for a place in the capitalist government.
The IST’s specific Form of Opportunism
Given the fact that in opposite to the Malvinas War, a mass movement against the Iraq war existed in Britain, it was easier for the British-centred centrist Internationals to talk more leftist against imperialism and war. However, again, the centrists failed to take a principled anti-imperialist stand. The SWP certainly was an important force in organising the “Stop the War” coalition and mobilising mass demonstrations. But while they adapted opportunistically to Muslim business leaders, they failed to openly call for the defeat of the imperialist forces and the military victory of the Afghan forces, which were under the leadership of the Taliban.
They follow the same policy of platonic anti-imperialism in Mali in 2013: Similar to the centrist French New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), they oppose the French intervention but fail to call for their defeat and for the military victory of the Islamist rebels. 28
Surely, the SWP/IST sometimes gave/gives platonic statements of support for the defence of Afghanistan or Iraq against the imperialist occupation in their press. This certainly makes them more left-wing than the open social-pacifists like the CWI, IMT or the British Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL). However, the IST’s support for the resistance of the Afghan and Iraqi people, respectively, does not go beyond this or that side-note in an article and doesn’t appear in the headlines, or the thousands of posters it regularly distributes at demonstrations, etc. Worse, they would even oppose it to be raised in motions at conferences of the Stop the War Coalition. They even opposed slogans like “Troops Out Now” to become part of the platform of the Coalition. In short, their opposition against the war was always marked by a gross opportunism, by political adaption towards the labour bureaucracy, left liberal sectors of the bourgeoisie and – in Britain – the formation of the popular-frontist political party RESPECT together with Muslim business men.
The SWP’s opportunist orientation towards these layers was expressed in encoded form in a statement of the then-SWP leader John Rees: “The Stop the War Coalition committed itself to the central issue of opposing the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and, by extension, the ‘war on terror’ of which they were a part. … Around these aims traditional peace campaigners, Labour, Liberal and Green party members, trade unionists, Muslims, socialists, anti-globalisation activists and many others with no previous organisational affiliations could all agree to organise. Attempts to narrow the campaign so that it adopted specifically anti-imperialist objectives, thus potentially excluding pacifists or those simply opposed to this war for particular reasons or, most importantly, those just coming into the movement who had not had the opportunity to become anti-imperialists on principle were rejected.” 29
Of course it is correct to organize united front campaigns on a limited platform. We have always rejected criticism of ultra-leftists who demand to organize a broad united front on a full anti-imperialist platform including the call for defeat for imperialism. However as principled it is to collaborate in such a united front, it is the duty of Marxists to openly argue in their agitation and propaganda for revolutionary positions – including the defeat of imperialism and the support for the anti-colonial resistance – and to fight for the right to have speakers, etc. for the consistent anti-imperialist viewpoints on united front demonstrations.
The SWP leaders have a different approach. Their appetite to find allies amongst the labour bureaucracy and the petty-bourgeoisie led them even so far to give Charles Kennedy, the leader of the open bourgeois Liberal Democratic party (today the coalition partner of the Tories!) a platform at the biggest anti-war demonstration on 15th February 2003. Kennedy of course became an open supporter of the imperialist war only a few weeks later!
Another example of the SWP’s gross opportunism in practice is their role in a shameful incident at the European Social Forum in October 2004. The organizers – including the SWP – invited Sobhi Al-Mashadani, the general secretary of the Iraq Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) and a member of the Iraqi Communist Party to speak at a major session during the ESF. His party supported the US occupation of Iraq and was part of the colonial puppet government. Mashadani himself argued a few weeks before in favor of continuing the imperialist occupation and against calls for withdrawal. His presence on the platform was widely condemned – including by George Galloway – and together with a number of Iraqi activists we protested at the beginning of the planned debate against the presence of this supporter of imperialist occupation on the platform. In the end Mashadani left without a speech, but we were strongly denounced for our protest by the SWP leaders who feared for their cozy relations with the bureaucrats.
How to fight for anti-imperialist Position and how not to fight for it
Let us give a concrete example for the contrast between the Marxist and the opportunist approach to the united front policy in the struggle against the imperialist war. In 2006 we initiated in Austria a united front to protest the visit of the then US president Bush in Vienna on 21st June. Our youth organisation was central in organizing a school student strike in which 2,000 school students participated. In the evening of the same day about 25,000 people marched through the city. 30
Our comrades, who spoke from the platform both during the school student strike and at the demonstration in the evening – among them today RCIT leader Nina Gunić – openly called for the defeat of US imperialism and Israel, for the victory of the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian Intifada and for international working class solidarity. During the mobilization campaign, which lasted several months, the united front split into two alliances. One was called BUSH GO HOME, in which our organization participated together with a number of other left-wing and migrant groups and of which the author of this book was a spokesperson. The other was called STOP BUSH and was centred around the social democratic youth organization and the Communist Party. The issue of the split was that the reformists categorically opposed to allow speakers which stood for a consistent anti-imperialist viewpoint. They therefore categorically opposed that al-Kalemji, a spokesperson of the Iraqi Resistance, or myself, Michael Pröbsting, could speak from the platform at the demonstration in the evening. In the end we demonstrated together but had separate rallies at the beginning and the end of the demonstration, so that thousands of people could hear the voices of the anti-imperialists at our rallies. 31
Characteristically, the Austrian section of the IST joined the alliance of the social democratic youth and supported their refusal to allow anti-imperialist speakers. Formally this seemed to be contradictory: In their paper the Cliffites spoke positively about the Iraqi resistance but at the same time they supported the reformist’s rejection to have a speaker from the same Iraqi resistance at a demonstration. But this is a contradiction only on the surface. The IST’s anti-imperialist principles are subordinated to their drive to find allies amongst the labour bureaucracy and the left liberal intelligentsia. If they can find such allies – at least temporarily – they are prepared to sell all principles of the working class program.
In Britain this opportunism led to the consequences that the SWP leaders avoided consistent anti-imperialist slogans from the platform at demonstrations as well as practical actions which would enrage their allies in the labour bureaucracy and the Muslim community leaders. They therefore let the situation slip in February/March 2003 when the mass protest could have been transformed into mass resistance against the imperialist war. Any proposals for strikes against the war or the building of action councils would have endangered their bureaucratic friendships with their reformist allies. 32
Instead of a principled united front with reformists and Muslim community leaders, the SWP/IST leadership preferred to build the petty-bourgeois, popular-frontist party RESPECT together with the former Labour MP George Galloway and Muslim business men and on the basis of a reformist program. 33
IST policy: Give us some Posts and we stop fighting for our Principles
We said before that the IST’s anti-imperialist principles are subordinated to their drive to find allies amongst the labour bureaucracy and the left liberal intelligentsia. Let us give another example for this. In Germany the IST has been part of the LINKE – the German section of the European Left Party – for many years. They have a number of positions in regional, the central leadership and the parliamentary apparatus as well as two deputies in the federal parliament – Christine Buchholz and Nicole Gohlke. As we reported above the LINKE leadership stated explicitly their solidarity with Israel and prohibited its functionaries support for a one-state in Palestine, calls to boycott Israeli commodities or the participation in Gaza solidarity convoys. As we also reported these decisions were adopted unanimously.
The question arises how such unanimity is possible since a number of IST members are in the leadership and the parliamentary group of this party. The reason is simply that the German IST leaders don’t dare to vote against these reactionary pro-Zionist resolutions! Why don’t they dare? Because it would mean, most likely, the immediate end of their toleration in the top ranks of the party by the reformist bureaucracy. This is what they – in encoded words – admit themselves publicly.
In a statement, the two German IST deputies Nicole Gohlke und Christine Buchholz wrote:
“The decision (in the parliamentary group, MP) was taken unanimously. However, this ‘unanimity’ was achieved because approval for this was made indirectly a question of survival. Against this background have those deputies, who initially announced that they would vote against the resolution, have acted differently: some have left the room and therefore did not take part in the vote, others were present but did not participate in the vote and other voted reluctantly for the resolution. We have decided to leave the room. (…) Like many others in the parliamentary group we found ourselves in a tactical and political dilemma: should we have prevented a politically wrong decision and risk the split of the parliamentary group around a question, on which the left in Germany acts out of the defensive and which has become one of the most important points of attack by the bourgeois media and the competing parties? For us, it continues to be true, that the LINKE is the only party, which consistently opposes capitalism and war and therefore plays an internationally unique role. The price, to ruin this project, was too high.“ 34
This letter is pathetic and unmasking in several ways. First, the IST authors claim that prevention of this pro-Zionist resolution would have “risked the split of the parliamentary group”. If this is true it shows that the IST prefers keeping unity with the reformist bureaucrats compared with a vote against a pro-Zionist denunciation of the Palestinian liberation struggle. In fact, as a report based on inside information reveals, the pro-Zionist leadership had a clear majority for their resolution anyway, but there were about 15 (out of 76) deputies, who didn’t want to vote for the resolution. The pro-Zionist leadership threatened to resign from its post and to leave the parliamentary group if the vote was not unanimous. 35 As a result every single oppositional LINKE deputy caved in and either left the room or didn’t vote at all. They – including the IST deputies – couldn’t bear the responsibility of having “pushed” the pro-Zionist leadership into resignation! The IST deputies proved their loyalty to party bureaucracy and subordinated to this pro-Zionist decision: since then they haven’t expressed in public their support for a one-state solution