Reply to the Spartacists

 

By Yossi Schwartz and Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 18 December 2024, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

The International Communist League (ICL, also known as the “Spartacists”) has recently published a critique of our positions on Israel and the Palestinian liberation struggle in the context of the ongoing Gaza War. This document deals with fundamental issues of the Marxist strategy and tactic in one of the most important struggles in the current period. ^[1]

 

Their critique contains some very unjustified accusations (and also accuses us of doing so). However, we see no purpose in quibbling over who made “demagogic accusations” against whom but rather want to focus on the programmatic essence of the debate.

 

The Spartacists, an organization which has existed for more than six decades, come from a tradition which made important concessions to Zionism. In the last 2-3 years, however, it has undergone a process of critical reappraisal of its tradition and made a number of fundamental corrections. This change of course had also consequences for its program on the anti-imperialist struggle. As a result, it also corrected and improved its position on Palestine and refutes now – in their own words – the “stained legacy of our [the ICL’s, Ed.] own tendency on the question of Palestine“ which it characterizes as a “legacy of capitulation to Zionism.” [2]

 

Naturally, we welcome such corrections. However, as the ICL critique shows, this turnaround is far from complete and important remnants of their traditional approach remain.

 

Their document is divided into three chapters and our reply will follow this schema. Before doing so, we shall briefly summarise our program for which we fight in the pro-Palestine solidarity movement.

 

 

 

A brief summary of our program for Palestinian liberation

 

 

 

The Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), respectively its section in Occupied Palestine / Israel (the Internationalist Socialist League), have a long-standing record of supporting the Palestinian liberation struggle. Hence, we always side with the resistance forces in Palestine (and other countries) against the Zionist monster. At the same time, we don’t lend political support for Hamas and other petty-bourgeois nationalist or Islamist organisations. This is particularly true in the case of Hezbollah whose leadership has played a shameful role in supporting the reactionary tyranny of Assad in Syria and the capitalist Mullah dictatorship in Iran. However, in any military confrontation with Israel – an imperialist Apartheid and settler state – we side with the Arab and Muslim countries (including Iran and Türkiye) which are all capitalist semi-colonies. In such struggle against Zionism and imperialist Great Powers, the working class must organise independently from (petty)bourgeois nationalist or Islamist forces.

 

We call workers and popular organisations around the globe to support the Palestinian liberation struggle. Global activities to boycott the Zionist state must be conducted by any means necessary – from blocking any arms deliveries, economic and financial boycott to the rupture of any ties of universities with Israel. Likewise, the struggle against any pro-Zionist leaders within the workers movement is of crucial importance – particularly in Europe and the U.S. In Arab countries, the masses need to enforce an end of any attempt for “normalization” with the Zionist monster and push their governments to help the brothers and sisters with aid and arms.

 

The RCIT states that the only way forward is the revolutionary destruction of the Israeli Apartheid state and the creation of a free and red Palestine from the River to the Sea. Such a secular and democratic Palestinian state would enable all refugees to return to their homes. At the same time, it would guarantee equal cultural and religious rights for all citizens (including the Jewish minority). It should be a workers and fellahin republic as part of a socialist federation of the Middle East.

 

We advocate a program of permanent revolution in Arab countries so that the workers and poor peasants overthrow the (semi-)dictatorial regimes and take power in their own hands, i.e. a government based on popular councils and militias which opens the road to socialism. As part of a revolutionary upheaval of the Arab masses or as result of severe military defeats of Israel, it will be possible to break a progressive section of the Israeli-Jewish workers and youth away from Zionism.

 

It is such a program of permanent revolution on which a revolutionary party has to be built in the region.

 

Despite the small size of our forces, the struggle against the Zionist state for us has never been only a propagandistic task but also a very practical issue. This includes agitating and organizing for all kind of solidarity activities which, naturally, also brings us regularly in conflict with the bourgeois state.

 

Comrade Yossi Schwartz, an Anti-Zionist Jew in Israel for six decades, was three times arrested and has practically supported the Palestinian liberation struggle by various means. He also acted as the legal representative of the PLO in Canada in the 1980s (until he resigned in protest against the policy which resulted in the Oslo deal). Another young Jewish comrade spent some time in prison because he refused to serve in the Israeli occupation army.

 

In Argentina, leading comrades also faced repression because of their pro-Palestine activities. Our comrade Juan Carlos Beica was sentenced at a much-publicized trial but was acquitted in an appeal hearing because of a broad solidarity campaign by left-wing and workers organisations. Likewise, comrade Damián Quevedo was also sentenced because of anti-Zionist activities and spent three months in prison.

 

Michael Pröbsting, a regular speaker at Gaza demonstrations, had two trials in 2024 because of his public support for the armed resistance of the Palestinian people which ended with a guilty verdict and a suspended prison sentence of six months. Already in 2006, he was sentenced by a court for leading a group of activists which disrupted a public meeting of Zionist forces and brought it to a close.

 

 

 

On the aristocratic character of the Israeli Working Class

 

 

 

The ICL comrades criticize our analysis of the aristocratic character of the Israeli working class. In a recently published document, we explained – based on a concrete analysis of the living conditions of the Israeli and the Palestinian proletariat and their respective relationship with the Zionist state – that “the Israeli working class has an aristocratic character as it is a settler working class which only exists because of the expulsion and oppression of the Palestinian people.” [3]

 

In response to our analysis, the Spartacists write:

 

“Despite being in a privileged position, Jewish Israeli workers endure harsh living conditions, rampant inequalities and forced military service in the name of a theocratic and corrupt regime which promises only war with the entire region as a pawn for U.S. imperialism. Despite the privileged position Israeli workers might enjoy in comparison to Palestinians, the material interests of Israeli workers point toward ending Palestinian oppression because, in the end, it drives down their living conditions, degrades every aspect of their lives and threatens their very survival in the region.”

 

“The problem with this perspective is that it negates the subjective factor and places all its hopes entirely on external intervention. It is certainly correct that a deep social and political crisis will be necessary for large layers of Israeli workers to break from Zionism. However, it also requires a revolutionary party, rooted in the Israeli workers movement as well as in the army, that fights for such an outcome. Otherwise, the most likely reaction of the Israeli population confronted with an existential military threat would be a fight to the death under the banner of Zionism, or mass flight.”

 

In conclusion, they claim that the RCIT would “essentially reject the need to build a revolutionary working-class party in Israel and, instead, put forward that the tasks of communists consist of waiting for the Arab revolution.”

 

The criticism of the Spartacists is based on a mixture of economist “optimism” and undialectical idealism. First, it is not clear if they accept our thesis of the aristocratic character of the Israeli working class or not. They seem to accept that their position is privileged in comparison to Palestinians (which, of course, is pretty difficult to deny). However, the Israeli working class is also privileged in comparison to the proletariat in the whole Middle East. Furthermore, its privileges are based on the settler nature of the Zionist state. Without the expulsion of the native Palestinian population, there would be no Israeli working class. Without the exceptional position of Israel as an outpost of (Western) imperialism in the Middle East, there would be no such huge economic and military support for Israel by the U.S. and Western Europe. Without all this, their living conditions would be similar to the Arabs. Does the ICL agree on this?

 

Secondly, it is of course true that the economic contradictions of capitalism exist in Israel as they do exist in all other countries in the world. However, because of the specific settler nature of Israel, the inner-Israeli class contradictions are overlaid by and subordinated to the national question. The ICL comrades seem to imagine that the acceleration of economic contradictions between Israeli capitalists and workers would somehow push the latter towards opposition against Zionism and solidarity with the Palestinian workers. This is, however, an economistic “optimist” illusion. The economic class struggle in itself does not raise the political class consciousness – as Marxists in the U.S. know from long experience.

 

We are fully aware of the fact that numerous contradictions exist within the Israeli society – not only between workers and capitalists but also between Ashkenazim vs Sephardi, liberals vs. right-wing settlers, Haredi Jews vs the rest, etc. But despite all these conflicts, the Jewish society in Palestine has been united against the Arabs for a whole century! All the conflicting parties agree on one taboo – support for Zionism. This is the reason why you can have all these protests and internal conflicts in the midst of a major war without harming Israel’s reactionary war drive. The reason for this is that there is a widespread consensus that Israel must continue to oppress the Palestinians and to threaten the whole region. This is a result of the settler nature of this state.

 

Of course, this does not mean that we are indifferent towards such internal contradictions in the Israeli society. We defend the Haredim against the attempts to force them to join the army, we support workers fighting wage cuts, etc. Despite our very limited forces, our comrades in Occupied Palestine collaborate with Israeli activists – even if they are left Zionists – in concrete protest initiatives. A few months ago, for example, Yossi Schwartz jointly published a widespread statement with Adam Keller (the leader of the pacifist movement Gush Shalom) calling international trade unions to boycott arms deliveries to Israel. ^[4] Nevertheless, we are aware of the limited potential of these internal contradictions, at least for now, within the Israeli society.

 

The ICL comrades refer to a Trotsky quote – his “Letter to South African Revolutionaries” – which they believe would support their argument. Here is the full quote:

 

“The proletariat of the country consists of backward black pariahs and a privileged, arrogant caste of whites. In this lies the greatest difficulty of the whole situation. As the theses correctly state, the economic convulsions of rotting capitalism must strongly shake the old barriers and facilitate the work of revolutionary coalescence. In any case, the worst crime on the part of revolutionaries would be to give the smallest concessions to the privileges and prejudices of the whites. Whoever gives his little finger to the devil of chauvinism is lost. The revolutionary party must put before every white worker the following alternative: either with British imperialism and with the white bourgeoisie of South Africa or with the black workers and peasants against the white feudalists and slave owners and their agents in the ranks of the working class.” [5]

 

The ICL comrades conclude from this quote: “This also applies to Israel, where communists, while frontally opposing all shades of Zionism, must put to the Israeli workers a similar sharp alternative: either with the Zionist rulers, imperialism and its agents in the working class, or with the Arab masses. But without a revolutionary party in Israel, this alternative cannot and will not be posed to Israeli workers.”

 

But, in fact, Trotsky’s quote rather supports our argument. Guess what is the reaction of most Israeli workers if you “put before them the following alternative: either with Zionism and with the Israeli bourgeoisie or with the Palestinian workers and peasants against the Israeli oppressors and their agents in the ranks of the working class.”?! They remain part of the Zionist camp as long as fundamental factors do not provide the objective basis for a rupture. This is proven by the fact that despite all the internal divisions and conflicts, Histradut – the Israeli “trade union” -, all Israeli parties and most protestors against Netanyahu are openly pro-Zionist.

 

It seems to us that the ICL comrades base their argument on an idealistic logic. According to them, the problem can be mainly reduced to the lack of a revolutionary party. It would just require a revolutionary party to break the Israeli workers away from Zionism. This is utter nonsense. The working class fights against capitalists numerous times because their fundamental class interests push them to confront the bosses. They don’t need a revolutionary party as a precondition to fight against the capitalists. (They need such a party in order to fight on the basis of the correct strategy leading them to the revolutionary overthrow – but this is another issue.) The class struggle is objectively based on the class contradictions. It is the same with national struggles. Oppressed nations don’t need a revolutionary party as a precondition to fight against the oppressors.

 

So, the ICL’s argument that Israeli workers don’t break with Zionism since ¾ of a century just because a revolutionary party is lacking is wrong. It ignores the objective basis of the settler state and the aristocratic character of the Israeli working class. It lacks a materialist explanation for a political consciousness of classes. Likewise, to make an analogy, there is an objective basis for the limitations of the political consciousness of the petty bourgeoisie. The Spartacists might object that the Israeli working class is a different class. This is true to a certain degree. However, its exceptional aristocratic and settler nature gives the Israeli working class an exceptional petty-bourgeois character.

 

The ICL comrades object that Lenin and Trotsky were always in favour of need for an orientation toward the workers of the oppressor nation. “Comrades of the RCIT, like in Yossi’s 7 October piece, often draw parallels between the Israelis and the pieds noirs in colonial Algeria, the whites in apartheid South Africa and the Protestants in Ireland. There are indeed certain similarities, but invoking these examples does not argue against the need for an orientation toward the workers of the oppressor nation. Whether it is Israel, Ireland, South Africa or colonial Algeria, an important part of any revolutionary strategy was and is to win over the greatest possible numbers of workers from the oppressor nation to the liberation of the oppressed. Lenin and Trotsky always hammered on the need for communists to conduct systematic work in the proletariat as well as the army of the oppressor nation to fight for unity with the workers in oppressed nations, not in the manner of reformists or centrists adapting to social-chauvinism, but as revolutionaries seeking to break workers from their pro-imperialist leaders. In fact, the failure of nationalists to do this is one way in which they undermine the liberation struggle.”

 

The problem with this argument is, first, that the Marxist classics certainly did not priorities work amongst the proletariat of the oppressor nation relative to work amongst the proletariat of the oppressed nation. Secondly, one has to differentiate between the working class of a settler state and the working class of a “normal” oppressor nation. Of course, the ruling nationality of a settler state is also an oppressor nation but only very few oppressor nations run a settler state. By definition, a settler state is based on the expulsion of the native population and its permanent military suppression – as it has been the case in Algeria, South Africa, and Palestine. It can not be otherwise. This ties the working class of such a settler state are much closer to the ruling class than it is the case in other oppressor nations.

 

One could object that the U.S., Australia or New Zealand were, historically, also settler states. This is, of course, true but these were settler states created in the period of ascending capitalism – long before the epoch of imperialism. Furthermore, these states (unfortunately) succeeded in annihilating more or less the native population. Neither one nor the other is the case in Palestine.

 

Likewise, the ICL ignores the historical experience of Marxists with a settler working class in other countries like in Algeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, or Kenya. Here too one could see that over a period of many decades it proved hardly possible to integrate sizeable sectors of the white settler working class into the struggle of the Arab res. Black masses. If the problem would have been only the lack of revolutionary leadership, one wonders why it has been possible to mobilize the Arab res. Black masses without such leadership. Obviously, there has to be a materialist explanation for this based on the different character of the respective proletariat and their relationship to the settler state.

 

Does from this follow that one should not try to win Israeli workers? Of course not. But this is not the primary task. The key layer to build a revolutionary party in Occupied Palestine, i.e. in Israel, is the Palestinian proletariat and not the privileged Jewish working class. Likewise, it is far more important to build links and to support the struggle of the Arab masses than that of Israeli-Jewish workers.

 

 

 

On the Israeli “Nation”

 

 

 

The national question is a class question. To reach the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is necessary to have the right program, organization and practice for the national question. In an article from 1923, Trotsky said:

 

"And just now, when the Party as a whole is beginning to present the question in this way – and it cannot be presented in any other way – you (and unfortunately not you alone) declare with naive doctrinairism that the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is more important than the national question. Yet it is precisely for the sake of the dictatorship of the proletariat that we are now in practice going more deeply (and shall in the future go still more deeply) into the national question. What is the meaning of the contrast that you make? Only people who do not understand the significance of National Factors in State and Party can present the question in this way. And, in any case, all those who adopt a nihilistic or contemptuous attitude to the national question will eagerly seize upon such a formulation as yours. To turn one’s back on the demands and interests of the formerly oppressed small nationalities, especially those which are backward and consist mainly of peasants, is a very simple and perfectly easy thing to do, especially if this sort of lazy indifference can be covered up with general phrases about internationalism, about the dictatorship of the Communist Party being more important than any and every national question.“ [6]

 

What is a nation? If we are not wrong, the ICL uses Stalin's definition: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed based on a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." [7] However, the problem with Stalin's definition of a nation is that it fits most European nations but not always when it comes to what Lenin called small nations in the colonial world.

 

Before dealing with whether the Israelis are a nation and have the right to a separate state, let us examine whether the South African Boers are a nation and whether they have a right to a state. Trotsky wrote on this question:

 

“The overthrow of the hegemony of British imperialism in South Africa can come about as a result from a military defeat of Great Britain and the disintegration of the empire. In this case, the South African whites could still, for a certain period – hardly a considerable one – retain their domination over the blacks.

 

Another possibility, which in practice could be connected with the first, is a revolution in Great Britain and her possessions. Three-quarters of the population of South Africa (almost six million of the almost eight million total) is composed of non-Europeans. A victorious revolution is unthinkable without the awakening of the native masses. In its turn, that will give them what they are so lacking today – confidence in their strength, a heightened personal consciousness, a cultural growth.

 

Under these conditions, the South African Republic will emerge first of all as a “black” republic; this does not exclude, of course, either full equality for the whites or brotherly relations between the two races – depending mainly on the conduct of the whites. But it is entirely obvious that the predominant majority of the population, liberated from slavish dependence, will put a certain imprint on the state." [8]

 

If we schematically apply Stalin's definition, the whites (Boers and English) are a nation and have the right to their state, or at least to a bi-national state, but Trotsky took a different line of a black republic with a white minority.

 

But in South Africa, the blacks were the majority, and in Israel, the Palestinians are a minority, one may argue. But this is a reformist concept as the Palestinians, including the refugees, are the majority. The whites in South Africa are settler colonialists, and so are the Israeli Jews.

 

Let us turn to the question: Are the Israelis a nation with the right of a separate state?

 

The ICL wrote: "The real question is for the Palestinians to exercise their right of self-determination in a way compatible with the continued existence of a Jewish nation in the Near East. This is possible only in the form of a unified, bi-national state based on resolving the historical injustice committed against the Palestinians and where both nations enjoy full democratic rights in regard to language, culture, and religion.

 

The self-determination principle is territorial, not cultural, giving every nation the right to separate and establish its own state, even in a binational state. The ICL may not know it, but Jabotinsky – the founder of Revisionist Zionism and the extreme right-wing terrorist organization Irgun – declared, in his 1926 article “On the Land of Israel as a 'Binational' State,” that the law of the future Jewish state “must guarantee national equality." That is, it must grant collective national rights to the minority.

 

Several prominent Israelis—including a former Education Minister, a former Knesset Member, a celebrated playwright, and several Arab citizens—requested that the State recognize a new category of nationality: "Israeli". This category would include all Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, rather than using the current ethnic-religious classification.

 

In a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court, they argued that the current categorization, which focuses on ethnic-religious origin, distinguishes between Arab and Jewish citizens and thereby contributes to discrimination and to infringement of the rights of Israel's Arab citizens. In other words, to protect Arab civil rights, the petitioners want to create a new collective "Israeli" nationality to parallel the collective "Israeli" citizenship.

 

"In an October 2013 decision, the Israeli Supreme Court denied the request to recognize "Israeli" as a nationality and gave reasons for supporting a specific "Jewish" nationality over a general "Israeli" nationality. The nationality of Jewish citizens of Israel were to be classified as "Israeli," the implication would be that Judaism is not a nationality for them but is solely a religion. This idea is antithetical to the fundamental doctrine of Zionism and its main thinkers, from Herzl to Ben-Gurion, who saw Zionism as the national movement of the Jewish people. If the nationality of Jewish Israelis is defined as "Israeli" rather than "Jewish," then the "national" bond we believe binds together Jews in Israel and Jews in the Diaspora will be severed. [9]

 

In other words, according to the Supreme Court of Israel, Israel is not an Israeli state but the state of all the Jews in the world. This, of course, is a racist nonsense as Leninists we understand that since a nation is territorial, there cannot be a world Jewish nation. The nationality of American Jews is American. To claim the American Jews are not American but belong to Israel is leading to Anti-Semitism. This definition of a Jewish state is the product of the Zionist apartheid of the settler European colonialists. As long as the Israelis will remain Zionists, they will define their nationality as Israeli part of the "world Jewish nation." As an oppressive group of settler colonialists, the solution is the one Trotsky supported in South Africa. The Palestinians, including the refugees, are the oppressed majority. Israeli Jews who would like to live in this country will live in a Palestinian worker's state from the river to the sea as a minority with civil rights.

 

The ICL writes: “Yossi Schwartz’s 7 October piece repeats essentially a similar line. The problem with this perspective is that it negates the subjective factor and places all its hopes entirely on external intervention. It is undoubtedly correct that a deep social and political crisis will be necessary for large layers of Israeli workers to break from Zionism.“

 

This is essentially an economistic concept of the ICL. However, Israel is facing the worst crisis in its history, and we do not see any break from Zionism and no working-class protest against the genocide by Israel. The only time Jewish workers broke from Zionism was in response to the Bolshevik revolution that gave birth to the Communist Party.

 

In summary, the whole existence of the Zionist state is based on an irresolvable contradiction. True, the Israeli Jews have certain national aspects – despite all the inner ethnic and cultural divisions (e.g. Ashkenazim vs Sephardi vs Ethiopian Jews, secular vs. religious Jews, Haredi Jews vs the rest). But it is not a nation as Israeli Jews do not have a national consciousness of an Israeli nation but rather as part of a world Jewish nation. The concept of Zionism as a state of the Jews is based on a myth since more than half of the Jews live outside of Israel who don’t see themselves as Israelis but who are part of other nations. Zionism must keep this myth because its existence as a settler state rests on the idea that Jews from all over the world can come to Palestine and settle on Arab land. Hence, the national idea of a Jewish state is essentially reactionary.

 

Furthermore, even if one would accept the idea that the Israeli Jews are a separate nation (contrary to their self-understanding), one must recognize it as a settler “nation” based on the reactionary expulsion of the native Palestinian population. Hence, the idea to grant the Israeli Jews the “right of national self-determination”, i.e. the right to create their own state, is in itself reactionary as it would legitimize the robbery of Palestinian land.

 

To call for a bi-national state is to recognize the right of the Israeli Jews to separate and form their state on the stolen land of the Palestinians, who, together with the Palestinian refugees, constitute the majority population.

 

The ICL writes: “Over seven million Jews are living in Israel. Whoever is serious about actually liberating Palestine and emancipating the entire Middle East must exploit whatever fractures, whatever conflicts, and whatever grievances of the Israeli workers, the poor, and the soldiers to weaken the Zionist fortress and advance Palestinian freedom. Even if these revolts remain, at first, within the framework of Zionism (e.g., the mass movement against Netanyahu’s judicial reform and the recent general strike).“

 

This is a very interesting concept of the ICL that do not understand the reality in Israel. Namely, former generals and former heads of the security organization led the Anti-Netanyahu movement. If they replace Netanyahu, they will oppress the Palestinians like Netanyahu's government. They are former ministers and former PM who attacked Netanyahu from the right, for example, for agreeing to the bad ceasefire with Hezbollah and not in Gaza.

 

“Chairman of the Israeli opposition coalition, the Democrats, Yair Golan yesterday said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government runs the country like a “criminal organisation”. Golan took to X to protest after the government hinted at the possibility of concluding a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, while it refuses to conclude a similar agreement in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli captives are being held. “The criminal gang running the State of Israel claims if we reach an agreement in the south [Gaza], it will endanger the future of Israel, and there will be another October 7,” he said. Golan wondered why such a settlement can be reached in the north while Hezbollah remains strong, however, the government claims reaching an agreement in Gaza is “an existential threat to the State of Israel?”” ^[10]

 

The protest is not to end the genocide but to release the Israeli captives and then to continue the war. 300,000 people took to the streets, closing down roads and demanding the government change its course to save the remaining captives in Gaza, who are estimated to number 100. In the second war in Lebanon in 1982, 400,000 took to the streets, demanding to stop the war. Since then, Israel has moved further to the right.

 

The Histadrut, Israel’s largest state trade union – representing about 800,000 workers – called a one-day general strike backed by Israel’s main manufacturers and entrepreneurs in the tech sector. Have you heard of a general strike supported by the capitalist class? The Israel Business Forum, as did companies from Israel’s tech sector, including Wix, Fiverr, HoneyBook, Playtika, Riskified, and Lemonade, joined the strike. The Manufacturers Association of Israel followed, accusing the government of failing in its “moral duty” to bring the captives back alive, and Israel Bar Association Director Amit Becher called on all lawyers to go on strike.

 

By the way: it was not even a one-day general strike but only half a day. More importantly, it did not call for an end the genocide, to withdraw the Zionist army from Gaza, to release the hundreds of Palestinians political prisoners, not even for higher salaries when prices go up and up, and big capital is making huge profits.

 

The ICL quotes Trotsky: “In any case, the worst crime on the part of the revolutionaries would be to give the smallest concessions to the privileges and prejudices of the whites. Whoever gives his little finger to the devil of chauvinism is lost. The revolutionary party must put before every white worker the following alternative: either with British imperialism and with the white bourgeoisie of South Africa, or with the black workers and peasants against the white feudalists and slave-owners and their agents in the ranks of the working class.”

 

But what does it mean to join the mass movement and the Histadruth when what their demand is first to release the captives in a deal and then continue the genocide? To intervene with a revolutionary program says the ICL, but what will happen to those who will come with leaflets or banners telling the protesters: Either with American imperialism and with the Zionist bourgeoisie of Israel, or with the Palestinian workers, peasants, and refugees against the capitalists and slave-owners and their agents in the ranks of the working class like the bureaucracy of the Histadruth? Will the Zionist workers listen or beat you to death?

 

 

 

On the Anti-Imperialist United Front

 

 

 

The most problematic part of the ICL document is their elaboration on the anti-imperialist united front. While we welcome that the comrades recently changed their approach on this issue and approve now of this tactic in principle, we criticize them for not applying it to the most important conflict in the current period – the Gaza War. While the RCIT and its section in Occupied Palestine have called for an anti-imperialist united front with Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel, the ICL has refused to do so until now.

 

Initially, in a published exchange with another organization, the ICL justified its approach with security reasons.

 

“In your recent letter you state that the position laid out in our Spartacist statement “Only Death and Defeat with Hamas: A Revolutionary Road for Palestinian Liberation” is essentially the same as previous articles written by our tendency on the question. This is based on the claim that we supposedly refuse to take a military side against the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. It is true that we do not use the specific formulation you raise in your letter. This is because it would only serve to make us targets of state repression while having zero practical implications in our current situation.” ^[11]

 

However, this rings hollow. We – as well as other supporters of the Palestinian liberation struggle – have publicly advocated support for the miliary struggle of the Palestinian resistance since the beginning of the war (i.e. for more than one year) and we have also done so in all previous conflicts in the past decades. Surely, it can bring some legal difficulties in Western countries (as our comrade Michael experienced) but this should not stop a principled Marxist organisation to speak out the truth.

 

In their critique, the ICL do not repeat this argument but introduce two other arguments. First, they criticise us for “real literary fetishism”, claiming that their slogan: “Defend Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran against Zionist and imperialist attacks!” would mean the same (“What is this, if not a call for a united front with all forces fighting Israel and the imperialists?”)

 

This is simply not true. We certainly would be guilty of “real literary fetishism” if we would criticise that the ICL does not repeat in each and every article the need for support of the military struggle of the resistance. But our criticism is not that they don’t repeat this slogan in all articles but that they do not raise such slogan a single time! And this is no accident but rather a conscious political decision (as we will show below).

 

Furthermore, it is not correct to claim that the slogan: “Defend Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran against Zionist and imperialist attacks!” would mean the same as calling for an anti-imperialist united front with Hamas and Hezbollah. It is definitely not the same!

 

Every sectarian will say “Defend the struggle of the workers!” in this or that industry. However, such sectarian would refuse to call for a united front with a specific trade union or a specific reformist party. It is the same in the anti-imperialist struggle. Of course, it is correct to call for the defence of Gaza etc. But the struggle to defend the Palestinian does not take place in a vacuum but in the real world with real organizations – organisations which have a name, and which are well-known by such names. Currently, the Palestinian liberation struggle is led by Hamas (and other factions like Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, etc.) and the Lebanese resistance against Israel has been led by Hezbollah.

 

Both the oppressed as well as the ruling class also know this very well. This is why Hamas has been very popular in the Arab world (and also amongst the advanced sectors of the masses globally). And this is also why Hamas and those who support it are hated and persecuted by the bourgeoise in Israel and Western countries (as well as by their lackeys in the workers movement).

 

The whole purpose of the united front tactic is to relate to concrete organisations which play a role in the class struggle, and which have a following among the oppressed. By refusing to call for a united front with Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel, the ICL fails to differentiate themselves from those who sympathise with the Palestinian cause in general but don’t take the side of those organisation which are hated and persecuted by Israeli and Western imperialism.

 

We can not refrain from noting that it is somehow shameful that the ICL has no problems to call Hamas by its name when it attacks it (e.g. “Only Death and Defeat with Hamas”), but that it does not dare to mention the name of Hamas (or Hezbollah) when it comes to side with them against the Israeli aggression.

 

 

 

“The workers will not understand”?

 

 

 

However, the ICL also puts forward another argument for their refusal to openly side with Hamas and Hezbollah which is particularly troubling. They argue:

 

“For example, most of our work is directed at the working class in the West, and particularly in the U.S. Given the nature of Hamas/Hezbollah, the social-chauvinism of the union bureaucracy and the current consciousness of workers, even advanced ones, a slogan such as “military support to Hamas/Hezbollah” would cut us off from workers, who would understand it as a form of support to Islamism and a provocation. Rather, we always seek to put up front the question of opposing imperialism and to show, through workers’ own struggle, how the support by the leaders of the workers movement to the imperialist system undermines the position of the proletariat.”

 

Of course, Marxists have to oppose “their” imperialism concretely and to use the experience with reformist workers leaders to show their treacherous character. But this does hardly exclude taking an openly anti-imperialist stance and calling for support for the military struggle of the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance.

 

However, as the comrades say, the real issue is that such support “would cut us off from workers, who would understand it as a form of support to Islamism and a provocation.” This is an openly opportunist and anti-Marxist argument which is usually advocated by Grantites and other right-wing centrists.

 

First, it is simply not true. Of course, many workers oppose such slogan. But there is a growing sector of politically advanced workers, youth and oppressed in Western countries who share such anti-imperialist positions. This is visible in the global pro-Palestine solidarity movement which is the most important global movement since the Iraq War 2003 if not since the Vietnam War. A recently published survey – released by Israel's Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism (!) – showed that one-third of American-Jewish teenagers between the ages of 14 and 18 agree with the statement "I sympathise with Hamas"! [12] So, it seems to us that the ICL orientates itself rather to the more conservative, backward workers and not to the politically advanced.

 

Second, an organization which calls itself Marxist and Trotskyist should elaborate its key slogans from the objective situation and the corresponding tasks of revolutionaries and not from the momentary consciousness of the mass of the working class. Otherwise, it ends up in “chvostism”, as Lenin called it in “What Has To Be Done?”, i.e. in tailing backward consciousness.

 

In fact, this is a key lesson of the experience of the Marxist movement that the tactics and slogans must be derived from the objective situation and not from currently dominating consciousness – or to put it in the words of Trotsky, “our policy, [has to take] into consideration objective conditions and not subjective moods.” ^[13] When Lenin elaborated the key slogans of revolutionary defeatism at the beginning of World War I – “The main enemy is at home”, “Turn the guns around”, “Transform the imperialist war into civil war”, etc. – he certainly did not start from the consideration if the mass of “the workers will understand” these tactics.

 

Hence, the Communist International considered the separation of the concept of party and class as essential and, following from this, the necessity to elaborate the necessary slogans of the struggle not from the momentary consciousness of the working class but from the objective tasks of the class struggle.

 

“A sharp distinction must be made between the concepts of party and class. The members of the 'Christian' and liberal trade unions of Germany, England, and other countries are undoubtedly parts of the working class. The more or less numerous groups of workers who still follow Scheidemann, Gompers, and their like, are undoubtedly part of the working class. In certain historical circumstances it is even quite possible for the working class to include very numerous reactionary elements. It is the task of communism not to adapt itself to these backward sections of the working class but to raise the entire working class to the level of the communist vanguard. Confusion of these two concepts – party and class – can lead to the greatest mistakes and bewilderment. It is for example clear that in spite of the sentiments and prejudices of a certain section of the working class during the imperialist war, the workers' party had at all costs to combat those sentiments and prejudices by standing for the historical interests of the proletariat which required the proletarian party to declare war on the war.

 

Thus, on the outbreak of the imperialist war in 1914 the parties of the social-traitors in all countries, when they supported the bourgeoisie of their 'own' countries, always and consistently explained that they were acting in accordance with the will of the working class. But they forgot that, even if that were true, it must be the task of the proletarian party in such a state of affairs to come out against the sentiments of the majority of the workers and, in defiance of them, to represent the historical interests of the proletariat. In the same way, at the beginning of this century, the Russian Mensheviks of that time (the so-called Economists) rejected open political struggle against Tsarism on the ground that the working class as a whole had not yet reached an understanding of the political struggle.

 

In the same way the right wing of the German Independents always insist, when acting irresolutely and inadequately, on 'the will of the masses', without understanding that the party is there to lead the masses and show them the way.“ ^[14]

 

Third, an organization which calls itself International (!) Communist League should elaborate its tactics and slogans not from peculiar conditions in Western countries but rather from a global point of view. Does the ICL want to claim that the advanced sectors of the international working class would be repelled by such anti-imperialist slogans?!

 

Fourth, particularly if the ICL is mainly based in Western countries, it is obligated to show concrete solidarity with those forces which are leading liberation struggles against “their” imperialist bourgeoisie. At its Second Congress, the Communist International made it a precondition for membership that its parties in imperialist countries “support every liberation movement in the colonies not only in words but in deeds.“ ^[15] Unfortunately, the ICL does not even name these movement which it (should) support in the anti-imperialist struggle because … “the workers would not understand”!

 

In our view, one must follow the approach of the Communist International in its early period which expected revolutionaries to support anti-imperialist struggles in words and deeds. Karl Radek – a key leader of the Comintern at that time (and later of Trotsky’s Left Opposition) – formulated this approach very appropriate at the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920:

 

“The International will not judge the British comrades by the articles they write in the ‘Call’ and the ‘Workers’ Dreadnought’ but by the number of comrades who are thrown in gaol for agitating in the colonial countries. We would point out to the British comrades that it is their duty to help the Irish movement with all their strength, that it is their duty to agitate among British troops, that it is their duty to use all their resources to block the policy that the British transport and rail unions are at present pursuing of permitting troop transports to be shipped to Ireland. It is very easy at the moment to speak out in Britain against intervention in Russia, since even the bourgeois left is against it. It is harder for the British comrades to take up the cause of Irish independence and anti-militarist activity. We have a right to demand this difficult work of the British comrades.” ^[16]

 

Naturally, the situation today is not identical with that after World War I and, more importantly, our forces are much smaller than those of the Comintern. Still, it is necessary to unite words and deeds as much as possible. As we have shown above, we have done this many times over the years.

 

Fifth, we certainly do not suggest that an agitational leaflet distributed at factory gates or a speech in a trade union meeting must necessarily include the slogan “Support the military struggle of Hamas and Hezbollah”. Naturally, such agitational interventions have to be pedagogic and must relate to concrete circumstances. Our critique is not that the ICL should advocate such slogans in each and every intervention in workplaces but that it never raises such in its propaganda since the beginning of the war one and a quarter years ago!

 

Sixth, the anti-imperialist united front tactic is a practical issue not only in semi-colonial countries but also in imperialist metropolises. Since millions of migrants from Muslim countries are living in Europe and North America, any practical work amongst this sector of the working class will involve joint activities with Islamist forces. The RCIT has done this since many years. What is the ICL’s approach to this? If it agrees, why does it refrain from naming organisations as forces to be included in an anti-imperialist united front (forces which are, by the way, very popular amongst Muslim workers)? If it does not agree, what does the anti-imperialist united front tactic concretely mean for the ICL?

 

Finally, it is worth remembering that revolutionaries advocated similar slogans in the past to express their solidarity with the military struggle of petty-bourgeois nationalist or Stalinist movement. During the Vietnam War, the advanced sectors of the left raised the slogan “Victory to the Vietcong” or, during the period of intense guerrilla struggles in Central America in the late 1970s and early 1980s, “Victory to the FSLN or FLMN”. Have the comrades of the ICL forgotten this?

 

 

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

The ICL corrected its approach on imperialism and the anti-imperialist united front at its eight congress in 2023. Shortly after it published the documents and decisions of its congress, the Gaza War started. ^[17] Hence, this war has been the first major test for the organisation to implement its new approach into practice. Unfortunately, while the ICL made important corrections in the field of theory and on historical issues by revising past positions (e.g. on the Malvinas War, on wars in Palestine, etc.), it failed to apply its new approach to the anti-imperialist struggle to the most important ongoing conflict – the wars in the Middle East.

 

We hope that this discussion will help to correct these mistakes.