World Social Forum – An Alternative to
capitalism?
The
southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre hosted for the second
year running the World Social Forum – billed as an alternative
to the World Economic Forum, the international gathering of the
representatives of capitalism, which took place at the same time
in New York.
16,000 delegates from a multitude of diverse organizations
from all over the world attended the Forum in Porte Alegre along
with tens of thousands of people came from all over Latin
America and the world. The theme of this massive international
gathering was ‘Another World Is Possible’. The local PT
(Workers Party) led state government had billboards throughout
the city announcing the same slogan and promise.
Diverse organisations
Represented amongst the tens of thousands present were every
imaginable campaign or grouping that is in conflict with
neo-liberal policies and with every other aspect of capitalist
society. Every day representatives of a variety of oppressed and
exploited peoples could be found at the city’s principle
university – venue to the main conference settings. From
Brazil thousands were present representing health workers, water
workers, the landless MST movement, students and the indigenous
peoples. Human rights campaigners from Paraguay, Argentina and
other countries, Palestinians, Iraqis and others came to
represent their cause. Environmentalists, Greens, Gay rights
campaigners, campaigns for access to drugs at affordable prices
for those infected with HIV and an array of other interests
lobbied every day. These were joined by lobbyists for Esperanto
and other groups.
The sheer size of the gathering and
the different interests represented clearly refuted speculation
by capitalist commentators and analysts that the anti-capitalist
movement had died following the attacks on the World Trade
Center on September 11th 2001 and Bush’s ‘war
against terrorism’. Porte Alegre this year took place not only
following the events that followed September 11th.
The mass social explosion and toppling of five Presidents in
Argentina, the forthcoming election in Brazil and the recent
decision of the Brazilian CUT trade union federation to call a
general strike on March 21st, formed the decisive
background to WSF.
Porte Alegre demonstrated that the anti-capitalist movement
continues and is growing in support amongst certain groups. This
was shown in the unofficial youth camp in Porte Alegre that this
year was attended by up to 10,000 people, compared with 3/4,000
last year. The largest delegation at the Forum came from Brazil.
Significantly the second largest delegations, with 1,400 each,
came from Argentina and Italy.
Reflected at this years World Social Forum was the growing
opposition to the neo-liberal policies and globalisation of the
world economy that were the overwhelmingly dominant tendency in
capitalism during the 1990’s. The policies of privatisations,
lowering of tariffs, greater integration of the world economy
have massively widened the gap between the rich and poor. The
tightened grip on the neo-colonial world by the main western
imperialist powers has deepened the huge gulf between the
so-called colonial world and the imperialist countries. It has
also resulted in a much sharper division between rich and poor
within all countries.
Increasing exploitation
The consequences of modern capitalism – the growing gap
between rich and poor, increasing exploitation and outbreak of
national, ethnic and religious clashes - have produced massive
opposition to both these horrors and even to capitalism itself.
This is what was reflected at Porte Alegre in the idea that
"Another World Is Possible", something that was
supported by all those present.
However, while tens of thousands came to Porte Alegre looking
for an alternative to the capitalist world, in the official WSF
activities there was no explanation of what is the alternative
to capitalism. At Porte Alegre there was in reality two
conferences – the official meetings and the unofficial
discussions, lobbies and events.
While the youth, workers and other groups exploited by
capitalism rallied to the idea that "another world is
possible" at the Forum there was no explanation of what
this world was to be or any perspective of how to fight to
achieve it.
In the official conferences, representatives from numerous
organizations, including trade union, NGO’s intellectual and
others were developing a set of alternative ideas to
neo-liberalism and globalisation. The ideas that they were
developing point to an attempt to offer a new set of
"reformist policies" to replace the neo-liberalism of
the 1990’s. However, the ideas that they overwhelmingly put
forward amounted to a programme to build a more humane version
of capitalism – capitalism with a human face.
Also present in Porte Alegre were some capitalist politicians
and their representatives who have been party to implement the
neo-liberal policies of the 1990’s. Amongst them were
representatives of the French President Chirac, four French
Cabinet Ministers, the Belgian Prime Minister, Mario Soares,
former Portuguese Socialist Party President responsible for
helping prevent a socialist revolution in Portugal in the 1970’s,
and Mary Robinson , the former Irish President who is now
working with the UN.
The presence of these representatives of capitalism point to
the emergence of a wing of capitalist representatives who are
now being compelled to develop alternative capitalist policies
to the neo-liberal programmes of the 1990’s. This is being
forced on them by the onset of the economic crisis and the
prospect of "other Argentinas". Their presence also
helped to act as a check on some of the more radical
intellectuals who were present.
However, the brutality of capitalism in the more period is a
product of the deepening economic crisis of capitalism that
means that, even in the main imperialist countries, the reforms
and concessions that could be paid for during the post Second
World War upswing of capitalism can no longer be afforded.
Attempts to create a more "humane capitalism" will not
be able to satisfy the demands of the protestors outside the
official sessions of the World Social Forum or eliminate the
worsening social conditions that are being created
internationally by the deepening economic crisis.
Multi-class composition
The World Social Forum had a multi-class composition and
reflected the different class interests and objectives of those
participating in it – in both the official and unofficial
sessions. The workers, youth and others protesting outside the
official sessions were looking for an alternative to capitalism
and a means of fighting against it. The radical intellectuals in
the main sought to develop ideas that would remove the brutality
and poverty of capitalism, but without challenging the basis of
it or explaining the need for an alternative to the market.
It is necessary to build a socialist alternative in the
anti-capitalist movement with a programme that can overthrow
capitalism and imperialism, and begin to build another world –
a socialist one. Some proponents of the ‘new reformist’
ideas that are emerging quite skilfully attack the brutality of
modern capitalism and argue that the rule of capital needs to be
challenged. However, they do not explain how this is can be done
and all of them put forward proposals that remain within the
framework of the market or capitalist economy but with
constraints and checks applied.
Susan George for example, from ATTAC France and one of the
most radical leaders of the anti-capitalist movement, outlined
the devastating situation that exists in the capitalist world
today. She argued that a multiple crisis confronts the world in
relation to poverty, the environment, and democracy where
"citizens can not be heard". 50% of the world lives on
US$2 or less per day and the rest of the world faces lay offs
and over capacity. The devastating situation facing the
neo-colonial world was illustrated by Brazil that, between 1980
and 2000, had paid US$587 billion back to the world banking
system only to find itself with a debt four times greater than
that which existed in 1980!
Susan George
She correctly argued that conditions were now being driven
back to those that existed in the 19th century as every gain
made during the last 100 years is now under attack by the
"establishment".
However, having made a devastating criticism of capitalism,
she then limited herself to proposals that should be put forward
within the market economy. To meet the domination of the new
global economy, Susan George argued, international action was
now needed as national reforms had been implemented in the past.
These measures should include the cancellation of foreign debt,
an international tax not only on financial transaction but on
mergers should be implemented together with a clampdown on tax
havens. These steps should she argued finance a world
"Marshall Plan" similar to that which was implemented
after the Second World War in western Europe. The
multi-nationals should be legally controlled.
What her programme does not face up to is the fact that the
driving force of capitalism itself as a system is the
maximization of the profits of major companies at national and
international level. What Susan George failed to answer is how
and which organisations should implement such a programme? What
should the movement do when the multi-national corporation and
financial system refuse to accept such controls on their
interests she did not address.
The question of controlling the multi-national companies was
a recurring theme put forward by some of the more radical
intellectuals at the Forum. This was the major theme by Kevin
Danaher from ‘Global Watch USA’. He explained that the
"interests and right of humanity" had become
"subordinate to capital, money values and the transnational
corporation". Going further than some other speakers he
supported the abolition of the IMF and World Bank and wanted the
separation of corporations from the state.
Having pointed out the power and control the multi-national
companies have, Danaher then leaves this to one side and seems
to imagine that they will meekly accept controls being imposed
on them by parliaments whose members’ interests are
overwhelmingly linked to the interests of the major companies
and capitalism.
Going further than any of the other intellectual Danaher went
on to argue the need to build a mass movement based on
alliances. Once this was achieved then individual
multi-nationals such as Exxon should be targeted one at a time
for a campaign against them and then be nationalised. However,
even this was not argued from the point of view replacing
capitalism with socialism. The idea is to convince companies to
behave better. "If the big ones get the message then the
smaller corporation will get the message."
Ultimate goal
In answer to questions from members of the CWI he accepted
that socialism would develop internationally and was the
ultimate goal. However, he argued that socialism should not be
spoken about because it, as a word it had become
"polluted" under the regimes in eastern Europe. The
issue was therefore if "capital was to rule or civil
society".
Walden Bello from the Philippines clearly spelt out that his
proposal to transform the plight of the mass of the world’s
population remained within capitalism. His ideas centre on
dealing with the excesses of capitalism and the dominant trend
of globalisation during the 1990’s. The IMF is now obsolete,
he argued, and its power should be emasculated and some
institutions abolished. No new centralized power is necessary
what should be strengthened is "to give more space to space
and compromise. There needs to be a system of multi-checks and
balances" Organisations such as the ILO should be
strengthened along with regional trading blocks such as Mercosur
in Latin America.
As the CWI has explained previously the onset of a world
economic recession will see the checking, and in some cases a
partial reversal, of the dominant trend of globalisation of the
world economy. This will result in the emergence of clashes both
between the various regional blocks and individual countries
that could see the adoption of policies such as trade tariffs
and other measures to try and protest their own interests. As
recent events in Argentina have demonstrated, others steps such
as state intervention into sectors of the economy will also be
adopted, representing a change from the dominant tendency of the
1990’s.
However, such measures, which may also involve some temporary
concessions being given to workers, the middle classes and
others, will not fundamentally change capitalism’s character.
Furthermore so long as capitalism exists, any concessions won
through struggle or given by governments seeking to win support,
will ultimately be undermined and possibly taken away by new
crises.
However, any such measures taken by different representatives
of the capitalist class will not resolve the horrors facing the
mass of the population in the different regions of the
capitalist world. Implicit in Bello’s argument was the
illusion idea that the regional capitalist leaders in such
blocks as Mercosur would be better than the imperialist western
powers in their dealings with the working class, the middle
class, land workers and others suffering under capitalism. The
history of Latin American itself, where practically every single
country has experienced a brutal military dictatorship at some
time over the last fifty years, undermines Bello’s illusion.
An international feature today is the very sharp rightward
move of the trade union leaders away from any idea of class
struggle and towards the acceptance of capitalism and
"partnership" with bosses. The result is that, in many
countries, the privileged trade union bureaucracy is an
important obstacle currently confronting workers seeking to
fight for their interests. In the Forum this was clearly
illustrated by a representative of the International Metal
Workers Federation. Marcelo Melentacchi, who said the trade
unions should negotiate with the multi-nationals because
"we want them to contribute to the economy and
society", in other words try to be their partners!
A theme present in many of the contributions from the
official speakers was the need to maintain the diversity of the
anti-capitalist movement and to forge alliances. This was used
as an argument against "sectarianism" and any idea
that one group could conduct the struggle alone.
Socialists support the idea of unity in struggle of all those
oppressed by capitalism. At the same time it is the working
class that has the central role to play in the struggle to
overthrow capitalism and build socialism. This is because under
capitalism it develops a collective understanding and common
class interest that enables it to be the decisive force in
ending the capitalists’ private ownership and control over the
decisive sectors of the economy and society.
However, many speakers attempted to diminish the role of the
working class and in effect tried to "de-class" the
anti-capitalist movement. The role of other groups was
emphasized along with emphasis on the need for alliances.
Danaher argued this point: "You are a workers for only
eight hours a day. You are a consumer for a certain number of
hours. But you are a citizen for twenty four hours a day."
Even trade union representatives such as Willie Madisha from
COSATU emphasized that the trade unions and workers were too
weak and needed alliances with other forces. While
underestimating the strength of the workers movement, these
statements did not refer to those countries where workers and
their families are a minority of the population.
For such leaders these are coded statements that they will do
not intend to lead a struggle to replace capitalism and use the
issue of forging alliances with other forces as an excuse not to
struggle for socialism.
They ignore experiences like January’s two-day general
strike in Nigeria, two weeks before the Forum, which was
supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Africa’s
most populous country and showed in practice how the working
class could lead an entire nation in struggle.
As recent events in Argentina, and the massive general strike
in South Africa against privatisation last year, have
demonstrated the working class and others exploited by
capitalism can either force trade unions to act or go over the
heads of the trade union leaders and struggle against the effect
of capitalism and the policies introduced by its
representatives.
Even most radical leaders of the movement failed to outline a
clear perspective or proposals to organise the movement forward
and take it forward. The question of building a political
alternative to capitalism and an organised force of workers and
others exploited by capitalism is, as events in Argentina have
demonstrated, more urgent than ever. New mass parties of the
working class, that are democratically controlled, in which the
leadership is accountable and not corrupt, with a fight
socialist programme are needed.
Susan George argued that the movement should be strengthened,
maintain its diversity and as an international movement, rest on
strong national alliances. These alliances should be based on
the workers, peasants and intellectuals. However, this
perspective was not developed to concrete proposals but left in
the air with abstractions. Porte Alegre, Susan George commented,
was creating a "new world order. A society of society was
being created." But then cautioned, " not to expect
too much too soon."
Danaher, urged the targeting of specific multi-national
companies, boycotting the likes of GAP and building alternative
organic economies.
The Forum in Porte Alegre in many respects represented a new
phase in the emergence of the anti-capitalist movement. In
particular the question of the programme and ideas that it
supports was a central part this events. The youth and workers
who can to these events were looking for a clear alternative to
capitalism. However nothing was put forward by the leaders of
the movement that offered an alternative to the capitalist rule
of society.
This contradiction is certain to increase in the coming
period and lead to conflict within the movement about the way
forward. The need to build a socialist current within the
anti-capitalist movement as an alternative to the idea of
creating a better version of capitalism is more urgent than ever
because of the deepening crisis and mass struggles that are now
emerging in Latin America and internationally.
The upheavals in Argentina clearly show that the mass of
workers and middle class are now prepared to fight against
neo-liberal policies and even capitalism. What is now needed is
to campaign for socialism to be seen as the only viable
alternative to capitalism. The emblem of the World Social Forum
– ‘Another World is Possible’ is correct. However it is
essential to add that ‘A Socialist World is Necessary’ and
explain what programme and task are necessary to achieve it.
15 February 2002
From The Socialist 27 July 2001:
After Genoa - what way forward?
THE BLOODY events at the G8 summit in Genoa mark a turning
point in the anti-capitalist movement
Leaders of the world's eight richest nations slept in a
luxury liner and junketed on five star cuisine. They were behind
a 13-feet steel barricade, topped with barbed wire.
Meanwhile outside the six square mile exclusion zone, police
shot dead young protester Carlo Giuliani, and brutally attacked
and injured hundreds more.
After Genoa, the G8 will hold their next summit in a remote
resort in Canada's Rocky Mountains. In November the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), focus of previous protests, will meet in
Qatar in the Middle East.
But, the representatives of global capitalism insist, they
are "not running away from the anti-capitalist
protests". Most people will think differently.
However far they flee, however brutal the repression meted
out against peaceful protesters, anti-capitalism won't fade
away.
The siege mentality of big business's spokesmen reinforces a
growing sense of alienation - amongst young people in particular
- from capitalism and its institutions.
When Carlo Giuliani was shot, Tony Blair rejected calls
for the summit to be suspended, arguing that the politicians
should carry on with their "democratic" business. But
it is precisely because he and the rest preside over an
undemocratic system based on inequality, injustice,
environmental destruction, debt and poverty, that the
anti-capitalist movement keeps growing.
In the last year, three million people have protested in 20
countries world-wide. Millions more sympathise with their aims.
In an opinion poll in Britain 67% thought big corporations
have more power than governments. 76% thought they put profit
before people.
Black and Asian youth in areas such as Brixton and Bradford
are beginning to link the brutality and racism which they face
daily at the police's hands and the vicious attacks on
anti-capitalist protesters in Genoa and elsewhere.
Workers fighting privatisation in education and other public
services are drawing the conclusion that they too are
'"anti-capitalist".
After Genoa many will want to consider where the movement
is headed.
At least 700 separate organisations were involved in the
protests, voicing their anger and concerns on the streets.
From the beginning, the anti-capitalist movement embraced
many varied groups and ideas. Differences over strategy and
tactics were already emerging before Genoa.
The media focused on groups such as Drop the Debt and Oxfam
which refused to participate in the Saturday demonstration of
300,000 because they feared it would be "hijacked" by
"violent anarchists". But the main divisions aren't
between those who support and those who reject violence.
Most protesters, while condemning police and state violence,
understand that smashing up shops and property and individual
acts of violence by demonstrators, don't take the movement
forward and can give politicians an opportunity to increase
state repression.
Other debates are more significant. While spokespeople for
the anti-capitalist movement such as journalist Naomi Klein
praise its spontaneity, many involved in the protests are
deciding that they need to be better organised.
While other 'leaders' argue naively for a more 'humane'
form of capitalism and for reforming institutions like the IMF
and World Bank, radical young people and increasingly sections
of workers, look towards a more fundamental change.
Direct action and anti-capitalist protests outside the
institutions of global capitalism raised millions of people's
awareness of capitalism's iniquities and placed the spotlight
firmly on the system as a whole.
But by themselves, these protests cannot end capitalism. Even
if its representatives are forced to the far ends of the earth,
they will still meet and control our lives.
Ending capitalism requires mass movements involving
radicalised young people, the urban and rural poor in
'developing' countries but with workers playing the central
role.
Two general strikes in Greece this year in protest at
changes to the social security system brought the country to a
halt.
These showed why workers are not just one 'pressure group'
amongst many but the decisive force with the potential,
collective power to change society.
With a world recession looming, the anti-capitalist protests
are a foretaste of much bigger struggles to come.
We will strive to link the anti-capitalist with the workers'
movement. But being anti-capitalist is not enough. We have to be
clear what we're fighting for.
Socialism is about taking control away from the
multinational corporations and rich elite and democratically and
sustainably planning production for need not profit. The
struggle for socialism is the only way forward.
|
SOCIALISTS SAY that the world’s
mightiest power, the USA, has been fighting a war in
Afghanistan to defend imperialist interests. But what is
imperialism? And how, in a world with few direct
colonies, do its needs still dominate the world?
ALISTAIR TICE explains.
|
Imperialism - Wars Without End
THERE WERE empires long before capitalism.
Ancient Greek and Roman troops conquered land, enslaved foreign
peoples and amassed wealth for their slave-owning ruling class.
Feudal societies seized new territories, e.g. in the ‘crusades’
against the Arabs of the Middle East.
The conquistadors annexed Latin America for
the Spanish and Portuguese empires. Their looting of Aztec and
Inca treasures contributed to the primitive accumulation of
capital (start-up money) that led to capitalism’s birth.
So how does modern imperialism differ? As
industrial production became bigger and more concentrated, the
free competition of early capitalism gave way to the growth of
monopolies.
With ever more money needed for investment,
the banks were transformed into decisive financial institutions
which determined credit and loans to even the biggest companies
and so came to dominate the economy.
Meanwhile capitalism, first in Britain then
in Europe and America, outgrew the limits of its own home
market. Because capitalists make profits by paying workers less
than the full value their labour creates, over time workers
cannot afford to buy back all the goods they produce. The
capitalists are then forced to find new markets, and sources of
raw materials and cheap labour.
In the late 19th century, a handful of
advanced capitalist nations mobilised armies and missionaries to
colonise most of the world, through the "scramble for
Africa" and by taking over such ‘virgin’ territories as
Canada. Such ‘civilisation’ came at an enormous cost to
millions of native peoples: genocide, war, disease, enslavement
and exploitation.
As monopoly finance capital grew, the export
of surplus commodities was superseded by the export of capital -
not ‘aid’ to help colonial peoples, but "surplus".
money that couldn’t be profitably invested at home but could
make bigger profits through investments and loans abroad.
By 1889, Britain was the biggest trading
country in the world but its income from finance capital
invested abroad was five times greater than that from foreign
trade!
Imperialism represents a specific stage of
capitalism - the domination of monopoly finance capital, the
export of capital, and the carving-up of the world between a few
major capitalist powers, for spheres of influence to profit from
markets, raw materials and cheap labour.
World wars
BY THE 1900s, little of the globe remained to
be colonised: Britain, France and Germany had conquered 81% of
the colonial world. So competing imperialist powers came into
conflict over re-dividing the world.
Older British industry was challenged by
Germany’s rising, more modern industry, which could only
expand at the expense of rival imperialist interests, leading to
the First World War which slaughtered some 26 million people.
Far from being "a war to end all
wars", the uneasy truce after 1918 was shattered by the
1930s Great Depression which intensified trade rivalries, and
the rise of fascism which needed military expansion to sustain
itself. This inevitably led to the Second World War when up to
60 million perished.
If a third world war has been avoided since,
it is only because during the fifty-year Cold War between
Western imperialism (led by the USA) and Stalinist Russia
nuclear weapons were developed which could ensure the ‘Mutually
Assured Destruction’ (MAD) of both sides!
Instead, the biggest arms race in history
occurred. The superpowers vied for spheres of influence in
regional proxy wars in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
After 1945, the world hardly experienced one
day of peace and the number of armed conflicts grew to over 60
in the 1990s. The 20th century, imperialism’s century, is the
bloodiest in history, with up to 200 million killed in wars.
But the oppression of direct political, and
often military, rule by imperialist powers, aroused the multi-millioned
masses of the colonies. From the 1940s, anti-imperialist
struggles and national liberation movements developed throughout
Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Faced with these colonial revolts, it was
increasingly costly, both economically and politically, for
imperialism to maintain direct colonial rule.
So in many countries, after the war,
imperialism beat a tactical retreat and granted formal
independence to their ex-colonies, although leaving a bloody
legacy of war (Vietnam, Angola and Mozambique) and divide and
rule as in the partition of India/Pakistan and Palestine/Israel.
Neo-colonialism
HOWEVER, IMPERIALISM did not relinquish its
indirect, but no less oppressive, economic domination. In fact,
imperialist economic exploitation (called neo-colonialism) has
intensified since independence, not lessened.
Ex-colonies are still forced to produce one
or two crops (cash crops) or minerals for export to the
imperialist economies. 60% of the under-developed nations’
export earnings come from just 18 raw materials! So, with a few
favoured exceptions such as the Asian Tigers, the poorest
countries cannot develop their own industries or compete with
the West, so continuing their dependence.
Likewise, imperialism dictates the terms of
trade. The prices paid by the West for raw materials in no way
match the prices which the Third World pays for the manufactured
goods sold back. Even oil, over which the Oil Producing and
Exporting Countries (OPEC) exercise some control, would need to
sell at nearly $100 a barrel just to match its 1950 price level!
As raw material prices have fallen, so has
the Third World’s share of world trade. Africa with 10% of the
world’s population accounts for less than 2% of world trade.
Over the last twenty years the chains of
Third World ‘debt’ have been forged. After 1973, billions of
dollars of oil money, recycled through Western banks, were
loaned to the ‘developing’ countries. But interest rates
soared in the early 1980s, leading to crippling Third World
debts, now totalling $2,5 trillion.
The price of ‘rescue’ by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank is
"structural adjustment" ie deregulation, privatisation
and deeper exploitation of these economies by Western banks and
corporations.
Now, in a ‘bloodsucking’ twist to
imperialism, there is actually a net export of capital from the
underdeveloped to the imperialist nations - the Third World pays
back more in debt repayments than it receives in ‘aid’ and
investments!
Globalisation and imperialism
THE COLLAPSE of Stalinist Russia in 1989 left
US imperialism as the world’s only economic and military
superpower. The capitalists’ representatives then launched an
ideological offensive removing the last vestiges of opposition
to their neo-liberal policies from workers’ parties and Third
World leaders alike.
Coupled with the deregulation of the
financial markets in the 80s and new technology industries, this
gave a huge impetus to the globalisation process.
Neo-liberal policies, backed up by the
capitalists’ world institutions (IMF, World Bank and World
Trade Organisation) have increased Western monopoly corporations’
domination of the world economy.
Today, just 300 multinationals and big banks
account for 70% of all foreign direct investment. The 100
biggest companies now control 70% of world trade. And the fifty
largest banks and financial companies control 60% of all global
capital!
But this globalisation has only intensified
the contradictions of capitalism and is now sucking the whole
world economy into a synchronised recession.
Likewise, George Bush senior’s declaration
in 1991 after the Gulf War, of a "New World Order"
dominated by US imperialism, has brought no peace or stability
to the world. Far from it.
The legacies of past imperialist policies (as
in the Middle East and the Balkans), exacerbated by globalised
exploitation of the world’s poorest countries, has led to
three imperialist wars of intervention (Iraq, Serbia and
Afghanistan) since 1991.
Imperialist adventures aren’t always just
to gain or defend profit opportunities. US imperialism attacked
Afghanistan to avenge the blow to US prestige after the 11
September atrocities. But America’s economic dominance
ultimately relies on US military muscle to maintain its power
and maximise its profits.
Imperialism truly does mean ‘wars without
end’. We must build a mass movement, not just against current
wars, but to end all wars, by overthrowing capitalism and
building a socialist world.
From The Socialist 14 December 2001 [Top]
[Home] [News]
[The Socialist]
Join the
Socialist Party For the full
story subscribe to The
Socialist
Protest against capitalism
(Click here to go to the CWI pamphlet Smash
the IMF and World Bank! A socialist alternative to global
capitalism)
To contact any of the CWI's European
sections by email:
NB Please check CWI
website for latest email details
Austria, Sozialistiche Linkspartie; sov@gmx.net
Belgium, Militant links; militant.links@pandora.be
Czech Republic, Socialisticka
Altemativa-Budoucnost, budoucnost@email.cz
France, Gauche Revolutionarre - La Commune; grc@l-egalite.org
Germany, SozialistischeAlternative; savbund@t-online.de
Greece, Xekinima; xekinima@ath.forthnet.gr
Ireland North, Socialist Party, socialist@belfastsp.freeserve.co.uk
Ireland South, Socialist Party, dublinsp@clubi.ie
Portugal, Altemativa Socialista; alternativa-socialista@hotmail.com
Spain, Manifiesto
Sweden, Rattvisepartiet Socialistema; rs@socialisterna.org
Netherlands, Offensief, offensief@offensief.demon.nl
C.I.S, CWI; pabgem@glas.apc.org
Committee
for a Workers' International
http://www.socialistworld.net
Email; inter@dircon.co.uk
