One year after the massacre of workers in London

To the Terrorism of big Imperialist States

Answers back  the Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism

(«Proletarian»; Nr. 2; September 2006) 



Whichever the group  organized them, the attacks in London bear without any doubts the reactionary mark of fundamentalist Islamic movements. The target of these bourgeois denominational organizations are not the imperialist states leaders which lead wars of plunder in Afghanistan, in Chechnya or in Iraq, but the civilian population, the workers who use the public means of transport. In the same way the main targets of the bombings and machine-gunning by the US armies and their allies, English, Italian, Polish, Spanish, French and so on, yesterday in Yugoslavia or today in Iraq are civilians, predominantly workers, as they are in Chechnya for the Russian troops or in Palestine for the Israeli soldiers.

The state terrorism exerted by war, military occupation or economic blockade, and the terrorism of Islamic-style movements, carried out by bombs or suicide bombings in places where large numbers of people congregate, converge unrelentingly to strike especially the proletarian masses. Bled day after day by an increasingly more bestial capitalist exploitation, workers are also used as cannon fodder or sacrificial bomb victims in inter-bourgeois confrontations where war finds its response in terrorism.

Wars, in general, on the military level, are a consequence of the politics of imperialist armed robbery, the means by which the imperialists seize economic territories (Lenin) which have become vital to preserve their capitalist profits in the midst of increasingly intense international competition. The terrorism of nationalist movements (religious or secular) is the means used by weaker bourgeois fractions to resist the crushing pressure of the major imperialists: the impotence to combat the latter in an open war is thus compensated by the action of small groups which are part and parcel of the general population or community.  The religion-based movements  precisely for this reason, mix-up the nationalism characteristic of any bourgeoisie with reactionary universalist features, and much more than  traditional nationalists with more targeted objectives, tend to strike indiscriminately at the mass of the population.

The massacre of defenceless workers and civilians is characteristic of bourgeois reaction:  this was the case yesterday for the New York attacks, for those in Madrid and Moscow, and it is true today for those in London. The attacks in London occur at a time when the contradictions between imperialist states which rule the world do not tend to resolve themselves, but on the contrary to worsen. The war in Iraq puts the Anglo-American policy in difficulty, not only because the occupying troops haven’t managed to stabilize the situation but because the war has left the door wide open to fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. What was presented as a preventive war in the fight against so-called “international terrorism”; is in fact a war of plunder which caused and continues to cause terrorist reactions. The American, English, Italian, and Polish soldiers who died in Iraq fell in an operation of pure imperialist armed robbery (let us recall for example that there was no declaration of war nor any justification even on the  meagre basis of international bourgeois law), in a particularly revealing expression of state terrorism being exerted in two directions: the first, directly, towards Iraq with its gigantic oil resources and its strategic position in the Middle East; the second, indirectly, towards the other states of the world and especially their Western allies in order to line them up behind the Washington-London alliance. To the terrorism of the big bourgeoisies of Washington-London and their supporters, corresponds the terrorism of nationalist groups which fight for the same economic and political objectives: possession of the oil resources, the control of the country and its borders which means also the availability of the labor force of million of Iraqi proletarians.




After the attacks in London, the bourgeois leaders, as they do every time  launched  the call for the union sacrée, for  the union of all citizens for the common war against terrorism, for the war of  civilization against barbarism, in the  war against anti-Christian acts, as stated by the new pope. To the proletarians that they exploit down to the marrow in the workplace, that they persecute daily, and that they imprison in increasing misery and precariousness, to the proletarians that they force into industrial accidents, and that they throw out onto the street when they can no longer exploit them, whom when they are too old they “warehouse” in retirement homes which are nothing but waiting-rooms for death, to the proletarians who have no say in governmental decision-making, the bourgeois ask that they forget their own interests and their own needs, to unite in the name of the motherland or nation with those who enrich themselves off their sweat.

The call to national solidarity that all bourgeois governments launch, from Blair to Bush, from Berlusconi to Chirac, from Schroeder to Putin and Zapatero, is the traditional trap set by the bourgeoisie against proletarians when it is in difficulty. Every time they have yielded to this call, the proletariat could readily notice that its situation of being exploited did not improve and that only the bourgeoisie benefited from its sacrifices. The proletarians must free themselves from the ideological and material pressure exerted on them by the bourgeoisie through its thousands of channels, the most powerful being those of class collaboration, and competition between workers; the bourgeoisie systematically organize the latter by splitting up the proletarian class into a thousand categories, while instituting and feeding national, racial, religious; gender and other group divisions.

The blows suffered in terrorist attacks are no different from the blows suffered in wars in which they are obliged to take part, nor from those received within the framework of wage labor at rates and rhythms always more exhausting, and in working conditions increasingly more harmful for health, or in the misery and marginalization of unemployment under capitalist duress.

There are no common interests between proletarians and bourgeois, neither in the immediate sense, nor from a political point of view. The proletarians must reserve their solidarity only for proletarians, whatever their race or their nationality. Any solidarity demanded by the bourgeoisie, whatever the pretext is, must be rejected by proletarians because it is always only a solidarity for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, bourgeois profits, bourgeois property relations, the bourgeois State. The interests, profits, property, and laws, of the bourgeois state never benefit proletarians: they are always against proletarian interests and needs

The proletariat will never be able to fight against bourgeois terrorism in common with the bourgeoisie or under their guidance. It will be able to fight against bourgeois terrorism only within the framework of its class struggle against the bourgeoisie, against  its interests,  its profits, its property and the bourgeois state. Without class struggle, there is no possibility of fighting against any of the countless evils that capitalism continuously brings about . In breaking with national and democratic bourgeois ideology, In breaking with the class collaboration promoted by all the varieties of political and trade-union reformism, In returning to the defense of its exclusive class interests, the proletariat will liberate its strength and will always find the necessary energy in its class struggle to definitively destroy this blood-drenched capitalist civilization.


International Communist Party


Back Sumary