Swan song of the "historic left" – justifying "democratic" imperialism by an alleged "Islamo-Nazi-Communist block"
During the Anti-imperialist Camp in Assisi, Italy, which took place in the first week of September 2003, some of the participants and guests launched a public appeal for a demonstration in support of the Iraqi resistance . The document affirmed not only the legitimacy of the resistance as stipulated by the UN charter, but also the chance offered by it to bring down the US attempt to erect an empire. The possibility of a new Vietnam is evoked: "The defeat of the Anglo-American occupiers would be a victory for everyone fighting for democracy and self-determination, for the freedom of the peoples refusing to submit under the imperialist yoke." The appeal ends not only to call for driving out the occupation troops but also to close down the US basis in Europe.
In order to avoid petty organisational feud the proponents decided to ask for personal endorsement. Thus they intended to open up to a broad public opposed to the war but not necessarily connected to the anti-imperialist movement. The public opinion should be pushed to recognize the congruence with the anti-Fascist resistance from which the Italian republic draws its legitimacy.
The calculations of the proponents proved to be correct. Within a few weeks about thousand people endorsed the call eventually overcoming two thousand endorsers . Most of them originate from various Communist and left movements among them some prominent ones like Domenico Losurdo, a renowned university lecturer and Marxist philosopher, Roberto Massari, internationally respected scholar on Che Guevara or Mara Malavenda, union leader and former MP. There are also Christian exponents like Padre Jean-Marie Benjamin, who has been fighting the embargo against Iraq since the beginning and who organised the audience of Tariq Aziz at the pope immediately before the aggression or Don Andrea Gallo, priest and leader of the anti-globalisation movement. To be noted also Hamza Roberto Piccardo, National secretary of the Union of Islamic Communities of Italy. Furthermore there are scholars from outside the left like Franco Cardini, historian with focus on Islam, lecturer at Sorbonne or Enrico Galoppini, an Arabist. (See the most prominent ones.)
Finally there are a handful of people originating from the right who have broken with historic Fascism and who oppose the intrinsic imperialist and pro-US stance of the Italian right like Maurizio Neri, who came from the far right, embraced "national Bolshevism" in the 1990s and eventually took an explicitly anti-Fascist Communist position or Biagio Cacciola, a politician of right-wing background who is now a councillor in a centre-left coalition in a small town in central Italy.
The attack started from the "left"
As was to be expected the attacks against the demonstration started as the reception of the call suggested a success. What was, however, astonishing, is the fact that they started from the left.
A group rivalling with the Anti-imperialist Camp called ANA (National Anti-capitalist Assembly) spread a "dossier" accusing the demonstration of being "ambiguous", in open co-operation with Fascists intending infiltration. The accusations have been posted on Indymedia without clearly indicating the author.
The main characteristics of that group is to mechanically derive their political line from concrete assumptions made in the period between WWI and WWII. To be mentioned first of all the theorem of inter-imperialist rivalry which – according to ANA – is doomed to take an antagonistic form leading to a new show-down between the Anglo-American and the German block. In their sterile approach they simply deny the new architecture of the imperialist system developed after the US victory in WWII and especially following the implosion of the USSR. Actually, the main contradiction of today is between the imperialist bourgeoisies and their broad middle class environment on one side and the billions of wretched on the periphery of imperialism on the other side. In this dominant conflict the secondary imperialist powers depend on the overwhelming military might of the US. Therefore weakening the US means weakening imperialism as a global system. Especially the German bourgeoisie in all its currents has firmly embraced this assessment. Unfortunately many orthodox Marxists are unable to see those facts. Like ANA they regard anti-Americanism as a support to German or Italian imperialism. To adopt anti-Americanism as the concretisation of anti-imperialism therefore implies for them a "transversal front" with the bourgeoisie, the right and especially the Fascists. Anti-Americanism is looked upon as treason to Lenin´s slogan developed facing the inter-imperialist war according to which the main enemy has to be fought in one´s own country. In their binary logic they are unable to see that to fight Americanism means to fight one´s own bourgeoisie as the latter is integral part of the US-led world system.
ANA and their likes are unable to properly interpret the very fact that the bourgeoisie of all European countries fully accept and depend on the US leadership. The varying shade of conflict with the US does not revolve around challenging their leadership but only the place within the pyramid of the world imperialist system assigned to them. The inter-imperialist feud is merely about the price to be paid to the US. The different bourgeoisies strive to increase their share, their part of the booty but not by engaging in a frontal clash over the leadership but within the parameters of the system. Inside the European bourgeoisie there is a virtually total consensus of the necessity of the US leadership ranging from the left, to liberals, conservatives, the right wing and even those who inherit the Fascist movement.
Especially until the end of the Soviet Union the Fascist movement was patronised by the pro US bourgeoisie against the revolutionary left often building the core of the Gladio underground structure ready to seize power by means of a military coup on behalf of the US.
To defect from that pro-American mainstream means not only to attack the US but also one´s own bourgeoisie insofar as they form part of the global system which can be called Americanism. Opposition against Americanism might start from different point of views but its dynamics, its tendency is directed against imperialism, against capitalism and against the bourgeoisies as those are part of the US global system. The main driving forces of the struggle are the exploited masses first of all in the periphery but also those excluded from the ruling politico-social block in the West. Anti-Americanism under today´s conditions is therefore organically progressive and left as it tends to constitute the poor masses as class subject against the bourgeoisie.
What do the terms Fascist and Nazi mean in the contemporary context? Historically these movements were adopted by the bourgeoisie to on one hand destroy the revolutionary movement unleashing a pre-emptive civil war and on the other hand to back war against the imperialist rivals. After WW II the Fascists were kept by the imperialist states as a last resort against the revolutionary forces. Today the European bourgeoisie does neither need to smash a mass revolutionary movement nor to wage war against its rivals. Thus, the grand majority of the Fascist forces is being absorbed into the ruling pro-US liberalist block.
But we might be faced with a tiny minority of the Fascist movement which defects from the pro-bourgeois and pro-US line. In case such "dissident Fascists" oppose the US-led global imperialist system and attempt to join the left popular movement for social equality and against the imperialist aggression, they undermine the main feature, the main characteristic of Fascism which is the intrinsic link to imperialism, to be servant of the interests of the bourgeoisie. As these forces retain reactionary, anti-popular elements they remain adversaries of the anti-imperialists. Co-operation is impossible unless they fully break with Fascism and renounce all reactionary, anti-popular and anti-Communist remnants. Given today´s relationship of forces and the absolute dominance of a kind of authoritarian Liberalism, these marginal Fascist forces are of course of only limited, secondary, importance for the revolutionary forces.
Aren´t national or nationalist sentiments a danger on which rightist or even Fascist forces could capitalise? But also those play a much more ambiguous role than before the defeat of the USSR or let alone in the period between the World Wars. The different European nationalisms used to back the respective bourgeoisies. Today those bourgeoisies try to unify within the European Union under the tutelage of US imperialism. So national sentiments and movements can – under certain circumstances – be directed against the dominant currents of the bourgeoisie combined with social demands against the liberalist attacks by those bourgeoisies unified within the EU institutions whose spirit is incarnated in the Maastricht treaty. On the other hand national patriotic sentiments can still be used for chauvinist imperialist purposes like we see today in Italy against the Iraqi resistance. It is the two party regime and the dominant block ranging from the historic Fascist to the historic left movement which is stirring this patriotic campaign – not against but in favour of the US. So the character of national sentiments depends on the context. In case a movement combines the struggle for national sovereignty with the defence of the social interests of the poor classes and thus is conflicting with imperialism, that means the US global system including one´s own bourgeoisie, it is not a frontal enemy but more of a concurrent, a competitor within the movement of the popular masses which needs to be dealt with like historic reformism in a combined approach of call for common action against the bourgeoisie and attack wherever there is co-operation with the bourgeoisie.
If there is a danger of Fascism and authoritarism then it stems from the Liberalist pro-American bourgeoisie exemplified by the complex of Guantanamo. Claiming to fight totalitarism represented by Islam and the anti-imperialist movements in general, they wage a pre-emptive war violating and negating the most basic human right and tending towards permanent genocide.
Another typical feature of ANA and similar dogmatic tendencies is anti-Islamism. Also with regard to this movement they are stuck in the 70s and 80s when Islamism was the favourite instrument of the West to combat the popular anti-imperialist movements and Communism in the Arab and Islamic world. They do not want to recognise that because of the defeat and betrayal of the historic Communist and nationalist movements the popular masses often embraced Islam as their means to defend their interests. They are not able to see that the popular struggle goes on and even intensifies though under a different leadership. Because they judge by sterile secularist criteria they regard the Islamic movements as reactionary all together regardless of whether they fight or co-operate with imperialism. In fact their position serves as an apology for those "democratic and humanitarian" imperialists waging an Illuminist crusade against the "Islamic barbarians".
Currents like ANA are as such insignificant and of no importance. But insofar as they can deliver a "left" apology for the ruling class´ struggle against anti-Americanism and Islam they serve as the "Marxist" witness for the imperialist consensus. Their accusation of "Fascist infiltration" into the only large European demonstration in favour of the resistance was never backed and could not be backed by evidence as the historic right and the Fascists are with the US war drive. It is mathematically deduced, virtually constructed from their dogmatic scheme that anti-Americanism automatically means to ally with the Fascists.
In this way ANA delivered the blueprint of the campaign against the Iraqi resistance and its Italian and European supporters led by the bourgeoisie in its different currents.
Next step: the left which remained after 1989/91 affirms its imperialist role
It is not by accident that all those attacks were launched via Indymedia which in constituted in a way offering also a platform for the pro-Zionist wing of the anti-globalisation movement which is operating with the accusation that any support for Palestinian and Arab resistance movements is a form of anti-Semitism as it goes against sacrosanct Zionism and Israel.
Another promoter of the campaign against the supporters of the Iraqi resistance is Fulvio Grimaldi, a well known journalist who is member of the "Ernesto" wing of Rifundazione Comunista (PRC, Communist Re-foundation). The Ernesto area is characterised by a verbal anti-imperialist radicalism, but as soon as Italian matters are touched they follow a reformist line of the Togliatti brand.
Grimaldi publicly launched an appeal not to support the demonstration and to withdraw the endorsements because – as he claims – it would be infiltrated by Fascists. There is no political argument which sense such an infiltration would make, as the Fascists supported the aggression on Iraq. Grimaldi had to resort to his special reading of history where all main events are exclusively stirred by imperialist intelligence services to give a meaning to his amalgam . Although his campaign failed as less than ten persons withdrew their signature, he managed to give the cue to the campaign of the bourgeoisie.
Background to this attack is the attempt of PRC to go to government on a ticket offered by the centre left. They have already formed an electoral alliance for which the PRC will try to collect the votes within the anti-globalisation movement. It is clear from the very beginning that a new centre left government will not significantly change the pro US line pursued by Berlusconi. All the Ulivo´s leaders clearly affirmed that. Although both the PRC and the Centre Left cannot and do not want to retroactively legitimate the war of aggression, they have already firmly stated that they regard the Iraqi resistance as terrorist.
Thus the party´s paper, "Liberazione", is denouncing the demonstration as being co-sponsored by neo-Fascists in repeated articles re-iterating the names brought up by ANA and Grimaldi and adding new ones – doing their journalistic research so unwarily that even some long time and well known members of their own party ended up as collaborators of Fascists like Giancarlo Paciello. On November 22, after having been asked by "L`Opinione", a paper close to the pro-US and pro-Israel Radical Party, the PRC secretary Fausto Bertinotti warned the party members that to support the call for the demonstration in favour of the resistance would not be compatible with the party´s membership (; Italian language).
Finally also "Il Manifesto", the main left wing newspaper, joined the campaign. In an article published November 22, 2003, under the meaningful title "Anti-Americanism agglutinating extremism" the delegate of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance at the Anti-imperialist Camp in Assisi, Awni Al Kalemji, is described as a "nationalsocialist Baathist", while in fact Awni Al Kalemji originates from the same movement as George Habash, the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and considers himself a Marxist. He was in opposition to Baathism all his life. The pattern is crystal clear: Whoever resists US imperialism is close to the Nazism no matter whether it is an exponent of the Iraqi resistance or the organisers of the demonstration in support of the resistance.
The anti-Berlusconi bourgeoisie
Inspired by the attacks and accusations launched by Fulvio Grimaldi and Rifondazione Comunista, "Corriere della Sera", the flagship of Italian bourgeois journalism and "La Repubblica", the main anti-Berlusconi bourgeois paper, entered the battle.
Magdi Allam, in an article published on October 13 in Corriere della Sera constructed, as the first in the mainstream media, the "Islamo-Nazi-Communist" block. He did not bother to give evidence or a political reasoning. He just enumerated different political currents being opposed to the US and claimed an alliance. In the following period several articles using this pattern appeared in Corriere della Sera. (
La Repubblica carried the attack further. In an article by Francesco Merlo published on November 22 they asked to "end the tolerance" with all those supporting the resistance and referred to a de facto state of emergency which would require the suspension of democratic rights.
Finally also Pierro Fassino the secretary of the Left Democrats (PDS) asked by L´Opinione called upon all the members of his party and the connected unions to withdraw their support for the demonstration and to boycott it.
In this way the entire centre left displayed their steadfast fidelity towards the US by condemning the support for the resistance. Although swimming on the wave of anti-war sentiment, they all regard the resistance as terrorist being led by Saddam-loyalists and al-Qa`ida as suggested by the US regime media.
The attack of the right, the state and the patriotic frenzy
Already during the Anti-imperialist Camp in Assisi the Think Tanks of the US Neo-conservatives took notice of the campaign to support the Iraqi resistance especially the call to donate 10 euro per person. On September 5 Paul M. Weyrich , chairman and CEO of the "Free Congress Foundation", called to apply the Patriot act and similar repressive tools against the Anti-imperialist Camp justifying the violation of elementary democratic rights as a necessity of the anti-terrorist war.
This can be considered as an indicator that the US apparatuses have been working on taking measures against us.
But it needed the occasion of the attack on the Italian contingent in Nasseriya killing nearly twenty occupation soldiers in mid November. In this context the Anglo-American media machine "discovered" the initiative of the Anti-imperialist Camp to collect money for the Iraqi resistance. BBC , CBS, NBC and others were quick to detect supporters of terrorism in Italy to be hunted down. Even Fox News tried to cover the event but the Anti-imperialist Camp refused to give an interview.
Following what has been started by the Anglo-American cooperate media the Italian government instigated a patriotic campaign which was orchestrated by all the main political forces including the historic left. Unanimously the attack on the Italian barrack was condemned to be an act of terrorism and not of legitimate self-defence against a foreign occupier. The entire political system of the regime rushed to condemn the Italian supporters of the resistance .
All the main national papers like those stated above as well as "La Stampa", "Il Riformista", Il Giornale" and a wide range of local press outlets joined in and fed the patriotic wave. The TV channel including the main one "RAI uno" amplified the campaign.
Since the Anti-imperialist Camp in Assisi, Berlusconi´s mouthpiece, "Libero", has been agitating against the demonstration and the collection of funds for the resistance. On November 27 in a climate of witch hunt the senator Lucio Malan, vice chairman of Forza Italia´s parliamentary fraction, opened an inquiry into the movement on support of the resistance invoking to apply …§ 270bis of the criminal code punishing "Association for the purpose of terrorism and for conspiracy against the democratic order". As a consequence the public prosecutor opened preliminary investigations against Moreno Pasquinelli, the spokesman of the Anti-imperialist Camp. Carlo Taormina, lawyer and MP of Forza Italia, even called for the arrest of the supporters of the resistance. So it is quite possible that the ministry of interior will decide to ban the demonstration at the last minute which would be a blatant violation of the elementary political rights.
As it will be very difficult to justify the suspension of the right to free expression, association and demonstration with the current laws, it was only consequent that General Leonardo Tricarico, counsel to the cabinet, recommended to resort to special laws adapted to times of war. Mosques not ready to accept the crusade against them should be closed, demonstrations for the resistance forbidden on legal ground – thus no front behind the lines should be allowed. Nobody would be astonished to hear such suggestions from the military or right wing politicians. But actually the authoritarian drive is being orchestrated by the left as well. Enzo Bianco, president of the parliamentary committee for intelligence services and part of the Centre Left, stated that the citizens will have to face "sacrifices" for the anti-terrorist struggle with regard to their democratic right.
Ending up on the side of imperialism
Already since the aggression on Yugoslavia led by the left liberal forces of Europe and accepted with "neutrality" by the biggest part of the historic left, we have been warning that the historic European left had become an integral and organic part of an American-type two party system. Minor differences between the two blocks remained to keep the democratic cover. But on the decisive questions of liberalist attacks on the popular masses both within Europe and throughout the capitalist periphery as well as on the imperialist war drive – though masked by humanitarian and democratic phrases – they are firmly unified. Like in the US it is one capitalist and imperialist regime regardless whether the left or the right administers it.
Many have been deceived by the fact that some of these left liberal governments and all the more those left liberal parties in opposition have been opposing the US aggression on Iraq thus giving way to a mass movement against the impending aggression on Iraq. However, the differences with the Anglo-American imperialists were not on the question whether Iraq should be brought back within the imperialist sphere of influence. This explains the acceptance of the 12 year long UN genocide against the Iraqi population. But the conflict revolved over how to do so and which role the European partners would play in the new Middle East and global design of the US. It was clear from the very beginning that accepting and participating in the crusade against Iraq would mean to consent to the erection of the American empire openly declared by the neo-conservative hawks within the US regime. Therefore some European powers insisted on the UN to impose the collective imperialist will on Iraq under the guise of the international community and multi-lateralism. Furthermore they wanted the booty to be shared and not to depend on the mercy of the US.
Now, as the resistance against the Anglo-American occupation takes shape laying claim to the right to self-determination it is condemned by all of them as being "terrorist". This has nothing to do with the facts as even the aggressors have to admit that the resistance can count on strong popular roots. The resistance is being condemned because of that fact that it inherits clear anti-imperialist dynamics involving more and more the popular masses. It cannot be in the interest of the imperialist powers, even those who opposed the war, that the US is defeated in Iraq. This would result in a shaking blow to the entire imperialist system.
Therefore, there is a big difference between being only against the unilateral US occupation or siding with the resistance. Some European powers want to replace the occupation with a UN-brokered neo-colonial regime strengthening their own rule in the world system and getting at least a part of Iraq´s wealth. Most of the left liberals including big parts of the anti-war movement support this latter perspective. However, against the resistance they are unified including the historic left as has been appallingly displayed by the attacks on the resistance demonstration in Rome.
What´s left of the "Left"?
In the campaign against the Roman demonstration we have been accused of trying to level the differences between left and right thus opening the doors to rightist and even Fascist elements. The exact contrary it the truth.
"Left" used to have a very simple meaning: defending the social, political and cultural interests of the poor classes and of the oppressed people against the ruling class of exploiters. That included the struggle for democratic rights and the right to national self-determination against imperialism.
Because we defend this heritage we also defend the right to resistance of the Iraqi people. But as a matter of fact it was the historic left who turned around and betrayed this tradition. With a more or less open apology for "democratic" imperialism established after the implosion of the Soviet Union they justified the war against Yugoslavia or at best remained "neutral". They are still not ready to side with the Yugoslav, the Palestinian, the Colombian or any other resistance again imperialism.
It is the historic left which passed over to the other side. The transversal front ranging from the very left including PRC to the Fascist right against the Iraqi resistance and the demonstration on its behalf is a clear sign of that. The left has become part of the pro-American two party system.
We cannot pretend nothing has happened. The historic left has passed to the bourgeoisie taking with it organisations, newspapers, cultural associations – an entire historic milieu. It has merged with the right into a reformed liberalist American style two party regime. They have capitulated, yet they have retained the "label". It is not we who wish the end of the left, it is history that proved that the historic left as an antagonist force has ceased to exist. We are few who remain in defence of the original content of the left, but it will be a long way to rehabilitate the notion from the rape being done by the historic organisations of the left. This is way we a cautious speaking about the "left".
It is not we who advocate the front with the right, on the contrary we defend the historic positions of anti-Fascism, anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism - and today this means to support the Iraqi resistance. But those who act as if nothing has changed, who do not see the transformation of the overwhelming part of the "historic left" into a part of imperialism have actually tied themselves to the right in a "transversal front" providing a "democratic" face to the imperialist regime.
Fascism and Anti-Fascism
As explained above Fascism was a specific historic phenomenon under the specific circumstances of the period between the two World Wars. Under the conditions of a lost war, a structural crisis of capitalism and a powerful Communist movement, it served the bourgeoisies of the German Axis for two purposes: to destroy the revolutionary movement and to wage war against the victorious Entente imperialism. Therefore they made use of a deviated popular mass movement.
Today the ruling bourgeoisies do no longer fear a revolutionary movement nor do they intend to wage war against the US. They embarked on an ultra-liberalist project and which is mainly endangered by the rebellion on the periphery. At least since the end of the USSR they do not have any use for historic fascism.
On the contrary, the liberalist regimes claim to be anti-Fascist. For them all who oppose liberalism mainly in the oppressed countries but also in the West are described as being Fascists. So those nationalist forces who defend themselves against imperialism like the Yugoslav ones are being defamed as Fascists ("Milosevic as the Hitler of the Balkans, Saddam and Arafat as the Hitlers of the Middle East"), Islam and Islamism serves as another form of fascism ("Hitler in Tehran") and also those Communist forces in the West who refuse to be absorbed into the two party system will be included in this new definition of Fascism. One way this transposition is being operated is to ascribe Anti-Semitism to all those who side with the Palestinians. This is currently happening in Germany, Austria and Hungary with the Anti-imperialist Camp. In Italy, where the pro-Palestinian sentiment and the anti-imperialist left is much broader this accusation might still backfire. Therefore the defamers like Grimaldi did not openly dare to do so, but accused us of collaborating with Anti-Semitic forces, paving the way for broader media operation. Only a few years ago such an ideological operation was considered to be an isolated form of Zionist propaganda but today it is about to become mainstream. From here it is only one step further to equate Communism with Fascism.
What we are facing is the old theory of totalitarism. But it could only become dominant by adopting the left into the imperialist regime. Pronounced by "leftists" against those who refuse to capitulate makes it more credible.
If today something can be called Fascist then it is US imperialism. Though it is clear that from a scientific point of view there are different characteristic like the lack of capillary organisation of the masses, in regard to unchained imperialist aggression, to the readiness to commit genocide, to the drive to abolish democratic rights (see the Patriot act and Guantanamo) and to the monstrous corporate media apparatus there are indeed striking similarities.
So if there is a new danger of Fascism than it will come from within the two party system, from within the "anti-Fascist" consensus. In order to save the world from "totalitarian" which equals "Islamo-Nazi-Communist" threat the US has to suspend all democratic rights, wage permanent and preventive war and to commit genocide terming it collateral damage.
So those who really co-operate with Fascists, those who really are engaged in a transversal front from left to right are the pro-American forces and all those participating in the two party regime including the historic left.
Historic anti-Fascism was directed against Fascism as a form of capitalism and imperialism. To continue this tradition there is only one way: to support the Iraqi resistance which is the successor of the European resistance. Whoever refuses to lend this support is in collusion with the new form of Fascism.
The grand majority of those who will join us will be people disappointed and frustrated with the two party democratic promises. Clinton promised them a world of peace, democracy and prosperity. This was never true but the image could be kept for a certain period of time. With Bush the illusions are damaged as "the best of all systems", capitalism, seems to embark on a spiral of war, tyranny and misery. But illusions are persistent. As Marx put it, false ideology has a social base. However, the contradiction between claim and reality will increasingly decompose dominant European left liberalism which could also be called European Clintonianism. Parts of the fall-out will nurture the anti-imperialist movement.
But there might be also some from the historic right who want to join us, maybe even some originating from the Fascist movement which in some places kept important proletarian influence. How should we deal with them? Our approach to anti-Americanism is analogous to the one to anti-Fascism. We intend to build broad fronts against the imperialist bourgeoisies who are in the core of those two phenomena. But different to the historic experience of the "popular fronts" where the leadership was surrendered to the "democratic wing" of the bourgeoisie, we do not refrain from the revolutionary anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle to seize state power. To combine a broad movement and the revolutionary struggle is only a contradiction in terms of formal logic. Our appeal for a broad movement in support of the Iraqi resistance and against Americanism is based on the slogan of the French revolution: Liberty, equality and fraternity translated into modern terms like democratic rights, social equality and solidarity-collectivity. Whoever accepts that is welcome as it implies a thorough break with any imperialism inspired by Fascist, liberalist, conservative or "leftist" traditions. The dynamics of that struggle is directed against the bourgeoisie which provides for the possibility to be led by an openly revolutionary anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist and Communist leadership. We will fight intransigently against any attempt to bring to movement under bourgeois leadership.
A variant of a bourgeois deviation is the intention to build various independent European imperialist forces or even an European imperialist block. This is both spread in certain currents of the left as well as in the right. No reconciliation with this position is possible.
Concluding: The Iraqi resistance is the core question of the global struggle against the US-led imperialist system. This struggle tends to constitute the poor classes of the world against imperialism all together. That does not automatically mean that whoever supports the Iraqi resistance is an anti-imperialist and can be co-operated with. Some elements striving for the erection of an concurrent imperialist power for whatever inspiration (Fascist, liberalist, conservative or "leftist") must be excluded. However, the tendency is clear – only from that anti-imperialist struggle an new revolutionary anti-capitalist and Communist movement can be born. On the other side, whoever refuses to support the resistance is in open or tacit collaboration with imperialism for whatever motivation (Fascist, liberalist, conservative or "leftist") which intrinsically tends to a new form of Fascism.
Vienna, December 9, 2003