PART TWO

ROOTS OF THE IMPERIALIST CRISIS

The trends which we see emerging world-wide are deeply rooted in the contradictions of the capitalist system of production itself. The crisis of imperialism will deepen until those contradictions are resolved - until one side or the other suffers a massive defeat. Socialism or barbarism are the choices facing humanity.

THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION

In the capitalist system production is directed not towards consumption needs, that is, production for use, but for exchange in order to make a profit. Under capitalist conditions of production natural resources are only utilised, the social productivity of labour only developed, labour is only employed and will continue to be employed if it serves the expansion of capital, that is, returns the capital invested with a profit. A crisis of the capitalist system begins when the rate ofprofit on investment falls too low. Capitalists rapidly cut back their investments in industry, unemployment grows and living standards fall. The present crisis of world capitalism is essentially a crisis of profitability.

Since the mid-1960s the rate of profit on investment has declined in all the major imperialist countries. Britain, the oldest imperialist power has experienced the sharpest fall. The rate of profit for industrial and commercial companies (excluding North Sea Oil) in Britain has fallen from over 13% in 1960 to a low point of just over 3% in 1981. Manufacturing profitability fell even further to slightly over 2%. 1982 has seen a very slight but insignificant rise. This fall in the rate of profit over two decades has led to the biggest economic crisis of the capitalist system since the Second World War.

This tendency for the rate of profit to fall is an expression of the central contradiction of the capitalist system of production. The aim of the capitalist is to make the largest amount of profit possible with a given amount of wealth produced by the workers employed. To do this, and survive in the face of other competitors, the capitalist has to continually raise the productivity of labour through investment in labour-saving machinery. More and more capital has to be invested in machinery, raw materials etc relative to that paid out as wages for workers. This will increase the mass of profits, for although the real wages of the workers may improve they will never improve by as much as the gains in productivity of labour.

The capitalist's investment decisions however are not just concerned about the mass of profits that can be made. More fundamentally what concerns the capitalist is the rate of profit on investment. And the rate of profit is measured by the ratio of the mass of profits to total investment, that is, to the money spent on machinery raw materials etc and wages. However profits do not arise from machinery, raw materials etc. They are created solely by workers. Profits only arise from the exploitation of workers. So that as the productivity of labour increases there are relatively fewer workers exploited (at a higher rate of exploitation) by a given amount of capital and a larger cost of machinery etc over which to measure the rate of profit. It follows, therefore, that an increase in the productivity of labour, brought about by labour-saving machinery, while increasing the mass of profits leads to a decline in the rate of profit. The rate of profit falls not because labour becomes less productive, but because it becomes more productive, not because the worker is less exploited but because the worker is more exploited.

There are a number of ways in which the fall in the rate of profit is delayed and held in check. Capital increasingly is exported to those countries where the capital-labour ratio is relatively low, where wages are low and the people are condemned to brutal exploitation under the yoke of viciously repressive regimes. Imperialist exploitation of the oppressed nations - exploiting their workers, natural resources and industry, paying low prices for raw materials and forcing those countries to pay high prices for exports from imperialist countries - gives rise to massive super-profits which can hold in check the fall in the rate of profit in the imperialist countries themselves.

As for capital invested in the imperialist countries, the living standards of the workers can be attacked and wages forced down below the value of labour power, below the normal levels achieved in previous periods. Workers can be forced to work at a higher level of intensity and social expenditure can be cut back. So the crisis of profitability forces the imperialists to seek solutions at the expense of the oppressed nations abroad and the working class at home.

THE CAPITALIST CRISIS

The capitalist crisis is both the expression of the contradictions of capitalism, an expression of the disease of the capitalist system, and of the way capitalism attempts to find a way to revive itself - to function 'normally'. It is both the disease and at the same time the only path to a cure. In the crisis capital is destroyed, machinery and buildings are not used and capital is written off. Firms are forced out of business as they become bankrupt. A large amount of capital in the crisis no longer functions as capital, nor can it lay claim to the mass of profits produced. In the crisis the concentration and centralisation of capital takes place. In general only the more productive larger firms survive as the less productive ones are driven out of business. Large firms swallow up smaller ones. A restructuring and redistribution of capital in favour of the large firms takes place. A section of the capitalist class - those controlling the large corporations and banks - becomes stronger.

At the same time, in the crisis unemployment rapidly grows and living standards fall. The position ofthe capitalists is strengthened in relation to the workers. Wages can be pushed down as workers are forced to compete for a smaller number of jobs. Trade unions are weakened as their bargaining strength is undermined and the capitalists impose curbs on their activities.

The reduction of wages, the fall in living standards, the weakening of trade union power and the redistribution of capital in favour of the large corporations and banks lays the basis for a restoration of profitability and a new period of capital accumulation. Whether this will occur and the rate of profit be restored to levels acceptable to the capitalist class is a political question. Every major crisis poses the question - will the power of the capitalists be challenged and the capitalist system overthrown?

CAPITALISM AND IMPERIALISM

When capitalism entered its imperialist phase at the turn of the century the capitalist crisis took on an international character. Capitalism in its relentless drive for profits grew into a world-wide system of colonial oppression and financial domination of the overwhelming majority of the world by a small number of powerful imperialist countries.

In a crisis situation when world markets are shrinking, each imperialist country attempts to solve its problems at the expense of others. A period of intense inter-imperialist rivalry occurs with the fight to protect home markets, to secure new investment and trade outlets, cheap raw materials and so on, in the search for additional profits. This struggle between the imperialist powers to increase their share ofthe mass of profits produced world-wide soon takes the form of a power struggle to dominate and control weaker capitalist economies and especially the oppressed nations. Eventually this world-wide crisis leads to war as the strongest imperialist powers attempt to overcome their rivals, redivide the world into new spheres of interest and reclaim for themselves former colonial possessions which today include the socialist countries.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century Britain's monopoly of the world market was being challenged by US, German and French capitalism. By the beginning of the twentieth century as capitalism entered its imperialist stage any possibility of long term stability in the major capitalist countries was rapidly diminishing. The battle to redivide the world began as imperialism faced crisis afier crisis. A new period of stability in the major imperialist countries was not to occur until after the Second World War. In the intervening period the world saw the barbarity of the imperialist system. Two world wars and the great depression were imposed on humanity to create the social and economic foundations for a revival of the capitalist system of production. However the misery imposed on millions of people by imperialism inevitably led to the overthrow of the capitalist system in many areas of the world. The socialist revolution in Soviet Russia in 1917 spread East as oppressed peoples took up the struggle against imperialism. By 1949, with the victory of the Chinese revolution, a significant part of the world's population had chosen the socialist path of development and were no longer open to imperialist exploitation and profit-making.

With the emergence of the socialist countries, the fundamental contradiction of capitalism - the struggle between capital and labour assumes an added dimension. The struggle between the working class and the capitalist class takes on an international form in the relations between imperialism and the socialist countries. The hostility of capitalism to the socialist countries is a class confrontation, with the imperialists attempting to reverse their defeats.

The rapid growth of capital accumulation in the imperialist countries during the thirty year period after the Second World War was based on a number of important developments. First, the massive destruction and restructuring of capital resulting from the great depression and two world wars. Second, the temporary suspension of inter-imperialist rivalries after the Second World War with the overall dominance of US imperialism. And finally, and most importantly, the greatest defeats of the organised working class in the imperialist nations in its history - defeats resulting from the overwhelming victories of opportunist currents in these movements. Fascism and war were the expression of these defeats.

After the Second World War US imperialism used its economic dominance to develop the US economy at the expense of the defeated imperialist powers and the less powerful ones. However the overthrow of capitalism in Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War in the wake of the heroic Soviet army victories against fascism, forced US imperialism to reverse its immediate post-war policies and begin the process of rebuilding the West German and Japanese economies as a barrier against further socialist advance. Through Marshall Aid and the export of capital, US imperialism laid the basis for increasing control of world markets for US capital and a higher rate of capital accumulation at a higher rate of profit. The profit-rates of US capital were additionally boosted by the very high profits gained from US imperialism's dominant position in the super-exploitation of oppressed nations throughout the capitalist world.

Fascism and war resulted in crushing blows against the German, Japanese, Italian and Spanish working class. In Germany fascism had already destroyed working class organisations and massively reduced living standards before the Second World War. It was not until 1956 that real wages of German workers even reached 1938 levels. In the 1950s, with the reconstruction of the German economy well under way, German capital made the highest rate of profit in its whole history. A similar process occurred in Japan where wage levels in 1949, for example, were less than 60% ofthose in the period 1934-36.

In those countries where the working class had not been defeated by fascism, or those countries where sections of the ruling class had been thoroughly compromised through their relationship with the fascists, it was the ease with which the opportunist leadership of the working class and working class organisations could be integrated in the process of reconstruction after the war that allowed the capitalist revival to get under way. In Britain the Labour Party carried through this process. In France and Italy the 'communist' parties had to be initially brought into government. These parties of the organised working class were used by the ruling class to curb working class unrest and ensure the reasonably low levels of wages and the workplace discipline necessary to achieve the higher rates of profit for a more rapid accumulation of capital in the national economies.

The enormous destruction and depreciation of capital during the war - in this way the war aided the restructuring of capital - meant that demand levels were very much higher and with the higher profit rates after the war there was now a new basis on which to begin accumulating capital. The introduction of more efficient technologies world-wide which had been developed before and during the war also became possible. The post-war boom in the major imperialist countries carried in its wake a continuous increase of the productivity of labour well above pre-war levels. Productivity doubled every 10 years in Japan, every 15 years in the major EEC countries and every 30 years or so in the United States and Britain. While real wages began to rise once the boom got underway, their rise was well below the increase of the productivity of labour.

As the capital accumulation process accelerated and the productivity of labour rose, the very conditions which, under capitalist conditions of production lead to a fall in the rate of profit, re-emerged. To avoid the social and political consequences of a slowdown of the accumulation process two important developments accompanied the post-war boom. The first was the rapid process of credit expansion both nationally and internationally. The second was the rapid growth of the state sector in the capitalist economy.

Capitalists attempt to overcome any fall in the rate of profit by pushing up prices to levels which, in monetary terms, maintain their rate of profit. To allow commodities to be sold at these higher prices a continual process of credit expansion is necessary. If this did not occur the commodities produced could not be sold, investment would fall, and the fall in the rate of profit would force firms out of business and crisis conditions would soon emerge. The expansion of credit postpones the devaluation of capital through a process which leads to a depreciation of money, that is, rising prices or inflation. In such a way the expansion of credit postpones the crisis. Production is allowed to expand, as credit is extended beyond those limits justified by the actual conditions of production. The growth of credit allows a more rapid rate of capital accumulation. However the very process by which this occurs - an increase in investment in labour-saving machinery - accelerates the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. This necessitates a further extension of credit and a further increase in the general price level. Debts mount up. Once it is no longer possible to sufficiently increase profitable production by the expansion and extension of credit, the accumulation process will tend to stagnate, and the whole monetary edifice built on the basis of credit will be threatened with collapse.

From about 1895 onwards with the exception of the years of the great depression, a continuous increase in prices in all the major capitalist countries has occurred in spite of the large increases of the productivity of labour. Credit expansion has, since the turn of the century, played a greater and greater role in the expansion of capitalist production. Afier the Second World War, however, this process was insufficient to keep capital accumulating at an adequate rate. In all the major imperialist countries the state, more and more, had to play a significant role in production (nationalised industries), in stimulating production through deficit financing (expanding the credit base of the banks and hence the supply of money) and state consumption, and in maintaining and sustaining an adequate labour force ('welfare' state) as well as guaranteeing employment (to within politically acceptable limits).

The state had already intervened massively in the imperialist economies during the duration of the two imperialist wars. After the Second World War the political crisis ofthe war years dictated that certain concessions had to be made to the working class in the imperialist countries as the price for the collaboration of the main working class organisations in the reconstruction of the capitalist economies and as a barrier to further socialist advance. Unemployment could not be allowed to increase to the levels experienced during the inter-war years. Social expenditure on health and education, pensions, unemployment and social security benefits were all part of the price of tying the organisations of the working class to the machinery of the capitalist state. They were also necessary to prevent the social and political instability that could threaten the control the existing opportunist leadership of the working class had over the main working class organisations.

While profit rates are high, state expenditure provides a stimulus for private capital accumulation. However the process is a contradictory one. Capital accumulation leads to an increase in the productivity of labour as more and more investment goes into labour-saving machinery. Employment in the private capitalist sector tends to decrease. The state steps in to maintain employment at politically acceptable levels. Profits cannot be increased by using the pressure of unemployment to force down wages below normal levels. Private capital is forced to increase the productivity of its labour force even further to reduce costs and increase profits. More labour is shed from the private sector. The state has to step up its intervention to limit the increase in unemployment. So that over time there is a relative and absolute growth of those workers directly or indirectly employed in the state sector and a relative growth of state expenditure as a percentage of national income.

State expenditure consists mainly of 'unproductive' expenditure and consumption. The employment of the vast majority of workers in the state sector does not increase the profits of the capitalist class. Health care, education, social services, unemployment and social security benefits, the administrative apparatus of the state and so on reduce the share of the mass of profits available to private capital. The growing mass of profits now has to finance both private capital accumulation and the relatively faster growing state sector. The rate of profit in the hands of private capital then falls faster than the general rate of profit. Again the attempt to compensate for the fall in the rate of profit by reducing the costs through an increase in the productivity of labour in the private sector makes the intervention of the state all the more necessary. Eventually the rate of accumulation of capital in the private sector will begin to falter and in spite ofthe growing intervention of the state, unemployment rapidly starts to grow.

All the major imperialist countries have been forced to increase state expenditure during the post-war period as the figures in Table 6 indicate. At a certain stage, the growth of state expenditure and the expansion of credit are insufficient to offset the relative stagnation of accumulation in the private sector. The rate of profit is too low. Unemployment and inflation increase together. The extension of credit and the growth of the state sector no longer result in a profit adequate for the capitalist class to increase their investment. More and more capital is exported to those countries where the rate of profit is higher and in particular to the oppressed nations. The post-war boom in the imperialist countries is at an end. The return of classical crisis conditions is at hand. The rate of profit has to be restored.

'Monetarism' is the label given to the policies capitalist governments have now adopted to restore the rate of profit in the imperialist countries. Severe restrictions in the expansion of credit (money supply) are imposed and cutbacks in the growth of state expenditure become standard government practice. Millions join the ranks of the unemployed as the ruling class creates a social and economic climate for driving wages down. Social services are gradually cut back with appalling consequences for the poorer sections of the working class as the government puts vast amounts of money back into the hands of private capitalists. Much of this money however is exported abroad as capitalists search for an adequate return on their capital. Investment barely increases at home as the rate of profit is regarded as much too low. The attack on the working class has to be stepped up. Trade union rights have to be taken away before the capitalists will be satisfied that it is worthwhile to invest at home. It is this fact of capitalist reality - the inevitable consequence of the capitalist system of production -that threatens the working class in the imperialist countries with conditions of unemployment and poverty not experienced in such countries for 50 years.

THE GROWTH OF THE IMPERIALIST BANKS

Capitalism in its imperialist phase is a decaying and parasitical system. The needs of millions of human beings are brushed aside as capitalists seek whatever means are available to augment their wealth. The fall in the rate of profit in the imperialist countries has led to an enormously strengthened role for banking capital, and through the export of capital, has increased imperialism's stranglehold over the oppressed nations of the world.

As industrial production and manufacturing output decline, as millions of workers find themselves without work or livelihood, as millions of children die from malnutrition and disease the profits of the imperialist banks keep growing and growing. Yet banks produce no wealth. They simply control and move around vast quantities of money-capital and make enormous profits out of doing so. Their financial power has gained for them an increasing share of the profits which arise from the exploitation of workers in industry, mining and agriculture throughout the world. The banks are totally parasitic. They foster and feed off the financial helplessness of others. This is a characteristic of imperialism - parasitic and decaying capitalism.

Imperialism is accompanied by an enormous concentration and growth of the banks. These monopolistic banks by virtue of their size and extent of their operations, by their ability to give and restrict credits, through their connections with industry and commerce can exercise a dominant control over capitalist society.

In the early phases of the post-war boom capitalist firms were able to finance their expansion from their massive profits made at home and abroad. As the rate of profit started to fall they were forced to borrow from the banks at first to continue their rapid expansion but later more and more to survive. A greater and greater share of profit went on interest payments to the banks. The fate of large corporations increasingly becomes determined by the credit policies of the banks.

The Eurocurrency market is a central source of loan capital throughout the world. It involves the depositing and lending of currencies outside their country of origin - the dollar being the dominant currency of operation (over 70%). The growth of the Eurocurrency market is a measure of the powerful position the imperialist banks have taken in the capitalist system. From a net size (excluding inter-bank transactions - banks lending to other banks to lend on) of some US$60 billion in 1970, it grew to US$260 billion in 1975 and in March 1983 reached US$1,025 billion.

Since the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) began compiling statistics on the Eurocurrency market in the early 1960s the 'reporting area' has been gradually extended as new centres of international banking have developed. From December 1981 certain restrictions were removed on banks in the US taking deposits from, and making loans to, overseas residents. This has now allowed the US to become a major centre in the lucrative business of international banking. The 'reporting area' now includes the major banking centres in twelve European countries, the United States, Canada and Japan and branches of US banks in certain 'offshore' centres (Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, Panama, Hong Kong and Singapore). If we take into account BIS estimates of international banking business in offshore banking centres not in the 'reporting area', and include lending to residents in foreign currencies, total international bank lending (including inter-bank transactions of approx US$600 billion) has reached a staggering US$2,400 billion.

The importance of these international markets for banking is that they are beyond the control of any government and allow many domestic credit restrictions to be bypassed. They are also a source of enormous profits for the imperialist banks. London has always been the main international centre for the Eurocurrency market with well over 30% of transactions passing through the London market. It is still the major centre of international banking throughout the world with 27% of all international banking business. Way behind is the US with 14.5%, followed by Japan (7.5%) and France (7.2%).

As the fate of even large corporations can be determined by the banks, so the survival of the peoples of oppressed nations massively in debt to the banks depends even more on the decisions of a few powerful bankers. The international banks have directed a great deal of their business towards the oppressed nations over the last ten years and especially after the rise in the price of oil in the early 1970s. As the rate of profit on capital invested in the imperialist countries has fallen so a greater and greater proportion of the rapidly increasing Eurocurrency bank credits have gone to the oppressed nations. In 1972, 60% of a total of nearly US$7 billion Eurocurrency bank credits went to the imperialist countries and 36% to the oppressed nations. By 1979 the position was reversed with 33% of a total of nearly US$83 billion going to the imperialist bloc and 58% going to the oppressed nations. In the recent period confronted by the insurmountable debt problems of the oppressed nations the imperialist banks have begun to curb their lending and the proportion going to the oppressed nations has fallen to under 50%. The imperialist exploitation of the oppressed nations impoverishes them and makes it impossible to pay off their debts. Today they have to borrow even more at a higher rate of interest just to service the debts they have already got. Eventually many nations will be forced to default and the whole monetary edifice built on the basis of international bank lending will collapse. The capitalist system which spawned it will then be faced with the greatest crisis in its history.

THE RE-EMERGENCE OF INTER-IMPERIALIST RIVALRIES

Finally, and inevitably, the crisis of world capitalism has seen the re-emergence of inter-imperialist rivalries. The fall in the rate of profit on industrial capital has, in all imperialist countries, not only led to an increasing international role for their imperialist banks but also growing competition between the imperialist powers in the fight to protect home markets and secure new international markets for investment and trade as part of a frantic search for the greater and greater profit now required to offset the fall in the rate of profit at home. US imperialism while still the dominant imperialist power faces an economic challenge particularly from those nations whose economies it was forced to rebuild - Japan and West Germany as well as Britain, France and Italy. The growing economic strength of Japan and Germany - the much faster relative growth of the productivity of labour in these countries and their inroads into world export markets - forced the US to devalue the, then, much overvalued dollar in 1971:

Table 7	Shares of world exports (in %)
	1948	1960	1970	1979
US	23.3	15.9	13.6	10.9
West Germany	1.4	8.9	10.9	10.5
Japan	0.48	3.2	6.2	6.3
Britain	12.2	8.3	6.2	5.6
France	3.9	5.4	5.7	6.0
Italy	2.0	2.8	4.2	4.4

The increasing power of Japanese banks is reflected in the fact that in 1983 six of its banks were among the top twenty largest banks in the world - with one in the top ten. The US has four in the top twenty including the top two and Britain has three with two in the top ten. France has four in the top twenty with three in the top ten, but these are among the less profitable banks. In terms of profitability the US and Britain reign supreme, the US with six in the top twenty and three in the top ten and Britain with five in the top twenty and also three in the top ten. Japan has two, Germany and France one in the top twenty in terms of profitability. Japanese banks are claiming a greater and greater share of the London banking market - the largest international banking centre.

Japanese banks now have the largest share of international bank lending in the London market. Although a higher proportion of Japanese banks' business is inter-bank, their increased share at the expense of British and US banks is a sign of Japan's growing challenge as an imperialist power.

While the imperialist banks now play the leading role in squeezing the maximum amount of profits from the oppressed nations, direct investment abroad by multinational companies is another major source of extra profits. The bulk of direct foreign investment still flows to the major imperialist nations and the more developed capitalist economies - in the region of two-thirds. However what is significant is that the rate of profit squeezed out of the oppressed nations through direct foreign investment is far higher than that invested elsewhere. Imperialist companies invested nearly US$63 billion in the oppressed nations between 1970-1980. They took out nearly US$140 billion profits - for every $1 invested $2.3 came back in return. Between 1970-1979 US multinational companies extracted US$4.25 for every dollar invested in the oppressed nations. In 1972-77 British imperialism declared a rate of profit of 18%-20% from its investment in the oppressed nations compared to between 3.6%-4.2% for domestic industry. Little wonder that as the rate of profit has fallen at home so the annual growth of flows of direct foreign investment from the imperialist countries to the oppressed nations has increased-from 7% between 1960-1968, 9.2% between 1968-1973 to 19.4% between 1973-1978.

The share the imperialist powers have in this looting of the oppressed nations is another guide to the growing inter-imperialist rivalries and the relative strength of those involved. Although US imperialism is still by far dominant in this area with Britain holding second place, again we see the growing challenge of Japanese and German imperialism:

Table 9	Stock of direct investment in oppressed nations by selected country of origin ($ million)
	1970	%	1980	%
US	22,300	52.0	63,118	48.0
UK	5,912	14.0	14,713	11.0
Germany	1,942	4.5	11,590	9.0
Japan	1,218	3.0	11,022	8.4
France	3,832	9.0	8,674	6.6
Italy	1,245	3.0	3,584	3.0
All country total	42,712		131,252

Between 1973 and 1982 net long-term capital outflow from Japan was $62.2bn. By 1982 the total assets of Japan abroad were $228bn - $l4Obn long-term assets. Recent reports suggest that the export of capital from Japan has grown massively again with an estimated $32 billion expected to be exported abroad in the year to March 1984. The world once again is threatened with competition between the imperialist powers that could lead to another imperialist war. US imperialism will stop at nothing to retain its overall superiority as recent developments in Grenada and Central America have shown. But the other imperialist powers will also stake their claims as Britain's reactionary war in the Malvinas/Falklands and France's incursions into Chad have already shown. The rapid build up of the armaments industries in all the imperialist countries indicates that yet again the capitalist system offers the vast majority of humanity nothing but barbarism and war.

---

IMPERIALISM AND OPPORTUNISM

Without a revolutionary situation a revolution is impossible. And further not all revolutionary situations lead to revolution. What then are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? Lenin pointed to three major ones. (1) A crisis in the ruling classes: the ruling classes are unable to maintain their rule in the old way. A crisis develops which leads to differences in policy and divisions in the ruling classes. Such divisions create an opening for the discontent and anger of the oppressed classes to burst through. (2) The suffering of the oppressed classes has grown more acute than usual. They do not want to live in the old way. (3) As a result of the above developments there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses. Driven by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the attacks of the ruling classes, the oppressed masses are drawn into independent historical action. These objective changes are independent of the will 'not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes'. As a general rule a revolution is not possible without them. However not all revolutionary situations give rise to revolutions. A revolution occurs when these objective changes are accompanied by a subjective change - that is 'the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, "falls", if it is not toppled over'.

The historical development of the capitalist system has shown that, after numerous crises and two imperialist world wars, it still survives in all the major capitalist countries of Lenin's day. The subjective factor - the revolutionary class - has not been strong enough to overthrow the capitalist system. It was, in fact, weakened from within. Opportunist currents, holding great influence over the working class movement in the major capitalist nations, through their status and political control, have been able to hold back and undermine the independent political activity of the working class.

Capitalism in its relentless drive for profits has grown into a world-wide system of colonial oppression and financial domination of the overwhelming majority ofthe world by a small number of imperialist countries. This domination has divided the world into oppressor and oppressed nations. A handful of the imperialist countries obtain high monopoly profits out of the brutal exploitation of oppressed peoples world-wide. Out of these super-profits imperialism is able to create and sustain a small privileged and influential layer of the working class in the imperialist countries whose conditions of life isolate it from the suffering, misery and temper ofthe broad mass of the working class. This privileged layer has a material interest in the continuation of imperialism, for it is the source of its economic and political privileges. These workers, a labour aristocracy, constitute the social base of opportunism in the working class. Politically this current represents the interests of the ruling class in the working class movement. To protect its own minority interests this layer sacrifices the fundamental interest of the working class for an alliance with the ruling class - an alliance directed against the interests ofthe mass of the working class.

So critical was this development for the working class movement and so great the damage done to the interests of the working class as a result of the activities of these layers that Lenin, at the Second Congress ofthe Communist International (1920), regarded opportunism as the principal enemy:

'Opportunism is our principal enemy. Opportunism in the upper ranks of the working class movement is not proletarian socialism but bourgeois socialism. Practice has shown that the active people in the working class movement who adhere to the opportunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeiosie than the bourgeoisie itself. Without their leadership of the workers, the bourgeoisie could not remain in power.' (Lenin Collected Works Vol 21 p242)

Imperialism therefore not only divides the world into oppressor and oppressed nations, but also in the imperialist countries creates a split in the working class movement between a small influential opportunist layer and the broad mass of the working class. The split was to have major implications in the international working class movement.

THE RISE OF OPPORTUNISM IN BRITAIN

These developments in the international working class movement occurred in the major imperialist countries at the turn of the century. However, in Britain they took place a lot earlier, because two important features of imperialism were already present in Britain in the middle of the nineteenth century - vast colonial possessions and a monopolistic position in the world market.

Because of its monopoly position and colonies the profits of British capital were very high. The super-profits allowed a relatively privileged standard of life for an aristocracy of labour - for a minority of skilled well-paid workers. These workers were organised in narrow, self-interested craft unions and they isolated themselves from the mass of the working class. They looked down on the unskilled worker. Politically this labour aristocracy supported the Liberals (liberal bourgeoisie), who they looked to for the political and economic reforms thought necessary to guarantee their continued advancement and to secure their privileged existence. They were contemptuous of socialism, regarding it as 'utopian'.

These strata of privileged workers were more concerned with the struggle for a larger share of Britain's colonial plunder than with fighting for socialism. They could be very militant in fighting for higher wages and better working conditions but in politics they were bourgeois through and through. Engels commented on this in a letter to Bernstein on 17 June 1879:

'For a number of years past...the English working-class movement has been hopelessly describing a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages.and shorter hours, not, however, as an expedient or means of propaganda and organisation but as the ultimate aim.

'The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class...One can speak here of a labour movement only in so far as strikes take place here which, whether they are won or not, do not get the movement one step further. To inflate such strikes...into struggles of world importance...can, in my opinion, only do harm. No attempt should be made to conceal the fact that at present no real labour movement in the Continental sense exists here. '

And in another letter to Kautsky on 12 September 1882 he said:

'You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy.

'Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as the bourgeois think. There is no workers' party here, you see, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies.'

This aristocracy of English workers at that time only constituted a small minority ofthe working class, some 10-15%. The vast majority of unskilled and semi-skilled workers were not yet organised, so the influence of the opportunists remained unchallenged.

IRELAND AND THE BRITISH REVOLUTION

This development had important consequences for the socialist revolution in Britain. In particular, it was one of the factors which forced Marx and Engels to make a major reassessment of the relation between the Irish national liberation struggle and the British revolution. More generally, as capitalism reached its imperialist phase, Marx and Engels' analysis of the Irish question was a pointer to the increasing significance of national liberation struggles of oppressed peoples for the world-wide struggle of the working class for socialism.

Over 100 years ago Marx and Engels first established that the question of Irish self-determination stands at the heart of the British revolution. Before 1848, Marx and Engels thought Ireland would be liberated as a result of the victory of the working class movement in Britain. Deeper study, however, convinced them that the opposite was true. The British working class would never accomplish anything until it had got rid of its present connection with Ireland. Ireland is the key to the British revolution.

They reached their new position on the basis of a concrete analysis of the relationship between Britain and Ireland. That relationship significantly changed over a twenty year period. The national liberation movement in Ireland assumed revolutionary forms with the rise of the Fenian movement - a 'lower orders' movement based on the land. The working class movement in Britain not only lost its revolutionary drive with the defeat of the Chartist movement in 1848 but also, as we have said, fell under the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie for a long period of time.

The British ruling class was divided into two main sections - the old landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. Ireland was not only a bastion of power and wealth for the old landed aristocracy but it was a point of unity of both sections of the British ruling class. For the bourgeoisie also benefited from British domination over Ireland. Ireland was not only a source of cheap food and raw materials for British capitalists but also the impoverished Irish peasantry driven off the land and forced to emigrate to England was a source of cheap labour. This forced emigration of Irish people divided the working class in Britain into two hostile camps. It allowed the ruling class to provide a relatively superior position for British workers as against the Irish and so support and nourish the hostility between these two sections of the working class. This antagonism between British and Irish workers, argued Marx and Engels, 'is the secret of the impotence of the English working class despite its organisation'. For the oppression of Ireland united the ruling class and divided the working class.

The British ruling class was most vulnerable in Ireland where the power of the landed aristocracy was being challenged by a revolutionary national movement based on the land. A defeat for the British ruling class in Ireland would open the way for the British revolution. Provided, of course, that the British working class made common cause with the Irish. The national emancipation of Ireland is the first condition for the victory of the British revolution. And unless the British working class 'made common cause with the Irish', the British working class would never accomplish anything. This is the sense in which Marx and Engels argued that Ireland is the key to the British revolution.

In defending their stand on the Irish question in the First International, Marx and Engels came up against the opportunist leaders of the British Labour movement who at that time were moving closer to Gladstone and the leaders of the liberal bourgeoisie. They were forced to deal with political attacks on the Irish liberation movement which have recurred ever since. These included those of the 'English would-be liberators' who thought Fenianism was 'not altogether wrong' but wanted the Irish movement to use the 'legal means of meetings and demonstrations...' by which the English movement conducted its struggles. Supporters of Marx and Engels argued that the Irish had every right to use force since force was used to deny them their freedom. When Marx, in supporting the call for an amnesty for Irish political prisoners, accused Gladstone 'of deliberately insulting the Irish Nation' and attacked the conduct of his government, there were those who thought he went too far. Marx's reply is a political guideline for today: 'it is more important to make a concession to the Irish people than to Gladstone'. Finally Marx and Engels faced defenders of British rule over Ireland who argued that Ireland could not be independent because it would undermine the security of Britain. That the International was able to build a demonstration of nearly 100,000 people in support of the demand for an amnesty for Irish political prisoners was mainly due to the political fight Marx and Engels conducted in support of Irish self-determination in the First International.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century Britain's monopoly power was being challenged by American, German and French capitalism. The economic basis of the narrow petty bourgeois trade unionism and liberalism among the British workers was being undermined. The previously tolerable conditions of life gave way to extreme want as the cost of living rose and real wages fell. The class struggle intensified and this period saw the emergence and development of socialist organisations. The unskilled workers, encouraged and aided by the socialists, were organised in the wave of the New Unionism which swept Britain at the end of the nineteenth century. Soon after this development took place Engels pointed out the importance of New Unionism for the working class movement in general.

'This organisation may to a great extent adopt the form of the old Unions of"skilled" workers, but it is essentially different in character. The old Unions preserve the traditions of the time when they were founded, and look upon the wages system as a once for all established, final fact, which they at best can modify in the interest of their members. The new Unions were founded at a time when the faith in the eternity of the wages system was severely shaken; their founders and promoters were Socialists either consciously or by feeling; the masses, whose adhesion gave them strength, were rough, neglected, looked down on by the working-class aristocracy; but they had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited "respectable" bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated "old" Unionists. And thus we see now these new Unions taking the lead of the working-class movement generally, and more and more taking in tow the rich and proud "old" Unions.'

(Engels 1892 Preface to The Condition of the Working Class in England)

Engels died a few years later in 1895. His revolutionary optimism eventually proved unjustified. The English working class had definitely made great strides forward and the new unions won major victories against the old unions and the employers. But in the end the leaders of the new unions were not able to resist the opportunism of the old union structure with its army of paid and bought off officials. Opportunism eventually triumphed. The Irish question was to demonstrate this conclusively.

'SOCIALIST' COLONIAL POLICY

As Britain's economic superiority was being challenged, the opportunism of the leaders of the British labour movement necessarily took on the form of national chauvinism - a defence of the 'nation'. To retain their privileged position they needed to maintain their alliance with the bourgeoisie. This opportunist leadership of the labour movement therefore supported, in one form or another, the colonial policy of their 'nation'. And this was to occur in all the major imperialist nations. Lenin pointed out the importance of this development in 1907, in an article on the Congress of the Second International held at Stuttgart that year.

'The British bourgeoisie...derives more profit from the many millions of the population of India and other colonies than from the British workers ...(This) provides the material and economic basis for infecting the proletariat with colonial chauvinism. Of course, this may be only a temporary phenomenon, but the evil must nonetheless be clearly realised and its causes understood in order to be able to rally the proletariat of all countries for the struggle against such opportunism.'

(Lenin Collected Works Vol 13 p77)

At Stuttgart a major difference emerged in the Second International on the question of colonial policy. While all parties to the dispute, of course, rejected the present methods of capitalist colonial policy, a resolution was placed before the Congress which departed significantly from previous positions. It stated in its opening paragraph that:

'The Congress notes that the benefits and necessity of the colonies are grossly exaggerated, especially for the working class. However, the Congress does not, in principle and for all times, reject all colonial policy, which, under a socialist regime may have a civilising effect.'

The dispute centred around this part of the resolution and the Congress almost split on the issue. 128 rejected this part of the resolution and with it the possibility of any so-called 'socialist' colonial policy. 107 voted for it and there were 10 abstentions. The English delegation split, 14 votes being given in favour of 'socialist' colonial policy including that of Ramsay MacDonald (Independent Labour Party), who spoke in favour, and 6 were against including the Social Democratic Federation - an indication of the growing divisions and the strength of the opportunist currents in the British labour movement. All the Russian delegation voted against, a pointer to the revolutionary stand to be made by the Russian movement in the future.

At this Congress what was later to be called the Social-Democratic (evolutionary socialist) trend in the international movement - a trend which encompassed the Fabians, the British Labour Party and most of the ILP - emerged as a significant force. Bernstein, a member of the German Social Democratic Party, expressed their opportunist stand with its clear racist overtones when he said:

'There can be no question of defending the capitalist colonial policy. All of us are its opponents, the question is merely how we give expression to this opposition...

'We must not assume a purely negative standpoint... on the question of colonial policy, but instead must pursue a positive socialist colonial policy. (Bravo!) We must get away from the utopian idea that aims at simply leaving the colonies. The final consequence of that view would be to return the United States to the Red Indians. (Disturbance in meeting.) The colonies are there. We must put up with this fact. A certain guardianship of cultured peoples over non-cultured peoples is a necessity, which should also be recognised by socialists...

'.... A great part of our economic system is based on the exploitation of resources from the colonies which the natives would not know what to do with. For this reason, we must adopt the majority resolution (on socialist colonial policy).'

While the Congress narrowly defeated Bernstein's position there was a fundamental split in the international movement. This split was finally consolidated when the main parties ofthe Second International, including all significant sections of the British labour movement, supported the First Imperialist World War. The revolutionary trend in the working class movement was to carry through its consistent opposition to all colonial policy and its support for the right of nations to self-determination, to an opposition to imperialist war. This trend eventually founded the Third (Communist) International in 1919.

THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION

Out of the super-profits of imperialism and on the backs of oppressed nations, the bourgeoisie of the imperialist powers had bribed an upper stratum of workers and built a labour aristocracy isolated from the conditions of poverty of the vast majority of workers. This was the objective basis of opportunism on an international scale. These opportunists are agents of the bourgeoisie and vehicles of its influence in the working class movement. They support the colonial policy of their bourgeoisie for it is the source of their privileges and status. Unless the working class movement rids itself of the influence of these opportunists it will remain tied to the bourgeoisie. In other words, the influence of the labour aristocracy has to be destroyed and opportunism defeated or the socialist revolution in the imperialist countries will not be possible. That is why the revolutionary struggle for socialism has to be linked up with a revolutionary programme on the national question.

What was true ofthe relationship of Britain and Ireland in the later part of the nineteenth century was mirrored all over the world with the development of imperialism as a world system. By building on the political experience of Marx and Engels on the Irish question, Lenin was able to formulate the revolutionary position in relation to national oppression in the epoch of imperialism. In particular, he was able to make clear the attitude the working class of an imperialist nation should adopt towards national liberation movements.

Internationalism, in the epoch of imperialism demands a resolute struggle against national oppression and support for the right of nations to self-determination. Many socialists have tried to argue against all nationalism on the grounds that they are "internationalists" But this is to turn internationalism into a lifeless and reactionary abstraction. This avoids confronting the reality of imperialism: the fact that the world has been divided into oppressor and oppressed nations and that national oppression has been extended and intensified. It also ignores the split in the working class movement. One section, the labour aristocracy, has been corrupted by the 'crumbs that fall from the table' of the imperialist bourgeoisie, obtained from the super-exploitation and brutal oppression of the people from oppressed nations. The other, the mass of the working class, cannot liberate itself without uniting with the movement of oppressed peoples against imperialist domination. Only such an alliance will make it possible to wage a united fight against the imperialist powers, the imperialist bourgeoisie, and their bought-off agents in the working class movement. This means the working class fighting in alliance with national liberation movements to destroy imperialism for the purpose of the socialist revolution.

The unity of all forces against imperialism can only be achieved on the basis of the internationalist principle 'No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations'. This is expressed through the demand of the right of nations to self-determination. Far from being counterposed to the socialist revolution, it is precisely to promote it that communists are so insistent on this demand. This demand recognises that class solidarity of workers is strengthened by the substitution of voluntary ties between nations for compulsory, militaristic ones. The demand for complete equality between nations, by removing distrust between the workers of the oppressor and oppressed nations, lays the foundation for a united international struggle for the socialist revolution. That is, for the only regime under which complete national equality can be achieved.

Our 'internationalists', when confronted with these arguments, are forced to adopt yet another line of approach. Of course, they say, we support the right of nations to self-determination, but as 'socialists' we are opposed to bourgeois and/or petty bourgeois nationalism. Once again, they avoid the reality of national oppression. They ignore the fact that, as Lenin pointed out, the actual conditions of the workers in the oppressed and in the oppressor nations are not the same from the standpoint of national oppression. The struggle of the working class against national oppression has a twofold character.

'(a) First, it is the "action" of the nationally oppressed proletariat and peasantry jointly with the nationally oppressed bourgeoisie against the oppressor nation; (b) second, it is the "action" of the proletariat, or its class conscious section, in the oppressor nation against the bourgeoisie of that nation and all the elements that follow it.' (Lenin Collected Works Vol 23 p77)

Let us examine these two points in turn.

In general, all national movements are an alliance of different class forces which unite together for the purpose of achieving national freedom. The bourgeoisie in the oppressed nation supports the struggle for national freedom only in so far as it promotes its own class interests. For this class, national freedom means the freedom to exploit its own working class, to accumulate wealth for itself, to establish itself as a national capitalist class. If, at any point, the struggle for national freedom threatens the conditions of capitalist exploitation itself, the bourgeoisie will abandon the national struggle for an alliance with imperialism.

The working class supports the struggle for national freedom as part of its struggle to abolish all privilege, all oppression and all exploitation - this being the precondition of its own emancipation. The working class policy in the national movement is to support the bourgeoisie only in a certain direction, but it never coincides with the bourgeoisie's policy. For this reason, the working class only gives the bourgeoisie conditional support. In so far as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, the working class strongly supports its struggle. As Lenin so clearly argued in 1914:

'The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support.' (Lenin Collected Works Vol 20 p412)

Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, for privileges for itself the working class opposes it.

The important thing for the working class is to ensure the development of its class. The bourgeoisie is concerned to hamper this development by pushing forward its own class interests at the expense ofthe working class. The outcome of this clash of interests in the national struggle cannot be determined in advance. It depends on the concrete context in which the struggle for national freedom takes place.

The guiding light for the working-class movement is clear. The working class rejects all privileges for its 'own' national bourgeoisie, and its 'own' nation. It is opposed to compulsory ties between nations standing firmly for the equality of nations. In the imperialist nation, the working class can only express this position by insisting on the right of nations to self-determination. And it does this in the interest of international working class solidarity. A refusal to support the right of nations to self-determination must mean in practice support for the privileges of its own ruling class and its bought-off agents in the working class movement. Therefore, support for the right of nations to self-determination is the only basis for a united struggle aginst national oppression and imperialism, and for the socialist revolution.

The revolutionary standpoint therefore demands that the working class in the imperialist nation 'make common cause' with the oppressed peoples fighting imperialism. And, as Lenin argued, socialists could not, without ceasing to be socialists, reject such a struggle right down to an uprising or war. For the working class to side with its own ruling class or not actively oppose it, in the imperialist domination of the oppressed peoples necessarily means to strengthen the domination of opportunist forces over itself. Further, it undermines the unity of the working class in the oppressed and oppressor nations and hence the possibility of defeating imperialism and beginning the socialist revolution. Nothing demonstrates these essential points better than the relation of the British working class movement to the Irish struggle for freedom before, during and after the First Imperialist World War.

IRELAND - THE ACID TEST

Since the rise of the Fenian movement in the 1860s up to today, the most critical revolutionary challenge to British imperialism has come from Ireland. The dominance of opportunist forces in the British working class movement however has not only held back the working class struggle in Britain but has also limited support for the Irish revolution. The failure of the working class movement in Britain to rid itself of its opportunist leadership and 'make common cause' with the Irish revolution has meant a severe set-back for the socialist revolution in both Ireland and Britain.

When the revolutionary workers of Dublin led by the ITGWU challenged Irish capitalism and its British imperialist backers during the Dublin strike and lockout of 1913/14 the leadership of the British Labour and trade union movement did everything it could to undermine real solidarity action from British workers. The ITGWU was a revolutionary union. It organised the most oppressed workers in Ireland. It was born out of bitter struggles against the capitalist class, and in 1913 it was led by two revolutionary socialists, James Larkin and James Connolly. It spurned the tradition of 'moderation' and 'compromise' of the official British trade union movement. It was a fighting organisation with a political programme which included the demand for Irish self-determination. A victory for that union against the Dublin employers would have struck a mighty blow not only against the Irish capitalists but against British imperialism as well.

The British working class had been involved in a whole series of bitter strikes in 1911 and 1912 but it failed to rise to the revolutionary challenge of the Dublin workers. It proved unable to prevent its leaders, including those like Ben Tillett, previously associated with militant trade unionism and a leader of the New Unions, from selling out the revolutionary workers of Dublin. As a result these same leaders were able to draw the British working class into support for the imperialist War and so lead it to political defeat.

Just before the First World War the Liberals announced an amendment to the Irish Home Rule Bill to exclude part of Ireland from the operation of Home Rule. Ireland was to be partitioned to preserve British rule. The national movement was split. The Irish Party, representing the interests of the Irish capitalist class, accepted partition. The revolutionary wing ofthe national movement supported by Irish Labour was against partition. Once again the British labour movement was faced with a choice. And it chose to support partition and stand with the Irish bourgeoisie and British imperialism against the Irish working class. Having betrayed the revolutionary unionism of Larkin and Connolly during the Dublin lock-out, the British labour movement betrayed the revolutionary nationalism of the Irish masses. The British Labour and trade union movement went on to oppose the Easter Rising 1916 and applaud the judicial murder of its leaders, including the revolutionary socialist James Connolly. Arthur Henderson, the Labour MP, was in the War Cabinet which brutally crushed the Easter Rising and ordered Connolly's execution.

During the imperialist War the Irish Party organised recruiting meetings up and down the country in defence of Britain and its Empire. But British imperialism was prevented from introducing conscription into Ireland. For Irish Labour and the revolutionary wing of the national movement united in a successful mass campaign against the attempt of Lloyd George to introduce conscription into Ireland in 1918. Ireland saw the only general strike against the imperialist war in any Western European country.

After the Irish people had overwhelmingly voted for an Irish Republic, had set up Dail Eireann in 1919 and been forced to wage a revolutionary war to win its fundamental right to self-determination, the British Labour Party and trade union movement still refused to give it support. Trade union leaders in Britain did everything they could to prevent workers in Britain taking strike action in support of the Irish war - eg refusing to load munitions bound for Ireland. When the British government signed the Treaty with a section of the national movement prepared to sell out the interests of the Irish masses, and partitioned Ireland, it received the wholehearted support of the British Labour movement. Only the small British Communist Party as part ofthe Communist International took a principled stand opposing the Treaty and supporting the revolutionary national wing of the IRA in the civil war.

At every stage in this period the British labour movement refused to 'make common cause' with the Irish. As a result the British working class found itself dominated by the same opportunist leaders who betrayed its struggles right up to the defeat ofthe General Strike in 1926. Marx and Engels were right. By refusing to 'make common cause' with the Irish the British working class accomplished nothing.

THE SPLIT IN THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT

A number of 'Marxists' who held leading and influential positions in the Second International, in particular Kautsky and Bernstein, chose to defend the interests of a privileged stratum of the working class ignoring the struggles of the broad mass of the working class and the oppressed peoples fighting imperialism. During the First World War these leaders and their followers aided their own imperialist bourgeoisie in the conduct of the war. Lenin called these opportunists and their followers social chauvinists (socialist in words and chauvinist in deeds). Both Kautsky and Bernstein advanced reactionary positions associated with 'socialist' colonial policy. They opposed the right of oppressed peoples to self-determination and while critical of the excesses of colonial rule were for the reform of the colonial system not for its destruction.

Lenin opposed any attempt at reconciliation with such opportunists or social chauvinists. He argued that those who advocated 'unity' with the opportunists were 'objectively defending the enslavement of the workers by the imperialist bourgeoisie with the aid of its best agents in the labour movement'. Socialists had to abandon their preoccupation with the privileged minority of workers and turn to the 'lowest mass', the real majority who were not infected with bourgeois prejudice. No-one could calculate precisely what proportion of the working class will follow the opportunists. This could only be revealed in the real struggle. And it is because the opportunists represent a minority of the working class that Lenin argued:

'It is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialist, to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary priviledges of a minority of workers that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.' (Lenin Collected Works Vol 23 p120)

The break with the opportunists was necessary and inevitable, not only within the working class movements of particular nations but on an international scale. The formation of the Third (Communist) International gave political recognition to the irreconcilable split that had developed in the working class movement internationally before and during the First World War. However the allegiance of the overwhelming majority of working class organisations and political parties in the imperialist countries remained with the pro-imperialist, racist Second International.

This allegiance ofthe working class organisations in the imperialist countries to the interests of imperialism has continued despite two imperialist world wars, the great depression and the overthrow of capitalism in many areas of the world. The relative prosperity in the imperialist nations during the post-war boom - a prosperity based on the rebuilding of the major imperialist powers after the Second World War under the domination of US imperialism - allowed bourgeois 'democracy' a certain lease of life. It gave rise to new privileged sections of the working class - sections of which were able to obtain lucrative positions as trade union officials, journalists, lawyers, politicians, academics, economists, teachers, civil servants and the like. The privileges and status of these layers depend directly on the continuation of imperialism - the attempt to shore up the prosperity of the post-war boom through the super-exploitation of oppressed peoples.

The prosperity of the post-war boom in the imperialist countries, the rising standard of living and privileged status of large sections of the working class led to an even greater integration of traditional working class organisations into the capitalist system and particularly its state apparatus. Bourgeois labour parties in some countries became the government parties and administered the country and conducted imperialist wars against oppressed peoples as loyal representatives of the imperialist ruling class. Trade unions were increasingly drawn into government committees and collaborated with representatives of government, imperialist businesses and banks. Like the English working class in the 1860s and 1870s their economic struggles were more concerned with winning a larger share of imperialism's plunder of oppressed nations than any fight for socialism. On the contrary these working class organisations feared socialist advance far more than they did imperialism. They were and still are the faithful allies of the imperialist bourgeoisie in its efforts to destroy the socialist countries. The working class movement in the imperialist countries has still to rid itself of its opportunist leaders. How this will be done and under what circumstances depends on the concrete economic and political conditions in the country concerned. However it will only be done if these working class movements heed the message that the Communist International gave to the workers and oppressed peoples of the world in 1920:

'World Imperialism shall fall when the revolutionary onslaught of the exploited and oppressed workers in each country, overcoming resistance from petty-bourgeois elements and the influence of the small upper crust of labour aristocrats, merges with the revolutionary onslaught of hundreds of millions of people who have hitherto stood beyond the pale of history and have been regarded merely as the object of history.' (Lenin Collected Works Vol 31 p232)

The imperialist crisis has reached a stage where even the mounting super-profits of imperialism wrung from the starvation, poverty and terror imposed on the oppressed peoples ofthe world are no longer sufficient to bolster the decaying crisis-ridden capitalist system. The imperialists are now forced to take the offensive against the working class in the imperialist countries. New forces of revolution will emerge once again in the imperialist countries themselves. The question is now posed - will these forces be diverted from the path of revolution by opportunist currents in the working class movement? Or will they go forward and unite with the oppressed peoples and socialist countries to destroy imperialism, and so prepare for the decisive revolutionary battle to overthrow capitalism and build socialism throughout the world?