It is clear that we see the different classes expressing themselves in relation to
the US/UK attack on Afghanistan.

US imperialism. in its attempt to maintain and increase its world dominance, seeks to
establish a strategic location in central Asia for both commercial and general
geopolitical reasons. Layers of the middle class in the US, the UK and in Asia are
hostile to terrorism and to militant Islamic groups. Consequently in order to protect
their petty bourgeois life style they seek a more ostensibly rational and liberal
response to terrorist attacks. Responses that are more moderate than the current
neo-colonialist policy of Anglo-American imperialism. Consequently they seek a
solution within the official structures and procedures of the UN and international
law that precludes the present scale of military aggression. This is because the
pursuit of their middle class interests does not require the extreme policies that
the class interests of US imperialism demand. They seek a middle road that leads to
minimal upset to their lifestyle. At the same time they share imperialism's interests
in eliminating terrorism because of its destabilising effect upon their living
conditions. The terrorist attack on the WTC twin towers and the Pentagon together
with the Anthrax attacks fill them fear. They fear that such attacks can grow and
become a threat to their interests both directly and in the context of destabilising
the status quo.

Much of the anti-war movement is an expression of this middle class grwing middle
class concern. The current anti-war movement is not an expression of an inherent high
moral antipathy to war in general. At present its is merely an expression of growing
anxiety among this middle class that the war may lead to a destabilisation that can
interfere with middle class social conditions. This is reflected in the demands of
this movement. Their demands for an end to the war coupled with the need to find the
perpetrators of terrorism and try them in an international court.

They argue that the war has been making the problem worse rather than better. The add
that the air attacks on Afghanistan create further hardship for innocent civilians in
Afghanistan and encourage more popular support for the Taliban. The point is they are
not really concerned about these issues in quite this way. The plight of the Afghani
masses is merely being venally exploited in defence of their own particular middle
class interests.This argument is very superficial and fails to address the real class
issues. They act on the false assumption that the interests of the masses are served
under imperialist capital. They cannot understand that the imperialist capital is not
attacking capital because of its lack of enlightenment. This is not an issue
concerning modernity. It is a class question. The class contradictions of capitalism
in the form of imperialism are such as to require the US to take this and other
actions. Had US imperialism not followed these aggressive policies over the years it
would not be the dominant power that it now is. Its class would not have achieved the
dominance it now has. It is these military policies that maintain and promote its
class position. The middle class position, in contrast, is utopian and fails to grasp
class realities. The position of US imperialism constitutes realpolitik.

Over and above all this, the proletarian position is the supremely realistic
position. It opposes the attack by imperialism on Afghanistan. However it recognises
that the only way to succeed in ending this and similar wars is by defeating the
capitalist class. Its call, then, is opposition to the war by opposition to the
capitalist class. This means that the working class of each country can only
effectively challenge the attack on Afghanistan by opposing the bourgeoisie from
within its own country. In Ireland this means that the war must be opposed by
challenging the support by the Irish capitalist state for the war. Consequently the
war must be opposed from the position of opposing the indigneous capitalist state and
the bourgeoisie whose interests it expresses. The imperialist attack against
Afghanistan must be turned into an attack against the bourgeoisie. To simply call for
an end to the sustained imperialist attack and its replacement by an alternative
policy is merely to call on imperialism to employ an alternative policy to one of
military aggression. Such an opposition fails to address the real source of the
problem thereby sustaining the conditons for such wars. Ultimately an anti-war
campaign that essentially sustains the conditions that produce oppression and
exploitation promotes conditions that generate bothterrorism and imperialist
militaism.

The Pakistani proletariat must oppose the US attack on Afghanistan by attacking the
Pakistani state. The Pakistani state facilitates the conditions for imperialist
militarism. This popular attack must take the form of an attack on the state, qua
capitalist state, leading to its abolition and replacement by a workers federation of
communes. The Afghani masses must mount opposition to imperialist aggression by
attacking both the Taliban and the northern confederation. This attack must proceed
on the basis of replacing the Taliban state by the organised political power of the
workers within a central Asian proletarian federation.

The current opposition to the war in Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia is
focused on the US and the UK. It hardly makes any distinction between the US/UK
capitalist states and the working class of those countries. It fails to understand
that the most effective opposition to US capitalism is an opposition mounted against
the Pakistani and Indonesian states. These are states that inherently express the
class interests of imperialism. To effectively challenge US imperialism means that
these states must be crushed and replaced by the organised political power of the
working class. Much of the anti-war opposition in Asia suggests the indigenous states
can be coerced into establishing a position of opposition to the bombings. What it
fails to understand is that even if these pro-imperialist states are forced into
adopting such a position it amounts to no more to a pragamatic response --not because
they want to crush imperialism but because they want to preserve it. This yielding to
popular pressure is merely a time playing ploy. Such states are just as capable of
killing off thousands of Asian protesters in order to crush opposition to the war and
to imperialism.

Consequently a proletarian anti-war movement must organise its defence and offence
against these states. It must organise popular armed militias while seeking to split
the army.

Regards
Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group)
Be free to join our communism mailing list
at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/