[The following article was written based on the discussions held by the LIC on generalised warfare on the 3rd and 5th of May, at 9 pm and 9 am Eastern Time, 2024, respectively. The conclusions of this article were thus widely agreed upon by those in attendance.]
Background and World Situation
- The Russo-Ukrainian War is still raging with no sign of wrapping up any time soon. In the Sahel, meanwhile, military juntas have seized power in many countries of the region, including Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan. A pro-Russian military junta has assumed power in Burkina Faso, curbing the influence of France in the country, and effectively replacing one imperialist sponsor (France) with another (Russia). Indeed, most of the juntas in the region are supported by the Russian state. In Chad, however, the junta enjoys the support of France. Islamic insurgency has been an issue in the area for some time, and the juntas promise to deal with it, something they’ve yet to accomplish. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has condemned the various juntas in the west of the Sahel, and a few countries have had their memberships suspended.
- In Nagorno-Karabakh, on January 1st, 2024, the Republic of Artsakh was officially dissolved and incorporated into Azerbaijan, becoming part of the country through force of arms, and with the support of Turkey, who is engaging in its own political manoeuvring in the caucuses. Predictably, much of the Armenian population in the area have fled in several waves of emigration, both before and during the annexation of the region. The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the region began just before the dissolution of the USSR, causing mass ethnic cleansing of both Azeris and Armenians, but it was violently reignited in 2020 with the start of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.
- As of the writing of this document, over 40,100 Palestinians and approximately 1,200 Israelis have died in the current Israeli-Palestinian war. While ordinary working-class people pay the price, the ruling classes on both sides live safely and comfortably, safe from the bloodbath they have enabled and unleashed. In “solidarity” with Hamas, the Houthi rebels of Yemen and Iran both have struck against Israel. Iran had been threatening Israel militarily for quite a while. However, tellingly, they only made a move once Israel had struck their embassy in Syria. Hezbollah has also launched missile strikes at Israel recently, but these have predictably failed, while Israel has struck back with force, causing mass destruction and civilian deaths. And despite US efforts to rein in the conflict, in order to avoid being dragged into a wider war, there appears to be no tangible progress towards a permanent ceasefire between Hamas and the Israeli state.
- The conflicts brewing around Taiwan and the South China Sea are only part of the growing tension in the Pacific between China and the US, who, along with their regional allies (Australia, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc.), have been involved in multiple incidents due to the geostrategic importance of the area. The most significant event to occur in recent times was the water-cannoning of the Philippine Coast Guard on April 30, 2023. Both sides engage in regular military drills in the sea, such as this year’s Balikatan (“shoulder-to-shoulder”), a joint exercise by the Philippines and the US. 14 other states observed it, and for the first time, it took place outside of the territorial waters of the Philippines. The number of territorial (sea) patrols for every country has increased exponentially, and the AUKUS security pact has only added to this regional instability.[1]
- Further in Southeast Asian waters, the possibility of this war increases with each passing day. The Philippines, a state that claims parts of the Spratly Islands, an important and disputed area within the South China Sea due to its proximity to shipping routes, has sought to become closer to the United States and deepen their “historic ties”. Ties that are rooted in the subjugation and mass murder of millions of proletarians and poor peasants in imperialist conflicts, have been cynically and deceptively reframed as a “familial tie” between two “peoples”, now formalised into the mutual defence treaty.
Given all the above, it is clear that the question of generalised war is, therefore, no longer a matter of “if” but “when”. In the text below, we articulate this perspective more fully and propose a practical and political orientation for communists faced with the prospect of war.
Theses on Capitalism and the Generalisation of War
1. The support for independence struggles in Palestine and New Caledonia, and the defencism of the “Anarchists” around Ukraine, are echoes of history, which as Marx said, repeats itself, “first as tragedy, second as farce”. While the left wing of capital debates fiercely about which gang of nationalist butchers to support and the benefits that would supposedly accrue from so doing, what is never defended are the interests of the proletariat.
On the national question, we believe Lenin was mistaken to propose that tactical support for independence struggles would weaken the hold of imperialism. Our position is closer to Luxemburg’s, who understood, according to the methods and criteria set out by Marx, that such struggles could not contribute anything in capitalism’s epoch of imperialist decay.
However, even if we disagree with Lenin on this matter, we recognise that he was an internationalist interested in putting the interests of the working class first, just as Marx did when discussing Ireland and Poland. The left of capital, however, has distorted this view into a much more harmful one, which is an inversion of Lenin’s: that all national struggles, regardless of whether or not they could remotely affect the prospects for a proletarian revolution, should be supported based on “humanitarian sentiment”, to quote Marx.[2]
We have already seen the real consequences of national liberation struggles during capitalism’s imperialist epoch. For example, the overthrow of the apartheid regime in South Africa yielded precious little for native workers and contributed nothing whatsoever to the worldwide revolutionary movement of the whole proletarian class. The African National Congress and the Stalinist South African “Communist” Party could not possibly change the racist nature of capital. And even today, the majority of black workers live in horrid conditions, while the multi-racial (black and white, in this case) bourgeoisie live comfortably.
Independence movements have never contributed one single iota to the prospects for the proletarian revolution; in fact, it is just the opposite: they have sought to hijack and, where this was not possible, to crush them. Upon coming to power, the new rulers swap out the former imperialist sponsor with another competing power (e.g., Cuba becoming a Russian client state after it had been one for the US) or otherwise remain reliant on its former “colonisers” (such as Algeria with France). Today, we can observe this persistent dynamic of world imperialism replaying itself in New Caledonia and the Palestinian territories, where the nationalists and their paramilitary groups have aligned themselves with Azerbaijan and Iran.
2. The region of Ukraine has a long history of ethnic and linguistic diversity in its major urban centres pre-USSR. Throughout the centuries, empires practised forced migration policies of minorities and peasant masses, who had to navigate the local domains of communal/private land ownership and lords, whose political and social structure sought to preserve their interests according to systemic imperatives at the detriment of the burgeoning proletarian class and poor peasantry and engaged in petty conflicts with one another as competing large landowners and empires. By the time of the Soviet founding of Ukraine as an autonomous region, Ukraine would fill the role of client state to Moscow, joining its imperialist bloc and would continue to be a zone of interest for Russia’s interest after the dissolution of the USSR. The Crimean region occupied today, after years of military mobilisation at the Ukrainian border since 2014, is of economic interest granting access to Black Sea ports and by extension the Mediterranean for cheaper logistics in exports of Russian oil. The historical Russian population in east Ukraine is convenient for propaganda due to earlier settlement projects of Soviet policy despite the USSR granting Crimea to Ukraine at its formation.
Ukraine, as a result, is split politically and socially between Eastern and Western regions governed by local elites opportunistically who align themselves with Russian interests or hold aspirations for NATO membership. The war has inflamed the political discourse. The Ukrainian elite also took advantage of this state of emergency to gut labour rights and protections. As both warring sides commit atrocities against civilians, the proletariat are forced to endure conscription and mass slaughter in the interests of their national rulers.
The outcome of the conflict is unclear. But as Russia faces military failures and desertions against Ukraine’s smaller military and arms manufacturers profit from the conflict as national actors engage in arms dealing, NATO’s general position is to avert further membership bids from Ukraine, as it could entail commitments that the major military powers have no interest in upholding beyond propagandistic posturing and military support, lucrative as it might be.
Due to the war, Ukraine is staring down a massive humanitarian and refugee crisis. Though it is worthwhile remarking that the systematic reception of Ukrainians in “sympathetic” countries stands in stark contrast to the refusal and neglect of African, Arab, Asian, and Latin-American (including indigenous) migrant refugees, who are also seeking reprieve from the hell on earth that capitalism is systematically unleashing on humanity. This phenomenon stands as an expression of the racialising logic that nationalism everywhere reproduces.
As war rages around the world, it is the working class who invariably pay the price, without so much as a choice in the matter of their own lives. Against the chorus of bourgeois political actors, and even so-called “socialists” and “anarchists”, who exhort us to line up behind one camp of imperialist murderers or another, we reject their paradigm altogether, and instead insist on the need for the working class to develop and maintain its political independence with respect to capital and its institutions; to refuse to allow itself to be used as cannon fodder by any of the warring sides and organise itself to achieve their mutual overthrow.
The defence of proletarian internationalism—the core communist principle that workers’ interests are the same everywhere and that, contrarily, they have no interest in common with “their” exploiting class—and its practical application: revolutionary defeatism, is fundamental today for communists who wish to act to stem the bloody tide of capitalist civilisation.
3. As an ascendant economic and military power, China threatens the USA’s status as a superpower. Since the broad reforms and implementation of “socialism” with Chinese characteristics spearheaded by Deng Xiaoping, the country has experienced rapid industrialisation and an exponential growth of foreign direct investment. Most concerning for US economic dominance, was the introduction of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to link countries around the world through shared Chinese investment in substantial infrastructure projects. Naturally, another objective of this initiative is to expand China’s reach and presence as an economic and military power all over the globe, especially among “third world” Asian and African states. This rapid economic development has enabled an equally rapid growth in the military budget, allowing for a massive buildup of arms and presence within disputed areas, specifically in the “South-China Sea” and Taiwan regions.
These movements by China have not gone unnoticed by their global rival, the United States of America. In fact, Joe Biden has proposed the “Build Back Better World”, commonly abbreviated to B3W, as an alternative to the BRI. The US presents the expansion of China’s military arsenal and might as an existential threat to “free and democratic nations” of Asia, and on the basis of common interests in containing China’s power and influence, they have been steadily increasing their military presence in the region through setting up more overseas bases and entering into military alliances with several states in the region. Where states have been reluctant to hitch their wagon to US military muscle, the US has not been shy about employing different tactics to secure their support. Recently, a report from Reuters exposed that the United States Military conducted a psychological operation which spread fake information concerning the Chinese “Sinovac” COVID-19 vaccine, leading to the unnecessary deaths of 66.8 thousand Filipinos, most of them working-class people.[3]
Although some contrarians and even political “talking heads” will argue that America is the prime or, indeed, only antagonist, and that the Chinese are reacting against the threat of Western encroachment, what is factually undeniable is that these global superpowers are both acting according to their own interests. This is also clearly evinced through their efforts to increase their influence through forging strategic partnerships with other states. These other states are caught in the crossfire between these two rival imperialist poles.
In recent decades, the issue of the Spratly Islands, an island chain in the West Philippine Sea/South China Sea (although it would be much more appropriate to name it the Southeast Asian Sea) has been a hotly debated topic among all states involved. Vietnam has been particularly aggressive about its territorial claims, and as a result their maritime defence budget has continued to expand, while the military continues construction of airstrips and other military infrastructure on the disputed islands. Malaysia, on the other hand, has had to solve these problems through diplomacy, understanding that further escalation hinders the socio-economic cooperation (i.e., finance flows and trade) between states in the region.
The situation is much different for both the Philippines and Taiwan. The two countries’ military strength and deterrence capabilities are based on their close relations with the United States of America, and its presumptive military backing. In the face of possible Chinese retaliation against the two nations, they turn to the USA for military help. The most recent treaty between Taiwan and the United States was the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, which allotted 10 billion dollars in a 5-year period. Moreover, the United States has officially and permanently sent the “Green Berets” special forces to Taiwan. Lai Ching Te, the current president, has made it his platform and promise to honour the island nation’s sovereignty by steering towards the United States and strengthening these bonds, despite the US’s apprehension to recognise it as a nation. The recent protests in Taiwan, organised by bourgeois parties and their auxiliary organisations, are thus predictably suffused with nationalist rhetoric to justify the manoeuvring of the local bourgeoisie.
After the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, whose controversial economic and diplomatic policies favoured the Chinese state, Ferdinand “BongBong” Marcos has sought to undo the pivot towards China and return, instead, to the geopolitical orbit of the United States. This has been formalised with Marcos’ formal expansion of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) bases and the vow to continue the century-long ties with the USA.
From the reports of Chinese military warplanes entering Taiwanese airspace to the increasingly hostile exchanges between the Chinese and the Philippine Coast Guards, the possibility of a generalised war looms ever-present. In this geopolitical tug-of-war between two world powers, which appear to us as a series of escalations and de-escalations among the states of the region, the future remains shrouded and unclear. What is certain is that armed conflict on some scale is inevitable in the region, and it will extract a brutal price from the proletarian class, who will pay for it with their labour, and more crucially, their lives.
4. The Middle East today lives in the consequences of British and Tsarist colonial/imperial control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent political struggle between tribal/regional lords that were socially separated and forced to interact competitively under the colonial rule. The cynicism of the political and economic elite in this region, who openly collaborated with the colonial powers whenever convenient, developed into nationalist projects that inherited their political power base from the colonial era that drew its borders.
Precious metals, spices, tea, etc., have been prizes in regional power struggles for centuries. But today, it is economically relevant as the world’s oil exporting capital.
The presence of Soviet imperialism and its competition with US imperialism in the region declined in the measure that Russian influence waned after the collapse of the USSR. China, meanwhile, has made some inroads in the region, attempting to rival the current world superpower: the US, but it has been wary of throwing its support behind Islamist armed groups, as Iran and other regional powers have done, since they have proven to be unreliable actors and China has nothing to gain, and plenty to lose (in investments), from the destabilisation of the region. On the other hand, the Middle East has become a massive cash cow and a gruesome laboratory for the military-industrial complexes of several states involved in arms exports, and their financial sectors. Arab/Saudi oil and capital dominate the local economic life. The geographical social life is bridged between the countryside and urban centre with the commuting working class; a relation that persists after the colonial period, with all of its attendant consequences for how different groups perceive themselves.
The fallout of the Arab Spring demonstrated how the lack of clarity in the mass movements opposed to the military dictatorships in the region resulted in compromises with those same powers, that achieved little besides a formal transition to bourgeois ‘democracy’ (and in some cases, not even that). The region is also hampered by Islamic fundamentalism, largely stoked and weaponised by the agents of foreign imperialist intervention in collaboration with sectors of the local political elite and capitalist class fractions to gain a competitive edge against their adversaries in the region. Then there is the question of the massive diaspora community, a result of the years-long refugee crisis, which includes all social classes and whose political expressions have a marked liberal-nationalist character, by and large.
Identity politics and nationalism complement and bolster one another in these political expressions. The process of nation-state formation requires the assimilation of ‘outside’ ethnic groups into the nation-state, even when this state proclaims itself as a ‘plurinationalist’ entity. Global capital is imperialist and it obliges all states to participate in global trade as competitors (i.e., as buyers and sellers of commodities), to accept foreign capital investment, and participate in the geopolitical arena as more junior partners within imperialist power blocs simply in order to function and persist as a nation-state with an economy. From Rojava, Armenia, and US-occupied/Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, to Turkey, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran, Iraq, UAE, etc. Wherever it rears its head, nationalism can only play a reactionary role of obscuring class antagonisms and ideologically tying the proletariat in a country to “its” ruling class. Consequently, the movements for so-called “national self-determination” have nothing to offer workers, except more misery and sacrifice.
5. While it is understandable that so many people over the world have had a strong emotional response to the televised mass murder of the population in Gaza by brutal IDF raids and indiscriminate airstrikes, it is worthwhile remarking on the limits of the demands and perspectives put forward by many of those demonstrating. The demands, which have ranged from a ceasefire (a return to capitalist peace, which can only ever be the lull before war), pressuring states to stop shipping arms to Israel, or the imposition by the UN or other bodies of a one- or two-state solution, are of a decidedly bourgeois-nationalist character.
For instance, the slogan “From the river to the sea”, which appears everywhere in Palestinian nationalist literature, as well as the charter of the right-wing Israeli Likud party, can only be understood as an aspiration for the whole region to be controlled by a single state entity. Whether Arab or Jewish, native or foreign, the situation of the proletariat in the whole region, who will continue to be exploited as before, will not fundamentally change.
Another factor in this war is the way that media has been used, particularly within Israel, by those in power to dehumanise people and justify the atrocities committed against them. Sadly, these horrors are nothing new in the bloody pages of capitalism’s history—it is a natural byproduct of the competition between nationally organised capitals, that in capitalism’s decadent period, acquires an increasing militaristic and bellicose quality.
There have been no organised working-class elements calling for an end to the war on both sides or workers refusing to ship weapons themselves, which is desperately needed. Instead, many of these activist organised demonstrations have accomplished nothing but to irritate ordinary working people and allow those involved to exclaim their moral superiority.
Such tactics have never once in the history of our movement borne fruit. The protests at the Democratic National Convention, on campuses in universities around the globe, and even on the streets, for example, are all interclassist movements with no real aim of ending the imperialist bloodletting for good. At most, there are utopian-pacifist demands made by some elements, on whom it has not yet dawned that war is in the DNA of the capitalist system.
6. Capitalism covers the world in bloody wars and conflicts that threaten to engulf major military powers in a generalised conflict. All these massacres are impelled by Imperialist competition—which is the militaristic expression of the already existing competition between nationally organised capitals—and the criminal neglect of the bourgeoisie and their state towards the working-class majority within society for the preservation of their own interests and positions.
Imperialist blocs consist of relations—always asymmetrical and contingent—between states to defend or advance their own position within the imperialist system. This dynamic remains relevant as ever today, as new competing imperialist blocs have coalesced or are beginning to, while others, long thought to be without a pulse, have had new life breathed into them in the face of increasing competition from imperialist adversaries. There are many ‘hot sites’ throughout the world, where conflicts, armed skirmishes, or even limited military engagements between and within these blocs threaten to drag major military powers and their bloc allies into what would become a more generalised conflagration.
NATO has received a much-needed shot in the arm after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the time of writing, two countries: Sweden and Finland, have joined the previously floundering alliance of the US and (mostly) Western European States, many of whom already resented their reliance on the US for military deterrence, but in the face of the Russian threat in their geographic backyard, self-interest won out, and the European states once more lined up behind the geopolitical movements emanating out of Washington.
While the US and its NATO allies finance the Ukrainian war effort against Russia in what increasingly appears to be a futile effort, the US also finds its interests threatened by an ascendant China, which is quickly outgrowing its status as a regional power to become a major player in global geopolitics. To counter China’s growing influence and economic and military might, the US has forged a series of military and other multilateral agreements with states in the region like India, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Australia, among others. The US strategy of geographic encirclement resembles the Cold War era policy of “containment” against the USSR, and as happened then, it will likely yield an endless series of proxy conflicts around the world, assuming that the strategy itself does not lead to a direct confrontation between American and Russo-Chinese-Iranian military blocs.
China and Iran, together with Turkey and India, have dampened the regime of sanctions heaped on Russia after it invaded Ukraine, with the additional benefit that they can purchase oil and natural gas at below-market prices. Despite some shocks, through a combination of monetary policy and steady income from oil and natural gas exports, the Russian economy has largely been insulated from the intended effects of the sanctions. This has meant that Russia can not only continue to finance its war in Ukraine (including buying drones and conventional missiles from Iran) but has also been able to throw its weight around in other parts of the world, like the Sahel states of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, where the military governments in charge are all advised by Russian mercenaries.
After spending 20 years in a costly series of wars and occupations that yielded few returns and led to the overextension and waste of its military might, the US and Western European policy in the Middle East had been to reduce their military presence in the region, while forging a series of security alliances and normalising relations between surrounding states and their aircraft carrier in the Middle East: Israel. Starting from the Obama administration, and continuing into the Trump and Biden presidencies, the policy had been to seek convivial relations between surrounding states and Israel by attaching normalisation of relations to economic incentives (i.e., buying them off), bypassing the Palestinian question altogether, which the leadership of these states had only ever feigned concern about whenever politically convenient for them. They had grown weary of involving themselves further in what they saw as a lost cause. The culmination of this dynamic was the agreement to normalise relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which was subsequently—and likely with the knowledge, if not outright support, of Iran, which had the most to lose if its two main regional adversaries normalised relations—torpedoed by Hamas’ attack in Israel on October 7th, 2023, and Israel’s predictably brutal retaliation, including terror bombing, against the civilian population. Subsequently, there have been a series of escalations between the Israeli military, the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, and Iran, its imperialist sponsor. These escalations, along with the wholesale massacre of the civilian population in Gaza, televised live and documented on social media in real-time, have inflamed relations between the civilian populations of many surrounding countries, which include Palestinian refugees, and the governments in power, which has obliged the latter to spur US and European efforts to engage in statecraft and diplomacy on behalf of their imperialist client state: Israel.
It must be understood, however, that there are centripetal and centrifugal forces within imperialist power blocs. In other words, just as there are concrete factors, such as a perceived greater external threat or more urgent imperialist rival, that bring states together into military alliances, there are also dynamics of internal and even regional competition that threaten the cohesion of such alliances (one need only see the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan—both states that have signed military treaties with Russia). At a surface glance, this may appear as a mitigating factor when considering the probability of the breakout of generalised war. But it is precisely the complex unravelling of the web of imperialist alliances and conflicts that could push the world towards such a conflict.
Together, all these factors conspire to bring about a world situation in which a single misstep from one actor in the whole imperialist system can have enormous secondary consequences that ultimately drag the major military powers into a direct conflict.
7. From Ukraine and the caucuses to Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, capitalism promises humanity nothing but rivers of blood. The spectre of generalised war with the destructive capabilities of modern weapons—i.e., of an imperialist conflagration that dwarfs the past two such conflicts in the scale of destruction it unleashes upon the species—looms over the entire world subsumed in capitalist economic relations, from which, logically and necessarily springs the whole system of world imperialism. It is no longer thermonuclear and biochemical weapons that, if used, could threaten to collapse any form of human civilisation, but even the “conventional arms”, those that bourgeois International “Humanitarian” Law approves and proclaims acceptable, can be deployed by warring powers in such enormous quantities and possess such vast destructive power that they inherently inflict massive damage to human life and critical physical infrastructure. Of course, the same impetus that drags a given state, or bloc of states, into war could just as easily see those same states resort to “non-conventional” arms if the military leaders become sufficiently desperate.
Russia, for example, has often threatened the use of smaller yield “tactical” nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian theatre to attempt to demoralise the Ukrainian population and military leadership, but possibly they could deploy these weapons if the recent Ukrainian incursion into Russia threatened the legitimacy of the state in a significant way. Likewise, China has a respectable arsenal of large to small-yield nuclear weapons that it could deploy against American military targets, such as military formations and important American military bases, such as the one in Guam, in the event of a direct military conflict, which most of the bourgeoisie’s own military experts and seasoned leaders believe could happen before the end of this decade. It is not particularly difficult to see how a conflict between nuclear powers could escalate, following the use of small-scale nuclear weapons, to nuclear war as such. These are only some of the horrors that capitalism has in store for humanity if the proletariat of the whole world does not bury this murderous system first.
For these reasons, we proclaim that the way to stop an imperialist war, on whatever scale, is not to line up on one side of the bloodletting, i.e., to throw our support behind one imperialist bloc or state against another, but rather to fight as workers against the exploiting class that organises the whole carnage. The working class has the power to halt the blood-soaked machinery of war and sabotage the future war preparations of our exploiters, but that requires workers to recognise themselves as an exploited class, refusing to allow themselves to become cannon fodder for “their” bourgeoisie in their internal wars to gain a greater proportion of the diminishing mass of surplus-value generated by the world proletariat, and instead organising themselves to directly confront (and smash!) the apparatus of their submission—the State; the concretisation of the bourgeoisie’s social rule. Without the intervention of the working class, as an agent of historical change and bearer of a new society, the best future to which humanity can aspire is a world of militarised fortresses and eternal sporadic “small-scale” conflicts that extinguish the life of tens, hundreds of thousands or even a few million people—an acceptable “rounding error” in the grand scheme of things for a bourgeoisie that is becoming increasingly misanthropic.
To that end, we propose that communist agitation and, where possible, intervention, within workers’ day-to-day struggles and mass mobilisations against war (even those organised by the political elements of the leftist swamp, whose “anti-war” rhetoric always belies support for one of the warring parties involved), is necessary to enable us to bring the communist programme of uncompromising class struggle, without truce or restraint, to the class. We cannot make the revolution for the working class, nor can we manifest a struggle by sheer force of will; instead, we look to the class in its daily life and movement within the system. But our interventions, if effective, can make an enormous difference in the political content and outcome of these struggles, lending workers’ struggles a more combative direction. This is our real role as communists, organised or not: to be the spark that lights the powder keg and sets the whole of capitalist civilisation aflame with the fire of uncompromising class war.
Members and Sympathisers of the League of Internationalist Communists (LIC)
Wednesday, 4 September 2024
[1] For more about AUKUS, read our text on the subject:
https://internationalistcommunists.org/2021/10/02/aukus-another-preparation-for-imperialist-war/
[2] To see the reasoning behind Marx’s support for Ireland’s national struggle, see here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
[3] We encourage you to read the entire report here:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/
League of Internationalist Communists 
One thought on “Theses on Capitalism and the Generalisation of War”