Return of the Idiot Imperialists

Sacha Ishmail of the Alliance for Workers Liberty recently posted a quote on their site from Lenin, which he believed demonstrated that the AWL were not “pro-imperialist”. His post can be viewed here.

As I have written elsewhere, for example, here the AWL are not “pro-imperialist”, in the sense of those such as LFIQ or the Euston Manifesto group, who openly argue for support for Imperialism in Iraq, and proclaim that it is fulfilling a progressive function. The AWL’s position is more that of Pontius Pilate, which continually “hopes” that imperialism might do something good – for example, in a recent article, Martin Thomas argued that it would be “good” if imperialism were able to bomb Iran surgically! – but then wrings its hands when, not unexpectedly, it doesn’t work out so well. It is not that they WANT to side with imperialism, but are logically driven towards that position by their political method. I have outlined what that method is in the piece referred to above. They view the world, not as Marxists do, in terms of class struggle, but in terms of a moral crusade. There are various injustices that must be put right, various good causes that must be supported. It would be good, they believe, if the working class could provide the solution to these problems, and in their propaganda they continue to proclaim that they are in favour of such working class solutions, but time and again whether it is Yugoslavia, the USSR, Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, or even on issues here in the UK they are led to the conclusion, “the working class is too weak, so we have to rely on the bourgeoisie/imperialism.”

The AWL do not like extensive debate on their discussion board, which is they say purely for the indoctrination of their new members, rather than real debate, so rather than continue the discussion I began with them there, and to avoid the possibility of my posts being deleted for being too detailed or too numerous, I am relating the discussion here. They can choose to reply or not.

The problem that they have with the quote, which began the discussion, is that it actually completely contradicts their position.

Here is what Lenin says,

“The several demands of democracy, including [national] self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one country may be merely an instrument of the clerical or financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; if so, we must not support this particular, concrete movement, but it would be ridiculous to delete the demand for a republic from the programme of international Social-Democracy on these grounds.”

This is of course entirely logical. But how does it relate to Iraq. Socialists are, of course, concerned for the Labour Movement in Iraq. That Labour Movement faces two mortal enemies – the clerical-fascists (those of the Sunni variety, the foreign fighters, and the Shia variety including those in the Government who previously the AWL had claimed were really constitutionalist and not at all like their brethren in Iran!) and the forces of the Occupation. Socialists, of course, wish, as far as possible, to defend this Labour Movement from these two enemies, and if possible to enable it to develop. The question here is, if we adopt the position of Lenin, in the quote above, to what extent can that desire to defend the particular interests of the Iraqi working class, override the General interests of the working class as a whole.

In fact, the irony I have referred to, in my blog “The Idiot Imperialists”, can be seen clearly in relation to Iraq. On the one hand the Third Campist SWP has fixed its sights on a “good” objective being the struggle against imperialism. Consequently, they are prepared to side with one set of the workers enemies in Iraq – and elsewhere – provided they are involved in such a fight. As the AWL correctly state the SWP effectively ignores the Iraqi working class in order to side with the clerical-fascists of the “Resistance”. The AWL, on the other hand, has as its “good” objective the defeat of the clerical-fascists, which is why they believe it would be “good” for the US to bomb Iran surgically. In specific cases, such as Iraq, they proclaim their support for the workers against these clerical-fascists, but in Iraq this support actually amounts to a Programme which is Economistic, limited almost entirely to routine Trade Unionism. Why is that? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, in the same way that the SWP does not believe that workers are strong enough to provide solutions, and so reliance on other forces has to be adopted, so the AWL do not believe that the workers in Iraq or elsewhere are strong enough to provide a solution so reliance on some other force again has to be the way forward, in this case reliance on the Occupation. The SWP ally openly with the clerical-fascists to achieve their goal the AWL tacitly with imperialism to achieve theirs.

In fact, the AWL has not so much zigged and zagged as danced a jig from one position to another as facts have contradicted their arguments in Iraq. Initially, the argument was that removal of the Occupation should not be called for because it was providing a “breathing space” for the Labour movement to develop in Iraq. A rather strange thing for any socialist to claim one would have thought, that imperialism here was the friend and protector of the Labour Movement! Yet that is precisely what the AWL claimed. In one reply to me Martin Thomas went into detail of the Trade Union meetings that were taking place in the Green Zone as proof of this new worker friendly imperialism. That argument has been allowed to wither away not surprisingly in the face of the effective legal outlawing of Trade Unions, the repeated attacks on Trade Unionists and their offices by Occupation forces etc.
The Occupation were not the only ones that were going to provide this breathing space, of course, because in this initial scenario the “Resistance” were defined solely as the Sunnis, and the foreign fighters. The Occupation’s allies within the Shia were going to create some kind of constitutional framework within which workers could develop their organisations, and the main Shia forces such as those around Sistani and the Dawa Party were described as Constitutionalist, not at all like their Iranian counterparts.

But, of course this was all nonsense as anyone could have seen, and as I pointed out at the time. The SWP idea that the “Resistance” is some kind of joint Sunni/Shia force is arrant nonsense, but the idea that the “Resistance” is or was just the Sunnis is equally arrant nonsense. As the BBC’s latest two-part series “No Plan, No Peace” demonstrated, within a few months, “Resistance” attacks on the Occupation came equally if not more from Shia fighters than from Sunnis. It is Shia fighters not Sunnis, in the South, supported by Iran, which have, effectively, driven out the British forces – and, incidentally, since the British troops have withdrawn to barracks, violence in the South appears, if anything, to have declined, as some US military analysts argued, a long time ago, would be likely.

The idea that the elections, promoted by the US and the Shia leaders, would create some kind of Constitutional framework was also clearly not going to work. Anyone, without blinkers, could see that the result of these elections would be the creation of a sectarian bearpit, the legitimiation of the Shia clerical-fascists – who were clearly not Constitutionalist, in any meaningful sense, and closely tied to the Iranian regime – and an understandable reaction by Sunnis that they were going to get royally screwed. But as one AWL comrade commented at the time, demonstrating a complete class blindness, and, clearly, having absorbed the AWL’s descent into bourgeois Constitutionalism as the only way ahead in the immediate future, “elections are better than no elections.”

The only progressive solution, that could have been argued for, in these conditions, was one that tried to cut across sectarian divisions – something Parliamentary elections certainly was not going to do – and which sought to unite workers and peasants across those divisions, which sought to assuage Sunni fears by a programme to defend Regional autonomy and the rights of minorities. It required a programme that combined a struggle for basic workers and peasants democratic rights, for a struggle for land reform, for workers control or ownership of Iraqi assets, particularly in the oil industry, against the plundering of the imperialist Occupation, for a programme of Public Works, directed by workers and protected, against attack, by workers guards organised in militia, with a struggle against the forces which stood in the way of such a Programme, the clerical-fascists of whatever denomination, and the Occupation. It required that instead of Economism and a simple call for routine Trade Union support for Iraqi workers, that, alongside the demand for the withdrawal of the Occupation – a basic requirement for any socialist in an imperialist country wanting to win the confidence of an oppressed people that in its vast majority wants and demands the withdrawal of those forces – that workers internationally organised to protect Iraqi workers and peasants against their other enemy, the clerical-fascist bandits.

But the AWL could not argue for such a Programme beyond saying that such things would be nice, both because they lack the faith in Iraqi workers and the international working class to mobilise around such a programme, and because following on from that, and having then put their faith in the Occupation and its Shia clerical-fascist allies to bring in some form of bourgeois Constitional arrangements, such a programme would have been, from the beginning, anathema to those forces. The AWL’s argument that, despite the accumulated knowledge, of the very knowledgeable cadre of AWL leaders, the accumulated knowledge of how Marxists and revolutionaries have responded in similar situations over the last 100 years, despite its connections with workers and socialists in Iraq, it was not possible to develop a Political programme, such as this, because of a lack of knowledge about what was the actual situation, was and is nothing more than a very small fig-leaf. Yet, despite the fact that it is me that has been arguing for such support for the Iraqi workers, that has been arguing truly for an independent working-class solution – which the petit-bourgeois Third Campists can only retain as a mantra not as a guide to action – rather than relying on the good graces of imperialism as the AWL does, in a recent post Clive Bradley accuses me of having no concern for the Iraqi workers!!!!

In fact, even from the perspective of simple bourgeois political science the AWL’s perspective was naïve at best. A decent 3rd year Politics student should have been able to identify what was wrong with it. From a Marxist perspective it was a betrayal of socialist principles.

Having identified the “Resistance” as being only the Sunnis and foreign fighters, and then, faced with the fact that the Occupation was not succeeding in introducing some form of effective Constitutional arrangement – even the AWL was forced to recognise eventually that the elections had been a sham, that the Parliament and Executive were a farce – and faced with increasing attacks by the Occupation and its puppet Government on workers, and on basic democratic rights – the declaration by the not at all Iranian like, and Constitutionalist Sistani that gays should be killed on the streets etc. – the AWL were faced with having to come up with an alternative argument to the idea that the Occupation should stay because they were providing a breathing space for the Iraqi Labour Movement. The first attempt was to declare that well okay the Occupation might not be actually helping the Labour movement develop, but they are still providing a breathing space in the sense that if they leave the “Resistance” will come to power, and crush the workers movement.
But this was clearly false too. The Sunnis, because many of the previous members of the armed forces were drawn from their ranks, were certainly able to punch above their weight when it came to fighting. But, it was in the Sunni heartlands that the US Occupation had its greatest concentration of firepower. From almost Day One of the Occupation the Shia militias had been obtaining support and weapons from Iran, and also from the Occupation that was also busily training them, and equipping them with all the panoply of means of repression of the State. If the US left, it would not have been the Sunnis who came to power, but the Shia, with the Kurds making official their de facto separation from Iraq, probably with a large garrison of US troops stationed there, ostensibly to prevent a Turkish incursion, but in reality to protect Kurdish oil. The US’s Sunni allies in the region have certainly said that they would not let the Iraqi Sunnis be the victims of a Civil War, but even they would not engage in such a war for the purpose of putting the minority Sunnis back in control of the State, particularly if it led to the instalment of another Saddam like strongman who might challenge their own regimes some time later.

Having, ultimately, to accept the fact that increasingly the real “Resistance” was not the Sunnis, but was in fact the Shia forces of Sadr, and of SCIRI, that far from the Sunnis assuming control it would be this alternative “Resistance” who were now recognised as just as much clerical-fascist as the originally described “Resistance”, not at all really Constitutionalist, and not only not unlike their Iranian counterparts, but in reality armed, fiannced, trained and supported by the Iranians, the AWL performed another hop, and a twirl to another position. Now the Occupation couldn’t leave because it would lead to a Civil War.

When an organisation keeps its position the same, but continually changes its justification for that position you have to ask just how solid was the political method that led to the formulation of that position in the first place.
If we come back to Lenin’s quote then the question is this. Given that, as socialists, we are clearly concerned with the Iraqi Labour Movement, to what extent should this concern dictate our politics in general? In the best of all possible worlds there is no contradiction between the particular and the general. It is clearly desirable that where possible the interests of the working class as a whole should coincide with those of a particular group of workers. Lenin in the above piece goes on to say,

"But we cannot be in favour of a war between great nations, in favour of the slaughter of twenty million people for the sake of the problematical liberation of a small nation with a population of perhaps ten or twenty millions! Of course not! And it does not mean that we throw complete national equality out of our Programme... Let us assume that between two great monarchies there is a little monarchy whose kinglet is "bound" by blood and other ties to the monarchs of both neighbouring countries. Let us further assume that the declaration of a republic in the little country and the expulsion of its monarch would in practice lead to a war between the two neighbouring big countries for the restoration of that or another monarch in the little country. There is no doubt that all international Social-Democracy, as well as the really internationalist section of Social-Democracy in the little country, would be against substituting a republic for the monarchy in this case. The substitution of a republic for a monarchy is not an absolute, but one of the democratic demands, subordinate to the interests of democracy (and still more, of course, to those of the socialist proletariat) as a whole. A case like this would in all probability not give rise to the slightest disagreement among Social-Democrats in any country. But if any Social-Democrat were to propose on these grounds that the demand for a republic be deleted altogether from the programme of international Social-Democracy, he would certainly be regarded as quite mad. He would be told that after all one must not forget the elementary logical difference between the general and the particular.”

Does the fact that the particular interest of the Iraqi working class (that it not be destroyed), conflicts with the General interest of the working class (to oppose imperialist agression and colonialism) mean that socialists should remove from their programme the defence of the labour movement from attack??? No, of course it doesn’t. It does not even mean arguing for no defence of the Iraqi Labour Movement. It does mean that the method of that defence should be developed by means which do not contradict the General interest of the working class as a whole, if possible, along the lines I have outlined via real political and military support by the international working class, and not the Economistic programme of routine Trade Unionism, alongside a call for the working class to abandon its General interest to fight imperialism, indeed to rely on that imperialism to provide the solution to the workers problems, proposed by the AWL. But Lenin is right, in war there is no room for sentimentalism and moralising, and the working class is engaged in a long class war against the bourgeoisie, and the ultimate form of its political and economic power – imperialism. In war there are casualties, sometimes, what has come to be called collateral damage. If the cost of a serious blow being inflicted on imperialism, on its current ability to stride like a collossus on the world stage, could be inflicted upon it by the workers of Britain or the US, if, as would be the case, the morale and combativity of those, huge and potentially powerful, working classes could be raised as the result of such a victory over imperialism, then, in the balance of war, if the Iraqi labour movement perished, as a consequence, that would be regrettable, but a price that would have to be paid, just as the failure to replace a Monarchy in the small state was a price that the people of the small state would have to pay in Lenin’s example.

The reality is, of course, that as things stand no such movement by workers to inflict a blow on imperialism in its heartlands exists. On the one hand the Third campists of the SWP prefer to oppose imperialism by appealing not to the working class in whom they have lost faith, but to any rag, tag army of liberals, Islamists, Stalinists and petit-bourgeois they can drag in. The Euston Manifesto group have no desire to oppose imperialism because they still hold out the hope that they can persuade it to bring about a progressive solution. The AWL do not mobilise the working class, for such a perspective, because they too have lost faith in the working class, and, in any case, have no desire to see such an outcome, which would lead to a result they do not desire, the removal of the imperialist Occupation, which they like the LFIQ still hope against hope might offer some solution, if only that the situation gets no worse.

The analogy made by Lenin then is that whatever the particular interests of the Iraqi labour movement, it cannot be an argument for socialists ditching their position of opposition to imperialism, to the working class internationally opposing the ability of imperialism to walk into and occupy any country it wishes, least still that those socialists should be in favour of that imperialism surgically bombing other states as a means of extending its domination.

That was the logic of Lenin’s quoatation, and one that is diametrically opposed to the position and method of the AWL. The AWL have not only danced a jig with their positions over Iraq, but they have also tried to combine it with covering their antics with a veil. For example, Sacha Ismail, in one of his replies, says, trying to gain cover from Marx, that Marx did not call for the withdrawal of British troops from India. The implication is that the AWL do not call for the withdrawal of troops because at the present moment the British workers will not back such a call, and are unable to enforce such a demand. If that were the real reason the AWL did not raise the demand it would not be so bad – though still an abandonment of the commitment the Communist International demanded of its national affiliates to raise and struggle for such demands – but that is NOT the reason the AWL does not raise the demand, a fact demonstrated by its opposition to anyone else raising the demand, and a principle it holds so sacred that it used it as the basis for not joining the “Hands Off Iran” campaign. The AWL does not fail to raise the demand for the withdrawal of troops because it does not believe it is unachievable, but because it actually opposes the withdrawal of the troops. In actual fact, Engels DID call for the withdrawal of Britain from India despite knowing that such a withdrawal would result in extreme violence there, but even were that not the case it is hard to believe that were either he or Karl Marx asked the question, “Are you in favour of Britain leaving India?”, either of the two great men would have had any doubt of the answer to give, and it would not have been the same answer the AWL give in respect of Iraq.

In WWII the Stalinists argued that workers in Britain should not take action against the British state for fear that such action might weaken the British war effort, and thereby strengthen Nazi Germany, so placing the USSR in greater jeopardy. In actual fact, using Lenin’s argument above, and given the size of the Russian working class, and the existence of a deformed workers state in the USSR, there could have been some justification for this argument. It is not an argument the AWL agree with. They argue, in that instance, that the particular interests of the Russian workers and their state could not be placed above the interests of the working class in general – which in reality at that time meant just the English workers as the US was not in the War, and the rest of Europe was under Nazi occupation. It is they say a manifestation of “Socialism in One Country”. Yet that is precisely the AWL’s method in relation to Iraq. Don’t call on workers in the UK and the US to oppose their own imperialism and mobilise for its withdrawal because the consequence will be the Occupation can’t provide a breathing space/help the labour movement develop, a victory for the “Sunni Resistance”, a Civil War – take your pick of reason from the variety given by the AWL over the last couple of years. IF the AWL applied the logic they use in relation to Iraq, they would in WWII have argued that we are in favour of the defence of Soviet workers against the possibility of being overrun by the Nazis, so workers in the West should not oppose the war efforts of British imperialism against the Nazis, and should do nothing to impede those war efforts!!! The Euston Manifesto people have, of course, taken the Third Camp logic to the conclusion Trotsky said it naturally led, and indeed do argue that socialists should not have opposed British imperialisms war against the Nazis.

Well, it might be argued, (wrongly) this is a bit academic because the working class are not taking action for such withdrawal – and, of course, they are unlikely to if socialists do not try to mobilise a campaign for such a struggle. But there is a more immediate aspect in which Lenin’s argument above applies. Alan Greenspan has recently said that he does not understand why it is not accepted and stated openly that the real reason for the war against Iraq was over oil. Personally, I think the argument is often put rather crudely. What the US is looking to is protecting its strategic interests in the area, in particular Saudi Arabia, rather than just a grab for Iraqi oil. That is the message outlined in the “Project For a New American Century”. It is also clear that, in relation specifically to Iraq, what we have is probably a good example of a conflict between, what I shall, shortly, in a separate blog, describe as, the three sources of power – in this case the State Power, and the Political or Governmental Power, the potential within a bourgeois democracy for an ideologically driven government with backing from some sections of the bourgeoisie or working class, to act independently and contrary to the will of the State Power acting as the Executive Committee of the ruling class. The recent BBC Programme referred to earlier illustrated the manifestation of this via the conflicts between various Governmental and State bodies, and which can become more intense within political systems with strong Executive branches such as Presidential as opposed to Parliamentary systems.

Within that context, US imperialism clearly has a vision which extends way beyond Iraq, and even beyond its listed next targets of Syria and Iran. It has already established bases in most of the “Stans” – irrespective, of course, of the democratic credentials of their regimes – and the tentacles of US imperialism now stretch out across the new Gold Rush territories of Central Asia, where it competes directly with China, and to some extent Russia and India, for natural resources in a frenzy reminiscent of that which occurred at the end of the 19th century,and which was a prelude to the First World War. Central to such a project is to have, either compliant regimes on which it can rely, or, in the absence of that, local regimes which lack the power to act as regional powers or sub-imperialisms. The fact that the invasion of Iraq has had the effect of strengthening Iran can only be viewed as a serious blunder if you do not start from the premise that the US intends to either invade Iran to bring about regime change, or else intends to undertake such an attack that Iran is forced into the same kind of chaos as exists in Iraq and Lebanon thereby removing it as a threat to US interests.

This long term goal of US imperialism is no secret, it has long been discussed by academics within the context of the New World Order, and the concept of The End of History. But Marxists are not interested in the niceties of such debate, but with the practical consequences of such a programme. Immediately, they should be concerned with the next target of US imperialism in fulfilling their plan – Iran. In fact, Iran has a bigger, and more powerful Labour movement than Iraq, despite the attempts of the mullahs to crush it. If we apply Lenin’s doctrine we should be more concerned with the future of this Labour Movement than with that of Iraq. Yet clearly, any invasion of Iran by imperialism, any action by imperialism which drives Iran into chaos will be detrimental to the Iranian labour movement, will undoubtedly unleash forces that will press even more harshly on that labour movement than it faces currently.

Its clear that the presence of a huge armed encampent on the Iranian border poses a huge threat to Iran. We also know that already the US has used its position in Iraq to launch covert attacks against Iran, has kidnapped Iranian government officials etc., and we have seen a few months ago incursions into Iranian territorial waters by the British navy etc. None of this can be described as hypothetical, yet what is the AWL response. The AWL refused to join the “Hands Off Iran” campaign because it called for “Troops Out of Iraq Now”, not an unreasonable demand if you consider the potential for launching an attack across the Iraq/Iran border. At a time when the US has an increasing number of huge warships stationed off the Iranian coast, is daily stepping up its war rhetoric against Iran, the AWL runs headlines not denouncing the gathering imperialist threat against Iran, not even focussing on the support of Iranian workers, but “Against the Iranian Regime”.

Faced with this situation Martin Thomas a few weeks ago argued that the current mess that the US was in in Iraq probably meant that it would not want to attack Iran. I replied at the time that this was naïve. Bush wants to attack Iran, because it is still part of the US overall gameplan. There is still considerable support in the US for an attack on Iran that is viewed as a serious threat because of the US’s past conflict with it, in a way that Iraq, which had been a US ally, was not. US policy in Iraq would be seen as a failure if it did not do what it claimed it would do, and build a viable state. But if the aim in Iran is merely to overthrow the regime then that is a far easier goal to achieve without being committed to an occupation, and the success of which could be used politically by Republicans in next year’s elections. Now several months later even Martin has to accept that such a US attack is increasingly likely. It doesn’t lead the AWL to conclude that to weaken the possibility of such an attack the working class should organise a campaign against the imperialist occupation of Iraq on the Iranian border, on the contrary still looking to imperialism to hopefully do something progressive, given the AWL’s lack of faith in the working class achieving that goal, instead they proclaim that were the US to surgically bomb Iran and throw it into chaos through the removal of the regime, to be replaced by God knows what, then this would be good.

The AWL proclaim this is Marxism Jim, but if it is its not Marxism as we know it.